East Anglia THREE Applicant Comments on Relevant Representations
Document Reference – Deadline 2/RR comments/Applicant
Author – Royal HaskoningDHV East Anglia THREE Limited Date – July 2015 Revision History – Revision A
www.scottishpowerrenewables.com East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Table of contents
1 Technical Chapter Example Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Anglian water 3 1.3 Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council 3 1.4 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) 6 1.5 CRPMEM Nord - Pas de Calais / Picardie 6 1.6 Defence infrastructure Organisations (MoD) 6 1.7 DONG Energy 7 1.8 East Cambridgeshire District Council 7 1.9 ENI 7 1.10 Environment Agency 9 1.11 Forewind Limited 13 1.12 Galloper Wind Farm Ltd. 13 1.13 Harwich Fishermen’s Association 15 1.14 Historic England 19 1.15 Little Bealings Parish Council 21 1.16 Little Blakenham Parish Council 22 1.17 Marine Scotland 22 1.18 MCA 22 1.19 MMO 24 1.20 National Grid 31 1.21 Natural England 33 1.22 Network Rail 67 1.23 NFFO 68 1.24 Norfolk County Council 70 1.25 Rederscentrale 72 1.26 Rijkswaterstaat 72 1.27 Royal Mail 74 1.28 RSPB 76 1.29 RYA 78 1.30 SCC 78 1.31 SCDC and WDC 125 1.32 Smart Wind 136 1.33 Suffolk Preservation Society 137 1.34 SWT 140 1.35 The Crown Estate 143 1.36 Trinity House 143 1.37 Transition Ipswich Energy Group 143 1.38 The Wildlife Trusts 143 1.39 Vattenfall Wind Power 145 1.40 VisNed 145 1.41 WDC 146
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 2
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
1 Comments on Relevant Representations
1.1 Introduction 1. Following closure of East Anglia THREE Ltd statutory consultation period under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008, the Applicant has taken the opportunity to review each of the Relevant Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate and has subsequently responded by letter to each of those individual parties. Details of EATL responses to each of those representations are set out within this document.
1.2 Anglian water
2. EATL note that Anglian Water Services have registered as an interested party and would be grateful if you could confirm that you are the relevant member of the Anglian Water Services team to communicate with in relation to the above application and if not could provide details of the relevant contact.
3. EATL note your requirement for the East Anglia THREE development consent order (DCO) to contain the same protection measures as stipulated in the DCO for the East Anglia ONE project. EATL confirm that the East Anglia THREE draft DCO (submitted as document 3.1 of the DCO application) contains the same protective measures as were included in the East Anglia ONE DCO. EATL will continue to discuss the protective provisions with Anglian Water Services.
1.3 Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
In general the District Councils are supportive of EATL welcomes the council’s continued support the project, recognising its importance in relation for the project. to the diversification of UK energy supplies and Chapter 28 Socio-economics, Tourism and potential contribution to the national and local Recreation of the East Anglia THREE economy. The economic benefits in terms of environmental statement (ES) (document investment and job creation are welcomed reference 6.1.28) identifies a high concentration of however it should be noted that further pressure construction workers and an extensive range of could be placed upon the labour market which relevant training and education courses in the may not have the requisite skills. This should be region. EATL believe that due to the following mitigated at an early stage. reasons there is likely to be a sufficient level of skilled labour to service the Project:
East Anglia ONE Skills Strategy; The likely availability of East Anglia
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 3
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
One workers post completion of that project; The potential availability of oil and gas workers given the reduction in offshore activity related to the predicted depressed price of oil over the short to medium term; and The potential procurement of some specialist offshore construction skills from outside the area.
While the project will use cabling ducts that are to EATL welcome the support of the councils to date be provided in association with East Anglia ONE, with regard to the use of ducts. EATL has the key issue of local concern relates to the committed to minimising impacts wherever subsequent implementation of the project. It could possible and the use of ducts will greatly either be constructed as a single or two phase contribute towards this goal. development which may or may not directly follow Since the submission of the East Anglia THREE the construction of East Anglia ONE. In the application further design work on East Anglia circumstances it could lead to a prolonged period ONE has been undertaken. As a result of this, it of disruption and on-going disturbance to local will be now only be necessary to install East residents and businesses. The District Councils Anglia THREE cables in a single cable laying are however satisfied that appropriate operation. Therefore, there will be no phasing of consideration has been given to the possible construction along the export cable route (offshore noise, vibration, and air quality impacts that might and onshore), although the option to phase arise during the construction and operational construction of the wind farm and the onshore phases of the project. substation will be retained.
In principle, the intention to re-use temporary haul To the extent that temporary infrastructure may be roads and construction compounds associated retained between the East Anglia ONE and East with the implementation of East Anglia ONE is Anglia THREE projects, this will be dealt with supported, however this should not be at the through discharge of Requirements contained in expense of securing the long-term restoration of the East Anglia ONE DCO and does not therefore the land required for the cabling ducts. The gap in form part of the East Anglia THREE application. implementation between the projects, and potentially within the East Anglia THREE project itself, will need careful management. At the moment this does not appear to be adequately addressed.
Suffolk County Council is the local highway Noted, EATL are in consultation Suffolk County authority and the District Councils would defer to Council with regard to highway and footpath its advice on the related highway and footpath matters.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 4
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response diversion issues.
The most significant and long lasting element of EATL recognise that landscape matters are a key the project involves the construction of the concern for the local communities surrounding the proposed sub-station at Bramford. While this substation. Since submission of the East Anglia element of the project would be constructed in Mid THREE DCO application, further detailed design Suffolk, the impact is likely to be more noticeable work has been undertaken on the masterplanning to people living and working in Babergh. Both for the integrated landscape scheme covering all District Councils therefore wish to secure substations planned for the area. These plans will significant on site landscape mitigation to reduce include substantial onsite landscaping and the the cumulative impact of the project upon the initial plans should be finalised in June 2016. surrounding countryside. In addition they would Prior to submission of the DCO application, EATL urge that the sub-station is constructed using stated the intention to undertake further landscape technologies that would allow for its height to be assessment to account for the ongoing kept as low as possible. masterplanning process. Therefore it is EATL’s intention to submit a revised assessment as part The mitigation proposals for the project are of Further Environmental Information. inextricably linked to those already consented for the East Anglia ONE sub-station on adjacent land. At this stage the District Councils remain concerned that the interplay between the two projects and a potential third project to the north has not been comprehensively considered. Discussions are currently on-going in relation to the discharge of the design and landscaping requirements for the East Anglia ONE project. Those discussions have been helped by the production of a strategic master plan which the District Councils would suggest should be used to inform the East Anglia THREE project rather than the other way round. At this stage further work is needed to understand EATL has committed to working with the local the impact of ash tree dieback (Chalara fraxinea) authorities to refine the mitigation necessary for on the existing woodlands which will help to adequate screening. This included a site visit with screen the impact of the East Anglia THREE local authority specialists on the 11th May 2016. project. The thinning and loss of trees could Discussions with SCC are ongoing and outline significantly change the visual effects of the proposals are provided in Appendix 2 of the SCC substation which may mean that further mitigation reply letter. measures are required. The District Councils Options for mitigation will be presented and would defer to the advice provided on this issue agreed through the joint SoCG with the Local by Suffolk County Council as its advisor on Authorities. landscape matters.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 5
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Suffolk County Council is the lead local flood It should be noted that SCC as the Lead Local authority and the District Councils will defer to its Flood Authority have stated that they are content advice on this matter. with the assessment presented in the application.
The District Councils will continue to work with EATL welcomes continued cooperation with the Scottish Power Renewables to resolve as many of District Councils to resolve all outstanding issues. the outstanding issues as possible prior to the Examination.
1.4 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) 4. EATL note that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) currently have no issues to raise concerning this development, however, we will continue to consult with yourselves on civil aviation matters as requested in your relevant representation.
5. EATL aim to reach agreement on all aviation matters through a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) with the CAA as requested by the Examining Authority (ExA) in their Rule 6 letter1. Please find attached a draft SoCG for your review and comment. The ExA has requested that SoCGs be completed and submitted by the 27th July therefore EATL will need to progress this over the next few weeks.
1.5 CRPMEM Nord - Pas de Calais / Picardie 6. East Anglia THREE Limited (EATL) would like to thank you for taking the time to provide a relevant representation to the development consent order application made by EATL for the East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm.
1.6 Defence infrastructure Organisations (MoD)
7. EATL note that the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (the MoD) currently have no objection to the project should the development accord with the height restrictions detailed in the radar line of sight coverage plans located in Appendix 16.1.
8. EATL aim to reach agreement on all aviation and radar matters through a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) with the MoD as requested by the Examining Authority (ExA) in their Rule 6 letter1. It is ETALs intention to provide a working draft of the SoCG to you shortly and showing progress made on aviation and radar matters. The ExA has requested that SoCGs be completed and submitted by the 27th July and EATL hope to work with you to progress this over the coming weeks.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 6
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
1.7 DONG Energy
9. EATL note that the relevant representation has been submitted on behalf of Heron Wind Limited, Njord Wind Limited and Vi Aura Limited as the undertakers benefiting from the made Development Consent Order for Hornsea Project 1, and SMart Wind SPC6 Limited and SMart Wind SPC 7 Limited who hold separate agreements for leases within the Hornsea Zone. EATL note that DONG Energy may make further representations throughout the examination process.
10. EATL also note that there has been a separate relevant representation made by SMart Wind Limited on behalf of SMart Wind Limited, Optimus Wind Limited and Breesea Limited in respect of Hornsea Project 2.
1.8 East Cambridgeshire District Council
11. Within your relevant representation you state that: “If there is any intention to erect high voltage power lines and/or plant in East Cambridgeshire a right to make a representation is requested”.
12. EATL can confirm that we have no plans to install any infrastructure within East Cambridgeshire as part of the East Anglia THREE project.
1.9 ENI
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
By way of background, the Eni group is one of the EATL would like thank ENI for this information. world's largest integrated energy companies, Chapter 18 of the Environmental Statement employing more than 84,000 people in 82 (document reference number 6.1.18) for the East countries around the world. Within the broader Anglia THREE DCO application considers other Eni group, Eni is focused on the upstream marine users. exploration and production of oil and gas on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.
Eni holds United Kingdom Petroleum Production Licence P.1964, P.1965 and P.2251 ("Licences") in the vicinity of the Project, which confer exclusive rights on Eni to search for, bore for and get petroleum within the area of its Licences.
Consistent with Government policy, Eni believes EATL would echo this sentiment and believe that that its proposed upstream oil and gas activities the key to achieving coexistence is regular and under the Licences can successfully co-exist with timely communication between both parties. the Project to ensure that the nation's energy needs are met.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 7
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Eni's primary concerns revolve around ensuring As part of the East Anglia THREE DCO that its offshore activities can safely interface with application a Navigational Risk Assessment has those of the Project. Eni's offshore activities may been undertaken (document reference: 6.3.15 (1)) include, for example, seismic acquisition and the which assesses the risk of the project to shipping siting of exploration, appraisal and development and navigation. The impacts, following the drilling rigs. Such activities would, as relevant, be proposed mitigation, were assessed as Tolerable supported by extensive vessel and helicopter and As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) movements for which exclusion zones would need or broadly acceptable. An ERCoP must be to be established. It goes without saying that the submitted and approved (by the MMO in safety and health of Eni's people, the community consultation with the MCA) under the draft DML and the environment are a top priority for Eni (see condition 14 (5) of draft DML schedules when carrying out its activities. The demanding 10,12,13,14 and 15). Once finalised the ERCoP offshore environment is such that an open line of will be an important tool in ensuring safety within dialogue between the Applicant and Eni will be the wind farm. critical in ensuring that such activities can safely co-exist. Furthermore, turbine locations will have a The wind farm layout plans would be determined significant potential impact on Eni's ability to at the pre-construction phase should consent be search for, and develop, petroleum within the area granted. Once available EATL would provide of its Licences. these plans to all relevant stakeholders such as ENI. We trust that ensuring a safe and successful Noted. interface between the activities of Eni and those of the Applicant will be one of the Secretary of State's foremost considerations in granting any development approval in respect of the Project. To that end, Eni requests that a mechanism be EATL will continue to engage with Eni throughout included in any development consent order the examination and, in the event that the East (whether by imposition of condition or otherwise) Anglia THREE project is consented, during which requires the Applicant to consult with Eni implementation of the project. In accordance with (and/or its successors) prior to undertaking any the Secretary of State's guidance, EATL propose potentially conflicting offshore activities and bring that negotiations for a commercial agreement are forward its Project in a way that does not prejudice entered into at the appropriate time in order to Eni's (and/or its successors') rights under the accommodate the parties' respective activities. It Licences. is not appropriate or necessary for this to be dealt within the development consent order We note that in the majority of cases, the Secretary of State expects that the parties will be able to come to a private, commercial agreement which will allow the parties to accommodate their respective activities. In accordance with this guidance, Eni has commenced early engagement
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 8
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response with the Applicant to establish a mutual understanding of the respective proposals and the time frames envisaged. Eni proposes to continue to engage with the Applicant in this regard. Eni intends to make further submissions in due course and looks forward to participating in the examination process to ensure that the interests of all relevant stakeholders are protected
1.10 Environment Agency
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
We have no concerns with impacts on coastal Noted processes.
We have no concerns with the proposed landfall Noted operation, which will make use of pre-installed ducts.
On-shore cable route – protection of surface and EATL welcome the Environment Agency’s support groundwater Pre-application consultation in regarding these issues. respect of this proposal included two possible options for installing the onshore cables; open trenching or the use of pre-installed ducts. This application proposes to use ducting installed during the construction of the East Anglia ONE project. This greatly reduces the potential for adverse impacts on ground and surface waters. We are satisfied that any adverse impacts on surface or groundwater as a result of this proposal can be adequately mitigated. We note and welcome the inclusion in the draft DCO of Requirement 18: Surface and foul water drainage; and Requirement 22: Code of construction practice. Both of these contain pre- commencement requirements which we support. We support the inclusion of Requirement 19 Contaminated land and groundwater. We are also supportive of the approach to dealing with areas of
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 9
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response contaminated land as proposed in Section 7.2 of the Outline Code of Construction Practice. As above, we may make further comment as part of a written representation. The applicant has referred to the potential Noted. EATL will continue to consult with the requirement for Environmental Permits for Environment Agency regarding the requirement discharges to surface or groundwater; and the for any permits and/or licences. potential requirement for Abstraction licences. We would add that certain dewatering activities are also likely to require an Abstraction licence from October 2016. The application highlights that dewatering may be required as part of the cable jointing process. The applicant should discuss this with us prior to undertaking any such activity. The use of pre-installed ducts will mostly remove Noted the need for intrusive works to facilitate watercourse crossings, which was previously a key area of concern for us. Although we do not agree with some of the criteria used for considering the sensitivity of waterbodies in Chapter 21 of the Environmental Statement, we do broadly agree with the conclusions in respect of the likely impacts on Main Rivers and aquatic ecology.
The application states that method statements, Noted agreed with us, are to be prepared for all Main River crossings. A new crossing to facilitate access is proposed on the River Lark. The timing and duration of its installation should be considered alongside its design. Restoration following removal should also consider the possibility for enhancements to habitat and river morphology. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Flood risk is covered by the FRA (document suggests that the route is predominantly at risk 6.3.21 (2)) and Chapter 21 Water Resource and from tidal flooding, and that the risk during the Flood Risk of the ES (document 6.1.21). construction phase is mitigated by defences. The route does in fact additionally pass through areas The impacts on fluvial flood risk of the of non-tidal flooding, associated with the rivers watercourse crossing techniques are discussed in Gipping, Lark, Fynn and Somersham watercourse. section 21.6.1.4.2 of Chapter 21. It is also
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 10
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
The nature of the flood risk at these locations does identified that there are sections of the linear cable not appear to be assessed. route which are within the 1% AEP fluvial flood zone (flood zone 3) but not directly associated with watercourse crossings. Construction along the cable route (i.e. at jointing bays) is therefore at risk of flooding during construction.
Paragraph 47 of the FRA states
At the time of writing this FRA, the locations of those elements [the jointing bays, CCS and haul road] are indicative, the exact locations have not been confirmed. Therefore, an accurate assessment of the flood risk associated with the sites cannot be undertaken. However, the alignment of the onshore cable route is known, and it passes through areas of Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, it can be assumed that a proportion of onshore electrical transmission infrastructure may potentially be sited within Flood Zones 2 or 3.
Paragraph 48 continues
The flood risk will arise from infrastructure located in the sites known to be at flood risk within flood zones 2 and 3. These zones will predominantly occur within the tidal flood zones of the tidal reaches of the lower River Deben and the coastal zone close to the landfall. The majority of these zones are defined as Areas Benefiting from Defences (ABDs) and are considered to be protected by the formal flood defences along the River Deben during their construction.
It should also be noted that the use of pre-installed ducts (installed by East Anglia ONE) removes the pathways for potential impacts or increase of flood risk at the Rivers Fynn, Lark and Gipping (and indeed along the entire route).
The only impacts upon watercourses from East Anglia THREE would be at any upgraded or new
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 11
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
crossings for access. Section 21.6.1.4.2 of Chapter 21 states that
…New access routes may require the upgrade of existing watercourse crossing points (e.g. small bridges and culverts) and this would be determined during detailed design. Crossing methods would be selected to minimise impacts on flows, sediment transport, bed and bank conditions and water quality…Method statements would be agreed with the statutory authority prior to any watercourse crossings taking place. However, we do generally support the statement EATL welcome the support of the Environment that the proposal will have a limited impact on Agency on these matters. (tidal or fluvial) flood risk. The Outline Code of Construction Practice proposes measures for managing flood risk to, and arising from, the installation of the on-shore cables. This includes an undertaking to prepare a Flood Plan (Section 11), along with working practices for when operating within Flood Zones 2 and 3 or close to watercourses.
Excavations will primarily only be associated with As noted it is intended that the jointing bays will be jointing pits. It is proposed that these will be located at least 10m from any watercourse and installed more than 10m from any watercourse. this should limit any need for storage of materials This should limit the need for storage of materials or spoil within the floodplain. The precise location within the floodplain. Where material is stored in is subject to final detailed design; however, EATL the floodplain, it should be ensured that this will will consult with the Environment Agency during not impact on the conveyance of any flood flows. the final design phase to ensure that all guidance is adhered to. We have previously advised the applicant that Noted Flood Defence Consent would be required from us in advance of any works which take place within the bye-law distance for Main Rivers (previously 9m from the top of the bank or toe of any defence). On 6 April 2016, flood defence consents moved into the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 system (EPR). A permit, or exemption, may now be required for any works within 8m of a Main River,
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 12
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response or 16m of a tidally influenced Main River. We would advise the applicant to contact [email protected] for further information on this issue. All material removed off-site should be managed Noted in accordance with the waste requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. We note the intention to prepare a Site Waste Management Plan. We note the proposed approach for managing Noted surface water arising from the substation compound and buildings. While management of surface water in terms of flood risk is now the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authority, we would wish to ensure that any proposed drainage scheme incorporates adequate pollution prevention measures to safeguard water quality. We therefore support the inclusion of Requirement
1.11 Forewind Limited
13. East Anglia THREE Limited (EATL) would like to thank you for taking the time to provide a relevant representation to the development consent order application made by EATL for the East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm. EATL will continue to consult with Forewind throughout the examination process and beyond as and when further relevant information becomes available.
1.12 Galloper Wind Farm Ltd.
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Galloper Wind Farm Ltd (GWFL) continues to be EATL welcomes the support of GWFL. supportive of the EA3 application in so far as it will provide an important contribution to help meet the Government’s commitment on renewable energy, in addition to providing potential for both regional and national economic benefits through the continued growth of the offshore wind energy sector.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 13
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
In comments on the EA3 Preliminary EATL is committed to continued consultation with Environmental Information (PEI), GWFL noted that GWFL and is willing to enter into negotiations for there was insufficient detail in the PEI with regard cable crossing agreements at the appropriate cable crossings for GWFL to be able to offer an time. informed technical comment on the EA3 proposals and that to mitigate potential impacts GWFL expects that a formal cable crossing agreement between GWFL and EA3 Ltd will be in place. The basis for such an agreement between GWFL and EA3 Ltd must be that the EA3 project does not put the GWF project at a disadvantage compared to if the EA3 project was not taking place. GWFL notes that initial discussion on cable crossing agreements between GWFL and EAOW has taken place and that this is acknowledged within Chapter 18 of the Environmental Statement. GWFL also notes the statement that “…these [agreements] cannot be finalised until further detailed engineering work has been completed at each individual cable crossing location. This would be completed during the preconstruction stage of the project.” ES Section 18.6.1.3 states that “Damage to offshore cables and pipelines caused during the installation of the East Anglia THREE export cables would be expensive to repair and could cause disruption to power distribution and telecommunications, therefore the sensitivity of the receptor is high. However, cable and pipeline crossing agreements with operators would be put in place as embedded mitigation and reduce the risk of impact (see section 18.3.3) and minimise the magnitude of the impact to negligible.” GWFL agrees that the sensitivity of the receptor is high and that the embedded mitigation of the crossing agreements will reduce the impact to negligible provided the crossing agreements take into account an EA3 cable installation method that will not impact on the GWF cables both at the time of installation and during future maintenance operations. For example, if GWFL (or future
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 14
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
OFTO owner of the GWF export cable) needed to install a cable bight this could be compromised depending on the location of the EA3 (and other EAOW) cables. GWFL expect EA3 Ltd to take such concerns into account in the crossing agreement and the installation methodology of the cables. GWFL reserve the right to make further comments Noted through the Examination process depending on how the discussion on a cable crossing agreement progresses. This includes, but is not limited to, seeking protective provisions within the EA3 Development Consent Order (DCO).
1.13 Harwich Fishermen’s Association
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
As a member representing the Harwich As a member representing the Harwich Fisherman's Association on the East Anglian 3 Fisherman's Association on the East Anglian 3 Wind Commercial Fisherman Working Group, I Wind Commercial Fisherman Working Group, I submit my associations concerns and comments submit my associations concerns and comments regarding the proposed application to install wind regarding the proposed application to install wind turbines and cables in the proposed areas. turbines and cables in the proposed areas. For some months we have engaged in EATL are committed to continuing meaningful discussions through the working group and we dialogue with the Harwich Fishermen's appreciate the efforts by the developers to have Association through the CFWG. It is open and meaningful discussion with our acknowledged that there are still some matters to members. There have been a lot of areas of be agreed. EATL will endeavour to progress agreement that have been helpful however, there these matters through the CFWG SoCG. are still to date matters that are of serious concern and we have unfortunately failed to agree on some major issues. Our members only have previous experience on As secured in Condition,13 (d) (v) in Part 2 of the how past and ongoing wind farm projects have Development Consent Order (DCO) EATL are been managed and how they have compromised committed to promoting co-existence through a the commercial activities of fishermen within the fisheries liaison and coexistence plan, and will Harwich area. endeavour to minimise as far as possible potential impacts on commercial fisheries stakeholders. The measures to be contained within the plan are
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 15
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
to be agreed under IDs. 7 to 21 of the SoCG between the CFWG and EATL.
The applicant has been unable to give certain EATL are committed to promoting co-existence, guarantees and assurances on how the and will endeavour to minimise as far as possible construction process will limit the effect on our potential impacts on commercial fisheries members and how they propose to mitigate the stakeholders. As described above a working co- definite loss that will be experienced. existence plan, as required by the draft DCO (draft DMLs condition 13(d)(v)) would be established to address potential issues that may arise during pre- construction, construction, operational and decommissioning activities with the aim of minimising impacts, as far as practicable. This is on the basis that fishing businesses may be directly affected by these activities due to lost access and/ or displacement and the requirement for modification of operating practices during operation. Mitigation measures shall be developed and applied in order to limit the extent of effects, where possible, should significant impacts occur. The applicant has indicated that they will have a EATL is aware that East Anglia ONE is currently process where fishermen will be able to apply with working with The Harwich Fisherman’s evidence to negotiate possible loss of revenue but Association through the CFWG on these very we feel that the detailed procedure is not a matters and EATL will seek to follow a similar process that will ensure that all those affected will process, which includes all stages (construction, be satisfied. Also they have indicated they will operation and decommissioning) of the project. only have the process during the construction Should the project be consented and once the stage and not in the post construction and final detailed design of the development is better decommissioning period. understood, a detailed coexistence plan would be completed (as per condition 13(d)(v) and IDs 7 to 21 of the SoCG) this plan would include any additional measures to mitigate impacts to fishermen due to the operation of the project should these be required.
Decommissioning of the windfarm would follow the relevant guidance at the time and, under the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 16
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Energy Act 2004, EATL is required to compile a decommissioning plan. In line with ID 22 of the SoCG: This plan will be reviewed at intervals during the life of the project and updated based on the latest information on relevant standards, environmental impacts, technology and cost. It is agreed that the wind farm will be decommissioned with the intention of returning the area to pre- construction conditions as far as is possible, such that remaining infrastructure would not pose a safety hazard to fishing activity. This would be verified through appropriate post decommissioning surveys and monitoring as required by the Government. Remedial action would be taken to remove identified emergent hazards.
As recommended within the FLOWW guidelines (2014) EATL will implement similar arrangements for the mitigation of displacement of fishing activities during the decommissioning phase as provided for the construction phase.
EATL will establish arrangements to address attributable gear losses associated with infrastructure, in line with oil and gas guidance, during the decommissioning phase if required. We are convinced that certain areas will become As described within the environmental statement un- fishable and they will remain so whilst the (ES, document reference 6.1.14) it is EATLs proposed wind farm is in operation. intention that fishing continues within wind farm site and across the project. To facilitate this EATL Our members fishing techniques will be will conduct post burial surveys of the offshore compromised in the proposed areas. The cables to assess seabed status and determine developer has agreed to pre and post construction whether fishing activity can resume. In the event surveys but because of the uncertain stability of that sea bed rectification procedures are required, the sea bed on the east coast (continually shifting the appropriate measures would be undertaken to seabed) what may be satisfactory one day does ensure that the sea bed is returned to an not give the guarantee it will be safe to fish in the acceptable condition. future. They indicate that cable routes and cross over cables will be laid using best practice IDs 7 - 21 of the SoCG refer specifically to however because of our previous experiences we promoting safety and recovery of gear and believe that cable routes and cross overs will not arrangements should damage or loss of gear be be restored to existing condition, creating attributed to the wind farm. problems.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 17
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
No fisherman will be able or willing to fish these areas without risking the loss of valuable gear but, more importantly, the safety of the vessel and the crew. Therefore these large areas will be no go for our members and restrict commercial fishing on the east coast. Over the recent years our fishing activities have Existing developments are considered in the been restricted over extremely large areas due to baseline used in the commercial fisheries the provision of previous and ongoing sustainable assessment (section 14.5 document reference renewable energy schemes and any additional 6.1.14) within which commercial fishing activity projects on the east coast must be given serious currently occurs. The cumulative assessment consideration. These sites were regular fishing within the ES Section 14.6.4 considers a grounds used by our members but are now no comprehensive range of projects at various stages longer available. The knock on effect is that all of development (i.e. in construction or in the fishing activities have been condensed into planning). much smaller areas, with our members struggling to have viable areas to work. Any new additional wind farm will compound this issue, hence our objection. We also have additional ongoing proposals on the east coast that will, if approved, compound the issues further, such as the proposed Harwich Haven Authority Proposed Maintenance Dredge Disposal Site. An additional effect to our members is that, An increase in steaming times during construction, because of the local inshore areas being operation and decommissioning are considered restricted, longer journey times will be forced on within sections: 14.6.1.4, 14.6.2.4 and 14.6.3 of our members, increasing the carbon footprint and the ES. The cumulative impact of increased running costs of all our vessels. This will also steaming time with other projects is assessed in place additional challenges to our members. impact 3 of the cumulative impact assessment (within Section 14.6.4). The conclusion was that there would be no significant cumulative impacts to fishing vessels steaming times during construction, operation or decommissioning of the East Anglia THREE project.
The present government has stated commitment As stated within the SoCG progressed between to ensure fishing remains sustainable on the East the CFWG and EATL, the project is committed to Coast, continual reductions of accessible fishing minimising as far as possible potential impacts on ground for the coastal commercial fishing fleet commercial fisheries stakeholders. The manner in brings this commitment into doubt. which impacts will be minimised and managed is
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 18
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
If the East Anglian 3 Wind proposal is granted described within ID 7-22 of the SoCG. approval the local fishing fleet (our members) will suffer considerable changes to their existing fishing area but it will also have long term effect on the future generation who hopefully will ensure a credible and sustainable fishing industry on the east coast. The proposed wind farm is totally opposed by our association.
1.14 Historic England
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
On 1st April 2015 Historic England was vested EATL note that Historic England are content with (retaining the formal title of the Historic the level of consultation undertaken to date and Buildings and Monuments Commission for will continue to engage with Historic England. England) and is now the government service championing England’s heritage and giving expert, constructive advice. Historic England has had significant pre-application discussion with the applicant, providing comments on the PEIR stage and the Draft archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI). Historic England has maintained a constructive partnership and been fully engaged with the applicant at this stage of the planning process on all aspects of the historic environment and its heritage assets, on land (onshore) and on the seabed (offshore).
Planning Policy – we note the position of the No response applicant in relation to marine policy is stated within the ES (see Chapter 3 paragraph 59). And specifically that within ES Chapter 17 ‘Offshore Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’, consideration has been made to incorporate and reference the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans so as “to conserve heritage assets, nationally protected landscapes
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 19
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
and ensure the decisions consider the seascape of the local area
We agree with the statement made in the Noted Planning Statement Chapter 8.2, that there is potential for impacts to as yet unidentified archaeological receptors; however, the significance of any effects should be reduced by adherence to appropriate mitigation strategies. Further to this we note that a Draft archaeological WSI (offshore) has been included within the supporting documentation.
Chapter 25 of the ES on Onshore archaeology EATL are committed to continued engagement and Cultural Heritage sets out the position of with Historic England in developing the WSIs in this application in relation to legislation and the post consent period. East Anglia ONE and planning policy (see Chapter 25.4.1) and the East Anglia THREE are both within the Applicant’s commitments. We broadly support ScottishPower Renewables group. As such there the conclusion of the chapter, however we note are regular updates between projects to discuss that the archaeological evaluation for the EA progress, share best practice and raise any One cable route is still on-going at this time, matters arising. therefore the potential for the recovery of archaeology within the development area remains (see Section 25.9, para 148). Continued engagement will be necessary with the all parties to ensure future risks are adequately mitigated.
With regard to implementing the Offshore WSI, The WSI established for offshore activities in accordance with any Development Consent provides the basis from which all future mitigation Order (including a Deemed Marine Licence) on known and potential archaeological receptors secured for this proposed project, Historic will be effectively managed and implemented. England considers predicted impacts to Future survey campaigns will be fully considered potential archaeological receptors will require as the project develops and the timings of such clear systematic time-framed method activities will allow for the timely development of statements to optimise survey opportunities, specific method statements (appended to the and to capture necessary information and act as WSI) associated with future surveys and “appropriate mitigation strategies”. appropriate mitigation strategies for the archaeology and cultural heritage resource established.
We note (see Chapter 17, Table 17.3) that gaps The WSI states that provision will be made by the in existing geotechnical/geophysical data will be developer for archaeological input into the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 20
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
compensated for prior to construction. The planning of any further geophysical developer must therefore make sure where any investigations. This input will ensure that the data geophysical survey data quality has been rated attained will be of a quality suitable for as variable and very poor, that sufficient archaeological assessment. Further survey work consideration is made for heritage assets is anticipated prior to the micrositing of the singularly captured in such datasets, especially scheme design and will ensure that any potential if they are to be directly or indirectly impacted. anomalies likely to be impacted will be subject to This has particular relevance to recorded additional archaeological review. This will serve anomalies within magnetometer survey results, to compensate for the variable quality of the identified of potential anomalies of previous geophysical data archaeologically anthropogenic character, which may be of assessed to inform the ES chapter. archaeological interest.
The Draft Development Consent Order EATL note that a further response will be (Document Reference 3.1), Schedule 10 and provided by Historic England and would 11 (Generation Assets),Schedule 12 and 13 welcome early sight of Historic England's (Transmission Assets) and Schedule 14 and 15 written representation to enable discussions on (Interconnection), Part 2, condition 13(h)vi whether any suggested amendments can be requires amendment and we will supply revised accommodated. wording in our Written Representation
1.15 Little Bealings Parish Council
14. EATL note the Parish Council’s concern regarding disruption to the community, and your request for community compensation, as well as your concern that a change from HVDC to HVAC would make the project less safe for residents.
15. As you know, EATL is making a significant investment in offshore wind farm projects in East Anglia which will create jobs and inject significant spend into East Anglia's local economy. The investment decision to use underground export cables along the entire route is itself a major community benefit which removes the lasting impact of alternatives such as overhead lines.
16. In addition, ScottishPower Renewables (which is promoting East Anglia ONE and East Anglia THREE) will be implementing a skills programme to ensure a lasting legacy throughout the lifetime of the projects, to help train local people to take up the jobs that will ultimately benefit them and future generations of people living in East Anglia.
17. In response to concern regarding HVAC cables, EATL wish to clarify that it does not propose to install HVAC cables. The two options currently being considered are HVDC and Low Frequency Alternative current (LFAC). Further detail on electrical solutions under consideration is provided in Chapter 5 of the East Anglia THREE Environmental
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 21
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Statement which can be found on the Planning inspectorate website (DCO document 6.5.1).
1.16 Little Blakenham Parish Council
18. EATL note the Council’s concern regarding the impacts to residents and businesses within the parish of Little Blakenham.
19. As you know, a strategic decision was taken for East Anglia ONE to install ducts for East Anglia THREE, which will reduce impacts considerably when compared to undertaking separate open-trenching operations for both projects. An access strategy has also been designed to minimise the number of HGV movements within the Parish. During the detailed design phase we will optimise the design to reduce impacts further where possible.
1.17 Marine Scotland
20. EATL note Marine Scotland’s comment that “it would be useful if there was acknowledgement in the main ES that sea trout and eel associated with Scottish waters and rivers could be present at the proposed East Anglia Three site.”
21. EATL acknowledge that given the highly mobile nature of sea trout and eel, it is possible that these species could be present in the site and could be associated with Scottish waters. However, it should be noted that neither species were present within the catches from the site-specific fish surveys that were undertaken nor were they present in any of the landings data analysed for the environmental impact assessment (EIA). Other sources, noted in the Fish and Shellfish Ecology chapter of the environmental statement (ES), indicate the possibility for these species to be present in the area and therefore impacts upon these species were considered within the EIA (section 11.6.2.4.3), but consideration of diadromous species was screened out of the habitats regulations assessment (HRA) through the Evidence Plan process in agreement with Cefas and Natural England. This screening decision was based upon the distance of relevant designated sites to the East Anglia THREE site and therefore the lack of a direct pathway from which an effect could occur. This would therefore exclude Scottish sites. Based on these points EATL does not propose to amend the ES chapter.
1.18 MCA
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
40 days of traffic data was gathered between EATL note the confirmation that adequate survey September 2012 and February 2014, however as data has been collected and that no further survey per correspondence with Scottish Power data is required for the submission.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 22
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Renewables in March 2015 this was acceptable for a November submission. Two Deep Water Routes exist in close proximity This is correct; work undertaken by EATL to the eastern and western boundaries of the indicates that separation distances can be safely development. We have been supplied with the maintained. This has been agreed with Trinity DR1 Light Buoy Deep Water Route Technical House, the UK Chamber of Shipping and Note which concludes that “a separation Rijkswaterstaat as recorded in the Statements of distance of at least 1.0nm between passing Common Ground with these stakeholders. As traffic and the nearest East Anglia THREE agreed with the MCA the offshore order limits turbine (in both 100% and partial fill cases) could have been set to ensure that infrastructure cannot safely be maintained in the vast majority of be placed within 1nm of the western DWR or cases”. It is understood that this has been within 2nm of the eastern DWR. agreed with relevant stakeholders. It is noted that two construction scenarios are The MCAs preference on phasing and layout will proposed either as a single phased approach or be considered during the determination of the two-phased approach. MCA does not have a final design. The final decision on phasing and particular preference, however we would like to layout will be made post-consent and the MCA see continuous construction which is progressive will be consulted at this stage to ensure that the across the wind farm with no opportunity for two MCA are content that the build out schedule and separate areas to be constructed with a gap in layout do not cause undue risk to shipping and the middle. navigation. This is secured by Condition 13 (a) and (b) of the draft DMLs for the Generation Assets. Export cable routes, cable burial protection index It is EATLs intention to bury cables wherever and cable protection are issues that are yet to be possible which will minimise reduction in fully developed. However due cognisance surrounding water depths. EATL will produce a needs to address cable burial or protection and detailed cable laying plan for the Order limits, any consented cable protection works must incorporating a burial risk assessment to ascertain ensure existing and future safe navigation is not suitable burial depths and cable laying compromised. The MCA would accept a techniques, including cable protection. This plan maximum of 5% reduction in surrounding depth will be completed post-consent. referenced to Chart Datum. MGN 543 Annex 2 Paragraph 6 iii requires that EATL provided hydrographic data to the MCA on hydrographic surveys should fulfil the the 16th May 2016. We are awaiting confirmation requirements of the International Hydrographic that this data is in a suitable format for the MCA. Organisation (IHO) Order 1a standard, with the final data supplied as a digital full density data set, and survey report to the MCA Hydrography Manager. This information is yet to be submitted and failure to report the survey or conduct it to Order 1a might invalidate the NRA if it was
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 23
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response deemed not fit for purpose. The turbine layout design will require MCA In accordance with MGN 543 all structures approval prior to construction to minimise the (turbines, substations etc.) will be aligned with two risks to surface vessels, including rescue boats, lines of orientation. As stated above, the MCA will and Search and Rescue aircraft operating within be consulted on the final layout of the East Anglia the site. As such, MCA will seek to ensure all THREE offshore windfarm. This is secured by structures are aligned in straight rows and Condition 13 (a) of the draft DMLs for the columns with two lines of orientation. Generation Assets. An approved ERCOP will need to be in place An approved (with the MMO and the MCA) prior to construction being undertaken, this will ERCoP is a condition of the draft DML (see be included as a formal condition of the condition 14 (5) of the schedules 10,12,13,14 and Development Consent Order (DCO). 15 of the draft DMLs). Note that Schedule 11 will be updated to reflect the other schedules. The developer has undertaken a detailed NRA EATL will continue to work with the MCA, post including stakeholder engagement in consent to address any ongoing concerns that the accordance with guidance provided by the MCA. MCA may have. EATL would welcome the MCA's Apart from the outstanding traffic data we are further confirmation that no traffic data is satisfied that all other aspects of the NRA have outstanding (see the first row of this table). been adequately addressed. Having said this there will always be risk associated with offshore developments, accepting that the risk has been reduced to As Low As Is Reasonably Practical (ALARP) appears to be the case within this submission, however considering the project progressing beyond consent there are ongoing concerns that need to be addressed.
1.19 MMO
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is EATL note that these are the MMOs initial an interested party for the examination of comments and the MMO may make further Development Consent Order (DCO) applications comment throughout the Examination process. for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the marine area. The MMO has received notice of such an application for East Anglia It is our intention to reach agreement on as THREE Offshore Windfarm (Ref: EN010056). many issues as possible through the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) of which this letter Please find below the MMO’s initial comments forms an appendix.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 24
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response on this application. Please note these are initial comments only and the MMO reserves the right to make further comment on this application throughout the examination process.
The MMO is interested in this project because it involves installing up to 172 wind turbine generators and associated infrastructure within the marine area.
The MMO has made an initial assessment of the application and has the following comments for your consideration:
1. Coastal Processes
The draft In Principle Monitoring Plan does not The IPMP is a living document and will be appropriately reflect licence condition 19(2)(b) updated during the course of the Examination (Schedules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 &15) and should with any necessary and relevant changes. EATL be updated to include post-construction are and will continue to be in consultation with monitoring of cable burial depths as a reason for the MMO on how best to update the document monitoring, as well as the stated reasons of to address this point. structural integrity and engineering (scour).
The MMO advises that a cable burial risk EATL believe that the current wording of agreement approach is developed and condition 19(2)(b) does sufficiently cover : implemented to ensure the ongoing (b) one full sea floor coverage swath-bathymetry management of cable burial throughout the survey that meets the requirements of IHO lifetime of the project, and an appropriate S44ed5 Order 1a across the area(s) within the licence condition incorporated into the Order limits in which construction works were appropriate Schedules of the Deemed Marine carried out to assess any changes in bedform Licence (DML), for example: topography and such further monitoring or ‘A swath bathymetric survey to IHO Order 1a assessment as may be agreed to ensure that across the area(s) within the offshore Order cables have been buried or protected. limits to ensure the cables have been buried and located within the Order limits and provide the data and survey report(s) to the UKHO. The However EATL will continue to consult with the results of the post cable lay surveys must be MMO regarding this point and will agree a final submitted to the MMO as part of a cable burial position through the SoCG. risk assessment which shall include detail of cable burial management including surveys and reporting of burial depths over the lifetime of the project.’
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 25
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
2. Marine Water and Sediment Quality
Chapter 8, Section 8.6.1 Potential Impacts EATL note this position. EATL are engaging During Construction, paragraph 113 and 115 – with the MMO to determine the extent of the Within the offshore cable corridor concentrations area at Site 30 to be excluded. of contaminants are generally higher than within Following a meeting held on the 8th June 2016 the array site with a number of samples the MMO has agreed to provide possible exceeding Cefas Action Level 1 and wording to secure their requirements within the concentrations of arsenic exceeding Cefas draft DMLs. Action Level 2 at Site 30.
Cefas Action Levels are used as part of a ‘weight of evidence’ approach to assessing dredged material and its suitability for disposal to sea. In general, contaminant levels in dredged material below Action Level 1 are of no concern and are unlikely to influence the licensing decisions. However, dredged material with contaminant levels above Action Level 2 is generally considered unsuitable for sea disposal.
However, it has been identified that as Site 30 is in an area with few steep sandwaves it is unlikely that sea bed levelling for cable installation would be required in that area and that ‘should dredging be required at or close to this site EA3 would collect further data to assess the area affected by elevated arsenic levels and if found to be extensive a strategy of disposal would be agreed’.
MMO requests that this area is excluded from any dredge and disposal granted by this licence. Should dredge and sediment disposal become necessary in this area, additional marine licence applications will be required and onshore disposal considered.
The MMO is in discussion with the developer to agree appropriate Deemed Marine Licence wording with regards to exclusion of this area from dredge and disposal consent. The MMO will seek resolution through the Statement of
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 26
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Common Ground (SoCG) process and will provide an update accordingly. 3. Shellfisheries
Volume 1, chapter 11- the MMO is in discussion EATL have provided the MMO with further with the developer regarding the assessment of information regarding this issue and it is our spiny lobster; there is a lack of clarity regarding understanding that the MMO are content that this the assessment and MMO is currently reviewing information is satisfactory and that no further further information which has been provided by work is required. the developer and will seek resolution through the SoCG process and will provide an update accordingly. 4. Underwater Noise
Appendix 9.1 Underwater Noise Modelling – the It is our understanding that the MMO are content MMO is in discussion with the developer that the further information provided is regarding one aspect of how the noise modelling satisfactory and that no further work is required. data has been summarised within the report, (i.e. how the maximum worst case scenario is assessed). The MMO is currently reviewing further information provided by the applicant and will seek resolution through the SoCG process and will provide an update accordingly. 5. Deemed Marine Licence
The MMO requests that a licence condition is EATL are willing to include a condition within the included in the deemed marine licence requiring draft DMLs under which EATL must provide the submission of a final layout plan, showing plans showing the final location of all the final locations of all components of the infrastructure. This will also be referred to within constructed project. The MMO will discuss with the SoCG. the developer and will seek resolution through the SoCG process. Observations 6. Coastal Processes
The description of the environment and impacts EATL note this position is in general accurate and detailed.
The methodology used to gather information is EATL note this position standard and appropriate for the application. The evidence gathered seems in general proportionate and targeted for the application
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 27
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response and consistent with that submitted for similar projects.
MMO concurs with the conclusions that although EATL welcome the MMO's agreement with the the EA3 project would cause a range of effects conclusions of the assessment on the marine physical environment, such effects are mostly predicted to be small scale, localised and temporary and would result in negligible impacts and no cumulative impacts on the receptors identified.
7. Fisheries
Data sources are appropriate and data has been EATL note this position obtained from credited sources such as the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) and International Herring Larval Survey (IHLS). Reports from other offshore wind farm developments have also been cited and reasonably interpreted.
Key species and their spawning seasons and EATL note this position locations have been identified according to the best information available.
The array area and cable corridor lie within an EATL note this position area utilised by a range of important species, such as cod, sole, plaice, sandeel and elasmobranchs, for spawning and/or nursing. The evidence shows that such activity is generally relatively low in intensity compared to the wider region and elsewhere across the North Sea. The cable corridor area, especially closest to the coast, is utilised with relatively higher intensity as a nursery area for species including cod, sole and ray species.
It is accepted that herring spawning is unlikely to EATL note this position occur within the EA3 development area as it contains very little or no suitable substrate to support this and larval data indicates the presence of higher intensity spawning grounds to the south. Therefore, herring spawning is not considered to be potentially impacted by piling noise or elevated suspended sediment
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 28
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response concentrations.
Sandeel are recorded to be present within the EATL note this position EA3 development boundary, however due to their relatively low abundance and the lack of commercial fishery in this area, the assessment of minor adverse impact is deemed appropriate.
Effects on mobile fish species will be reduced by EATL note this position their ability to avoid impacts such as underwater noise from piling or localised increases in suspended sediment. However, successive spawning seasons of some of the key species are likely to be disrupted throughout the construction phase. Displacement of commercial species could have a knock-on effect on local fishers, if changes in abundance result in an alteration of the fish expected to be found on certain grounds at certain times of year.
It is imperative that adequate mitigation is in place, especially with regard to under 15m vessels, in order to reduce potential impacts. The MMO is content that licence conditions currently provide this mitigation through the fisheries coexistence plan, fisheries liaison requirements and notifications to [email protected].
‘Moderate adverse’ significance on UK static gear EATL note this position fishermen as a result of the construction works has been stated. It is suggested that ‘agreeing mutually acceptable procedures for the relocation of static gear’ should be sufficient mitigation to reduce the potential impact to ‘minor adverse’. It is imperative that adequate mitigation is in place, especially with regard to under 15m vessels, to reduce the potential impact to minor adverse. The MMO is content that licence conditions currently provide this mitigation through the fisheries coexistence plan and fisheries liaison requirements.
Chapter 11, paragraph 125 – Berried edible crab Noted, EATL do not intend to update the ES as
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 29
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response do not migrate, a proportion of the mature female this will not affect the conclusion of the population migrate to suitable spawning sites assessment regarding lobster. It is our where they then spawn and retain the eggs for understanding that the MMO are happy that no several months. During this period of incubation, update to the ES chapter or Erratum is required they remain relatively sessile, in excavated for this issue. gravel pits, where they aerate their eggs.
The area encompassing the EA3 offshore wind EATL note this position farm is of limited interest for commercial shellfisheries. The inshore area of the cable corridor is of importance to the local shellfish potting fleet, where crabs, lobster and whelk are all targeted. In recent years the ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) rectangle 33F1 has become increasingly important for potting, with 2013 seeing potting as the most important fishing method, by landings value.
9. Underwater Noise
Appendix 9.1 Underwater Noise Modelling - It is EATL note this position appropriate that the modelling has been completed at 20 single pile locations inside and around the boundary of the EA3 site to represent the geographical extent of the wind farm and to account for bathymetric features so as to capture the variability in the regional underwater sound propagation.
Appropriate noise modelling has been EATL note this position undertaken for two concurrently operating piling vessels within the site operating at 3500kJ. The contour lines indicate the possible behavioural disturbance for harbour porpoise and pelagic fish.
Chapter 11, Section 11.7.1.3, Cumulative Impact EATL note this position Assessment – MMO is content with the report conclusions that the contribution of EA3 to the cumulative effect of underwater noise on cod spawning is considered to be of negligible significance.
A number of worst case scenarios have been EATL note this position
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 30
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response assessed, based on the worst case hammer energy of 3500kJ. The impact criteria used in the assessment is appropriate and the predicted injury and behavioural impact ranges for marine mammals and fish are provided.
1.20 National Grid
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC EATL would like to thank National Grid for their (“NGET”) has high voltage electricity overhead representation and the information provided. transmission lines within or in close proximity to EATL will continue to work with National Grid the onshore cable corridor and the converter throughout the project. station location. Details of the overhead transmission lines are as follows:
(a)4YL 400kV from Bramford substation to Braintree substation; (b)4YM 400kV from Bramford substation to Norwich Main substation; (c)4ZW 400kV from Bramford substation to Sizewell 1 substation; (d)4ZX 400kV from Bramford substation to Sizewell 2 substation. In addition, NGET’s Bramford (400kV/132kV) electricity substation is located adjacent to the onshore substations. The Works Plans show that the onshore connection works (Work No’s 55, 62, 63, 64, 66) cross all of the above high voltage electricity overhead lines and the onshore substations (Work No. 67) incorporates part of the 4YM overhead line. The overhead lines and substation form essential parts of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales. National Grid Gas Infrastructure Within The Vicinity Of The Proposed Works National Grid Gas Plc. (“NGG”) have high
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 31
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response pressure and medium pressure gas distribution pipelines located within or in close proximity to the onshore cable corridor. NGG owns and operates the gas distribution network within this area and this equipment is essential to the efficient and reliable operation of this network. In respect of all NGG infrastructure located within the DCO boundary, or in close proximity to the proposed project and associated works, NGG will require protective provisions to be put in place to ensure appropriate protection for the retained apparatus is maintained during and after construction of the project including compliance with all relevant standards for works being carried out within the relevant tolerances to Gas Equipment contained in T/SP/SSW22 and HSE G 47 “Avoiding danger from underground services”. In addition crossing agreements will be required in relation to equipment crossed by the cable routes.
Overview EATL are grateful for National Grid's confirmation that the protective provisions In relation to both NGET and NGG assets included within the draft DCO substantially relevant guidance can be provided on request. reflect National Grid’s standard terms. EATL Plans showing Gas and Electricity Assets in will continue to engage with National Grid the area can also be provided on request. during the course of the Examination in order
to reach agreement on any outstanding matters. In light of the above infrastructure (identified in paragraph 1 and 2) being located within the DCO boundary or in the vicinity of it, National Grid Gas Plc. and National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC wish to make a relevant representation to the above DCO in order to protect their position given the existence of this infrastructure and any other equipment within or adjoining the DCO boundary not already identified. Additionally National Grid want to ensure that any connections taken to their existing equipment are carried out in an approved manner.
The protective provisions included within the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 32
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
DCO substantially reflect National Grid’s standard terms. However, National Grid will continue to review the details of the protective provisions included in the order as more details about the scheme are discussed with the Promoter.
As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will continue negotiations with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement.
1.21 Natural England
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Natural England does not advocate the use of We accept and broadly agree with Natural PBR modelling when PVA modelling is England's position with regards the relative available. Natural England has previously merits of PBR and PVA, however we consider considered PBR outputs for assessing that PBR remains a useful preliminary tool to act population impacts in cases where up to date as a filter for identifying the population impacts PVA models have not been available at an for which more detailed modelling (e.g. PVA) appropriate population scale. However, the use will be informative and those for which the of PBR on its own, as the means of assessing relative scale of impact to population size is population impacts on seabird populations such that PVA is unwarranted. presents a number of issues. Therefore, Natural England advises that wherever possible, the population-level impacts of predicted mortality from developments should be assessed using PVA models as these allow the effects of factors such as population trends and varying demographic parameters to be explicitly investigated in terms of their effect on the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 33
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response population trajectory. PVA models also allow relative comparisons of population level effects with and without the additional mortality to be considered in a way that is not possible with PBR. Natural England does not agree with the EATL consider that Natural England's approach Applicant’s method of assessing displacement of summing seasonal displacement generates impacts. We advise that the Applicant assess overly precautionary predictions on top of the the cumulative impact across the whole annual high level of precaution already inherent in the cycle, where seasonal impacts are summed. worst case scenarios of 70% displacement & The cumulative total should then be assessed 10% mortality advocated. Notwithstanding this, against the appropriate population scale we present additional assessment (see Annex 1) using the methods adopted by NE in their written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination on the basis that this approach will be accepted by NE. Natural England welcomes the Applicant’s EATL welcomes Natural England's broad approach to use Population Viability Analysis acceptance of the kittiwake population model, (PVA) modelling to assess EIA impacts on however we disagree with regards to Natural kittiwake. However, we advise further England's views on density dependence and the consideration of a number of issues. These appropriate scale at which to model impacts. All include whether it is appropriate to rely on populations are subject to limits on their growth density dependent outputs, and identifying the due to competition for resources. Furthermore, appropriate population scale at which to assess contrary to Natural England's assertion that impacts. there is a lack of evidence in support of density dependence for this species there is strong evidence of compensatory density dependence which we summarise in Annex 1. There is also good evidence in support of modelling the North Sea population as a whole as has been presented in our response. There appears to be little clear evidence See above. tosuggest compensatory density dependence is operating on the kittiwake population at a North Sea scale, therefore Natural England advise that the assessment should focus on outputs from the density independent models. Natural England advise that the Applicant further See above. consider whether the kittiwake PVA model has been constructed at the appropriate population scale for assessing EIA impacts. We
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 34
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response appreciate that the Applicant has carried out at a North Sea BDMPS scale assessment which is the scale that we initially accepted impacts should be measured against. However, further consideration is required as to whether it is biologically meaningful and therefore appropriate to construct a PVA model at this scale. Using the North Sea BDMPS is appropriate for HRA because impacts are apportioned back to individual SPA colonies, but for EIA if the North Sea BDMPS scale is used it does not consider a biologically discrete population. The total cumulative effects on great black- EATL acknowledge this point regarding impacts backed gulls from collision mortality equates to on GBBG, however we question the 16.4% of baseline mortality for the largest requirement to undertake population BDMPS (non-breeding in Furness (2015)) and modelling in this case. In Natural 6.38% of baseline mortality for the England's written submission for deadline 6 of biogeographic population. Therefore, Natural the Hornsea Project 2 examination a method for England advises further consideration through assessing EIA level collision risk impacts which population modelling. We note that the outputs included GBBG was presented which concluded of PBR modelling from Rampion are presented. no significant cumulative effects. EATL have However, Natural England advise the use of PVA applied the same approach for the current modelling (see above). assessment; with the inclusion of EA3 (see Annex 1). Therefore, Natural England advises that the See above. Applicant undertakes PVA modelling to assess EIA impacts on great black-backed gulls. We suggest using either a UK North Sea colony scale or UK colony scale population model and apportion the predicted project impacts back to the respective scale. Natural England considers that the impacts from We welcome Natural England's conclusion on the project alone will not have an adverse effect this issue which is in agreement with that in the on the integrity of Flamborough and Filey ES. Coast pSPA. Natural England considers that the level of in-combination mortality, when considered with other plans and projects is such that an adverse effect on integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA cannot be ruled out. However, the effect of the additional
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 35
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response predicted mortality from the project alone while not de minimis, is so small as to not materially alter the significance of the overall in- combination mortality figure or the likelihood of an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSPA arising from such an in-combination level of mortality. The Applicant provided a table of designated sites This is correct - we have only included those (Table13.10 of the Environmental Statement features which could be affected by the proposed Report) and their ornithological features: we development. assume this table only lists ornithological features of the sites that may have connectivity with the East Anglia Three Offshore Wind Farm (EA3) site, as the breeding tern qualifying features of several of the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) (e.g. Hamford Water, Chichester & Langstone Harbours and Solent & Southampton Water SPAs) are not mentioned. The Applicant has provided a summary of the EATL thanks NE for confirming the updated nature conservation value of bird species which status of these species and notes that this does were recorded during surveys and which are not materially affect the assessment as considered to be at potential risk either due to presented. their abundance, potential sensitivity to windfarm impacts or due to biological characteristics. Please note that kittiwake and puffin are now red listed and red-throated diver is now green listed on Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (2015). Table 13:15: We advise that there is an error in EATL acknowledges this comment however, Table13.15 of the Environmental Statement this refers only to the screening table. The full Report which should refer only to a non-breeding assessment includes the appropriate seasons as season for guillemot in Furness (2015) and not defined by Furness (2015). separate migration periods. This table should also include migration periods and a winter period for razorbill in Furness (2015) rather than a single non-breeding period. Red Throated Diver Displacement: When EATL thanks NE for pointing out this assessing the displacement and disturbance of referencing point and notes that this does not red-throated diver, Natural England notes that materially affect the assessment as presented. Furness & Wade (2012) is for species occurring in Scottish Waters only. Therefore we advise
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 36
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response that Bradbury et al. (2014) is used instead as this expanded coverage to species occurring in English Waters, although we recognise that Bradbury et al. (2014) use the same scoring system as Furness & Wade (2012). The Applicant assumes that red-throated diver EATL consider this approach to be justified on displaced by the cable laying vessel will return the basis that the cable laying vessel will be to their previous position following passage of moving much more slowly than the tidal flow. the vessel.Natural England finds it unclear what Therefore, since from the bird's perspective the the justification is for the assumption that birds vessel will essentially be stationary it is return to their previous position straight away appropriate to assume that the exclusion zone as soon as the vessel leaves the area. We around the vessel will be the same as that advise that a more precautionary approach is around a static structure (2km). Consequently adopted. the current assessment is considered precautionary and robust. Construction Worst Case Scenario (WCS): EATL acknowledges that the description in Paragraph 77 of the Environmental Statement paragraph 77 incorrectly stated that there would Report states: ‘However, construction will not be a maximum of one piling event at a time occur across the whole of the proposed wind while the WCS describes up to two simultaneous turbine array area simultaneously or every day, piling events. However, paragraph 78 clearly but will be phased, with no more than one states that birds could be excluded for up to 2 foundation expected to be installed at any time.’ vessels, therefore construction impacts were This is not consistent with the worst case estimated correctly and the assessment remains scenario – Table 13.2 says construction spatial unchanged. worst case scenario for Impact 2 for monopiles is two concurrent piling events. Also paragraphs 85 on razorbill and 97 on puffin both state a maximum of two foundations are expected to be installed simultaneously. Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales EA3 is beyond the foraging range of any auk (BDMPS): The Applicant uses non-breeding breeding colonies, therefore auks observed season Biologically Defined Minimum during the breeding season will not be actively Population Scales (BDMPS) proportion of breeding adults. Hence it was assumed that immature birds to calculate breeding season auks present in the breeding season will populations for guillemot, razorbill and puffin. It comprise immature birds and nonbreeding is not clear why the Applicant has used this adults. As the size of the population from technique when Furness (2015) gives a which such birds could be drawn is not well population total for immatures in each BDMPS. understood, however it seems very likely that We do not think this approach is valid both of these categories of bird are drawn from (notwithstanding the validity of the calculations) the BDMPS populations. Indeed, given what is as it cannot be assumed that the distribution and known about the movements of immature birds
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 37
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response origin of immature birds is the same in the (that they disperse to similar areas as adults breeding season compared to the non-breeding and gradually make their way back towards season. We do not advise that the non- their natal colonies as they approach maturity) breeding season populations in Furness (2015) this seems a much more plausible assumption are in any way applicable to the breeding season than assuming there is no connection between – either for adults or immatures. We advise that the wintering populations and the summer the Applicant determines their own breeding distribution of immatures as NE suggest. season population scales and sizes for species. Therefore we are content that this approach provides a robust means to estimate reference populations in the summer. The above notwithstanding, we present additional assessment (see Annex 1) using the methods adopted by NE in their written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination on the basis that this approach will be accepted by NE.
Construction displacement for all auk species: EATL consider that Natural England's approach Natural England’s position is that the individual of summing seasonal displacement generates seasons should be summed to give an annual overly precautionary predictions on top of the mortality figure. However, we recognise that high level of precaution already inherent in the even the summed numbers would be so small worst case scenarios of 70% displacement & against the BDMPS (or biogeographical) 10% mortality advocated. Notwithstanding this, populations that it would not significantly alter we present additional assessment (see Annex overall conclusions. 1) using the methods adopted by NE in their written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination on the basis that this approach will be accepted by NE. Red Throated Diver displacement: There are no In order to clarify the displacement assessment displacement matrix tables provided for the red- for this species, rather than present a matrix throated diver operational displacement with a range of displacement values, we have assessments. Natural England advises that used values derived from a study conducted these should be included (as done for gannet over several years for a wind farm site near to and auks) for at least the EA3 site and 4km the proposed development. Consequently the buffer with no gradient. displacement percentages for Red Throated Diver (RTD) used in the assessment are grounded in evidence and are therefore considered to be robust and reliable. This contrasts with the situation for the auks and gannet, for which displacement percentages are less well estimated. Therefore, using a wide range is appropriate for auks/gannet but for
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 38
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
RTD we have used a more realistic evidence based approach. Displacement mortalities: Natural England EATL consider that Natural England's approach advises that the displacement mortalities for of summing seasonal displacement generates each season be summed to give an annual total. overly precautionary predictions on top of the We acknowledge that this is precautionary as it high level of precaution already inherent in the is in theory, possible that the same bird may worst case scenarios of 70% displacement & be assessed more than once using this 10% mortality advocated. Notwithstanding this, approach. However, assessing against different we present additional assessment (see Annex populations for each season will reduce this 1) using the methods adopted by NE in their possibility since a large proportion of the birds written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea present in the non- breeding seasons are Project 2 examination on the basis that this predicted to be different individuals from those approach will be accepted by NE. present in the breeding season. For red- throated diver for the EA3 site plus 4km buffer In addition, EATL notes that Natural England's with no gradient, the annual total predicted conclusion is the same as the estimate of mortality is 29 birds, which using the largest significance presented in the ES. BDMPS (13,277 for spring/autumn migration in Furness (2015)) and the 0.228 mortality rate provided, equates to 0.96% of baseline mortality. Given this is close to 1%, we would consider the impact to be minor adverse. Average Peak Density: It would be useful if the EATL acknowledge Natural England's request Applicant could provide a table of monthly for additional assessment, however to obtain estimates of average peak density of gannets density estimates for the site plus 2km buffer within the EA3 site plus a 2km buffer. This would require re- analysis of the raw data. would assist us in assessing if we agree with the Given the very low level of impact predicted for seasonal mean peak data used in the gannet displacement and the already displacement matrices. precautionary basis adopted (using the higher density estimate from the site plus 4km buffer) we question the justification for undertaking additional assessment since it will have no material effect on the conclusions reached. Mortality Rates: In regards to gannet mortality We draw Natural England's attention to the fact rate in the winter season, the Applicant assumes that the assessment already includes a range a 1% mortality rate. We recommend that given of mortality rates which can be reviewed for the uncertainty of predicting a mortality rate for context. However, as noted in the assessment, gannet, a range of mortality rates are used. gannets are regarded as highly flexible in their foraging habits (a major contributory factor in their ongoing population increases) so assuming more than a very low level of displacement
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 39
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
mortality is unduly precautionary. Moreover, gannets are predominantly passing through the region on migration when recorded in EA3, with the consequence that displacement from the site will be expected to have a minimal effect, with even a 1% mortality likely to be highly precautionary. Impacts on Gannets: Paragraph 131 of the We agree with NE that if seasonal impacts are Environmental Statement Report gives the summed this equates to 10 individuals, combined autumn and spring migration however the assessment applied a mean impact mortalities as 5 individuals. However, if you across seasons, giving a value of 5. Therefore 5 combine the spring migration number of 3 with was consistent with the approach for assessing the autumn migration number of 7, the total is 10 displacement used in the ES. NE have applied not 5. However, this error does not alter the their method (summing individual displacement overall conclusion that effects on gannets will be values) to obtain the figure of 10. Nonetheless, negligible. the key factor is that irrespective of the method used the conclusion remains the same and there is therefore no material difference to the conclusion in the ES. Seasonal Displacement of Auks: Natural EATL consider that Natural England's approach England does not agree with the proposed of summing seasonal displacement generates alternative method of summing seasonal overly precautionary predictions on top of the displacement impacts on auks to give an annual high level of precaution already inherent in the total. We recommend simply summing the worst case scenarios of 70% displacement & seasonal totals. We understand the rationale 10% mortality advocated. Notwithstanding this, for assessing that the annual effects against the we present additional assessment (see Annex biogeographic populations, but there needs to 1) using the methods adopted by NE in their be clarity over how the impacts are apportioned written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea to UK colonies. Project 2 examination on the basis that this approach will be accepted by NE. Use of immature auks: The Applicant has used East Anglia THREE is beyond the foraging proportions of immature auks (paragraph 140 of range of any auk breeding colonies, therefore the Environmental Statement) in the non- auks observed during the breeding season will breeding BDMPSs (Furness 2015) to calculate not be actively breeding adults. Hence it was breeding season proportions. As stated above assumed that auks present in the breeding (paragraph 9), we do not agree that this method season will comprise immature birds and is appropriate. nonbreeding adults. As the size of the population from which such birds could be drawn is not well understood, however it seems very likely that both of these categories of bird are drawn from the BDMPS populations.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 40
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Indeed, given what is known about the movements of immature birds (that they disperse to similar areas as adults and gradually make their way back towards their natal colonies as they approach maturity) this seems a much more plausible assumption than assuming there is no connection between the wintering populations and the summer distribution of immatures as NE suggest. Therefore we are content that this approach provides a robust means to estimate reference populations in the summer. In addition we present additional assessment (see Annex 1) using the methods adopted by NE in their written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination on the basis that this approach will be accepted by NE. Guillemot mean peak: We consider the mean We welcome Natural England's conclusion on peak breeding season estimate for guillemot to this issue which is in agreement with that in the be between 5 and 122. The addition of a ES. maximum of 122 (rather than 117) equates to 0.13% (rather than 0.12%) of baseline mortality, but will still result in a low magnitude of impact. Due to the error in calculating the guillemot We welcome Natural England's conclusion on breeding period seasonal mean peak (see this issue which is in agreement with that in the above), the summed total using the Applicants ES. method of dividing each seasonal mortality by the number of seasons (in the case of guillemot by 2) before summing should be:
Non-breeding total of 200/2 = 100 Breeding total of 122/2 = 61 (rather 58).
Giving an annual total mortality of 100 + 61 = 161 (rather than 158) for our advised worst case scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality. This equates to 0.028% (rather than 0.027%) of baseline mortality, so would still result in a low magnitude of impact. Seasonal displacement guillemot: Natural We welcome Natural England's conclusion on
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 41
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
England’s preferred method for summing this issue which is in agreement with that in the seasonal displacement mortalities to give an ES. annual total is to simply sum the seasonal mortalities. Using this method the total annual guillemot mortality from operational displacement is calculated as 322 birds at the worst case scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality. This equates to 0.14% of baseline mortality of the largest BDMPS (non-breeding season in Furness 2015) and 0.06% of baseline mortality of the biogeographic population. Therefore, this does not alter the overall negligible conclusion provided by the Applicant. The breeding season mean peak guillemot We welcome Natural England's conclusion on abundance from Table 13.20 of the this issue which is in agreement with that in the Environmental Statement Report should be ES. 1,744 (April) rather than the 1,699 given stated by the Applicant (which is the March figure). However, the result is still only a low magnitude of impact. Seasonal displacement razorbill: As stated We welcome Natural England's conclusion on above, Natural England’s preferred method for this issue which is in agreement with that in the summing seasonal displacement mortalities to ES. give an annual total is to simply sum the seasonal mortalities. Using this method the total annual razorbill mortality from operational displacement is calculated as 417 birds at the worst case scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality. This equates to 0.40% of baseline mortality of the largest BDMPS (migration periods in Furness (2015)) and 0.14% of baseline mortality of the biogeographic population. As this is a low impact on a species with low to medium sensitivity we would advise that this is a minor impact. Seasonal displacement puffins: It has not been We welcome Natural England's conclusion on possible to check the puffin assessment figures this issue which is in agreement with that in used in the assessment as no table of data is the ES. However, there are two points to raise provided in Appendix 13.2 (Baseline Technical on this comment: Report) for the EA3 site plus 2km buffer. However, data provided in Annex C, Table (1) In the ES the approach presented was
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 42
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
C3.21 for the EA3 site plus 4km buffer. If these virtually identical to this, using the density data are used instead (a precautionary estimated across the site plus 4km buffer, approach) then the following is obtained: however the abundance was calculated for the area of the site plus 2km buffer, ensuring Breeding season – number of puffins predicted appropriate numbers were used. to die is between 1 (30% displacement and 1% (2) The NE approach reports an upper mortality mortality) and 18 (70% displacement and 30% derived using 10% mortality, but the mortality). This equates to 0.10% of baseline description erroneously describes this as being mortality of the breeding season BDMPS. So, 30% mortality. using the precautionary figure of the EA3 site plus 4km does not alter the negligible conclusion of the Applicant
Non-breeding season – number of puffins predicted to die is between 1 (30% displacement and 1% mortality) and 23 (70% displacement and 30% mortality). This equates to 0.06% of baseline mortality of the non- breeding season BDMPS. Using the precautionary figure of the EA3 site plus 4km does not alter the negligible conclusion of the Applicant. In the case of puffin (as stated for guillemot and We welcome Natural England's conclusion on razorbill), our preferred method for summing this issue which is in agreement with that in the seasonal displacement mortalities to give an ES. annual total is to sum the seasonal mortalities. Using this method the total annual puffin mortality from operational displacement is calculated, using the figures presented in the Environmental Statement Report for the EA3 site plus 2km buffer is 34 birds at the worst case scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality. This equates to 0.09% of baseline mortality of the largest BDMPS (non-breeding period in Furness (2015)) and 0.002% of baseline mortality of the biogeographic population. Therefore, this does not alter the overall negligible conclusion stated by the Applicant. The more precautionary figure (the EA3 site plus 4km buffer) is 41 birds for the worst case scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality. This equates to 0.11% of
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 43
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response baseline mortality of the largest BDMPS (non- breeding period in Furness (2015)) and 0.002% of baseline mortality of the biogeographic population. Therefore, this still represents a low magnitude of impact. When considering the cumulative nonbreeding We note this comment, however the assessment displacement figure for puffin, we advise the already includes a range of mortality rates and Applicant to use a wider range of mortality than given the very large BDMPS puffin population, just 1%. this would have no material effect on the outcomes of the assessment. We agree that impacts on birds from indirect We welcome Natural England's conclusion on impacts through effects on habitats and prey are this issue which is in agreement with that in the either negligible or minor. ES. Use of generic flight height curves: Natural EATL acknowledges this comment however, the England considers it inappropriate to use the mortality estimates derived using the other Johnston et al. (2014) generic flight height models are included for completeness, with the curves for boat-based data with site-specific assessment itself based on the outputs from densities from aerial surveys in Collision Risk Band option 1 as previously agreed with Modelling (CRM) assessments using the Band Natural England. model. We therefore advise that the focus, wherever possible should be on the CRM Band Option 1 outputs. Gannet Avoidance Rate: Natural England We welcome Natural England's conclusion on acknowledges the findings in APEM (2014) that this issue which is in agreement with that in the use of the 98.9% avoidance rate for the basic ES. Band model may overestimate collision predictions. At present our advice regarding gannet avoidance is as per the joint Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies response to the Marine Scotland review of avoidance rates report by Cook et al. (2014), i.e. 98.9% avoidance rate for gannet with the basic Band model. As this study is based on just 8 gannets entering the offshore wind farm, there is not enough evidence to robustly determine the avoidance rate. However, we welcome future monitoring along the lines of the APEM (2014) study to determine an appropriate avoidance rate for gannet. Non seabird migrants: The Applicant uses the The non-seabird migrant assessment was Migropath model to assess collision risk for conducted using Migropath.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 44
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response non-seabird migrants. However, paragraph 55 of the Environmental Statement Report suggests that the SOSS-05 model (SOSS-MAT) was used. Whilst we recognise that these two models are similar and we do not have a preference for which is used; it would be good to be clear about which has been used. When assessing collision impacts for individual The breeding season collisions were seasons for all bird species, it is important that reported and included in the annual assessment. the Applicant include breeding season impacts, even if they are small. Flight Heights: We agree that site specific We acknowledge Natural England's agreement estimates of flight height are appropriate if the that the appropriate height data have been sample size is large. However we consider it used in the gannet collision modelling. As appropriate to present a range of flight heights. requested we have provided a histogram of gannet flight heights in our response (see Annex 1). Nocturnal Flights: We note that the MacArthur We welcome Natural England's support for the Green review (contained within Appendix 13.1 of nocturnal activity review presented in the the Environmental Statement Report) presents a assessment and the conclusions reached. We reasonable amount of evidence of nocturnal will continue to review the available data with a flight activity of gannet and kittiwake. But much view to further refinement to the estimated less is presented for lesser black-backed gulls nocturnal activity if possible. and none for herring gulls or great black- backed gulls. Therefore, Natural England does not consider there to be sufficient evidence to accept changing the nocturnal factor used for large gulls. However, there may be sufficient evidence for stating that the nocturnal activity assumed for gannet and kittiwake in the CRM can be considered a precautionary approach. Increases in mortality: Table 13.34 of the EATL acknowledges this comment. We have Environmental Statement Report would be much provided an updated table in Annex 1. clearer in terms of understanding how the increases in mortality have been calculated if the seasonal CRM figures were also presented here, rather than having to go back to Table 13.31 where these figures are available. Additive impacts: Natural England considers the This only applies to gannet. We have provided two impacts of collision and displacement as the combined assessment in Annex 1, although additive and advises that they should be the individual impacts were very small for this
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 45
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response summed. We acknowledge that in summing the species therefore there will be no material predicted mortalities that may arise via these change to the assessment. two mechanisms, there is a risk of double counting. Thus it is acknowledged that this simplistic approach will therefore incorporate a degree of precaution. However, the extent of that is hard to gauge given that the predictions of the number of fatalities due to collisions depends critically upon application of an assumed overall avoidance rate (i.e. an assumed percentage of individuals which alter their flight behaviour to avoid collisions) which in some cases can be considered to incorporate some degree of macro- avoidance of entire wind farms and might otherwise be classed as barrier impacts. The SNCBs are seeking further evidence from ongoing and proposed studies into avoidance rates that will help clarify the relationship between collision risk, displacement and so called ‘macro’ avoidance. Percentage of migrant seabirds at rotor height: We acknowledge this comment, however as We recommend that Table 13.35 of the noted by NE in the following comment, given the Environmental Statement Report be updated distance of EA3 from the coast this update will with the percentage of migrant seabird species at have no change on the assessed impact. rotor height data from Johnston et al. (2014) and should be calculated for the EA3 worst case scenario turbine specifications. In regard to migrant sea birds, while we cannot We welcome Natural England's conclusion on say with certainty that there will be no impact, this issue which is in agreement with that in the we do agree with the Applicant that given the ES. distance EA3 is offshore, any impacts will be negligible. Guillemot: Whilst Natural England agrees that the We note Natural England's comments with mortality is likely to be at the low end of the respect to estimating displacement impacts and range, we do not agree that using 1% mortality draw attention to the fact that we have for the cumulative assessment (with 70% presented the full range of predicted impacts as displacement) can be considered the worst case suggested by NE. However, we disagree with scenario. Our recommendation is a range from Natural England's assertion that up to 10% of 30% displacement and 1% mortality up to 70% displaced guillemots could die as a displacement and 10% mortality, with 70% consequence of displacement. We provided a displacement and 10% mortality as the worst summary of evidence on wintering movements
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 46
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response case. We also recommend that the Applicant to support this (since guillemots are use this same worst case scenario (70% predominantly present outside the breeding displacement and 10% mortality) for season) and consider this provided robust assessment of the project alone. justification for the mortality figures used in the assessment. Guillemot: Using our recommended worst case See above. scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality, the predicted mortality is 4,618 birds for the wintering season (assumed non-breeding season in the BDMPS report). This equates to 2.04% of baseline mortality, which would not be a negligible impact. Guillemot: There does not appear to be any The assessment focussed on the nonbreeding displacement impacts in the breeding season season on the basis that very few guillemot were from other North Sea projects added to the present during the breeding seasons with the overall cumulative assessment of displacement consequence that this was the period when East impacts. Anglia THREE would be predicted to contribute to the cumulative impact. Guillemot: Natural England advises that the In the assessment the annual cumulative applicate undertakes a further assessment that figure presented for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B incorporates the cumulative impact across the was provided (75,144) and was considered whole annual cycle, where seasonal impacts are alongside that presented for the cumulative summed. The cumulative total should then be nonbreeding season in the Hornsea Project assessed against the appropriate scale. Two assessment (63,111). As discussed above, since very few guillemots were observed during the breeding season the cumulative assessment focussed on the nonbreeding season and therefore the latter was used as the basis for cumulative assessment (with the addition of EA3). We can provide additional assessment based on the higher annual figure (75,144). This additional assessment notwithstanding, we note that in Natural England's written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination a method for assessing EIA level displacement impacts was presented which concluded no significant cumulative effects. EATL have applied the same approach for the current assessment, with the inclusion of EA3 (see Annex 1).
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 47
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Razorbill: As with guillemot, Natural England We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) advises that for the cumulative assessment of impacts the Applicant use a range from 30% displacement and 1% mortality up to 70% displacement and 10% mortality the worst case. We also recommend that the Applicant use this same worst case (70% displacement and 10% mortality) for assessment of the project alone. Razorbill: Using our recommended worst case We acknowledge this comment and have scenario of 70% displacement and 10% applied the same update as described for mortality, the predicted mortality for autumn is guillemot (see Annex 1) 1,925 birds. This equates to 1.87% of baseline mortality, which would not be a negligible impact. Razorbill: As with guillemot, there does not We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) appear to be any displacement impacts in the breeding season from other North Sea projects added to the overall cumulative assessment of displacement impacts. Razorbill: Natural England advises that the We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) Applicant undertakes a further assessment that incorporates the cumulative impact across the whole annual cycle, where seasonal impacts are summed. The cumulative total should then be assessed against the appropriate scale. Razorbill: Using our recommended worst case We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality, the predicted mortality for the winter season is 1,016 birds. This equates to 2.67% of baseline mortality, which would not be a negligible impact. Razorbill: Using our worst case scenario of 70% We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) displacement and 10% mortality, the predicted mortality for spring is 1,527 birds. This equates to 1.48% of baseline mortality, which wouldn’t be a negligible impact. Razorbill: As set out above, Natural England’s We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) preferred method for summing seasonal displacement mortalities to give an annual total is to simply sum the seasonal mortalities. If this
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 48
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response approach is taken, the displacement combined across the three non-breeding seasons gives a cumulative total of 63,814 (27,497 + 14,509 + 21,808 autumn, mid-winter and spring respectively) razorbill at risk of displacement (compared to 21,270 calculated by the Applicant). Based on this, the estimated number of razorbills subject to potential mortality during the non- breeding season is between 191 and 4,467 individuals (from 30% displaced and 1% mortality to 70% displaced and 10% mortality) compared to 64-1,489 using the Applicant’s proposed method. Razorbill: We note that if the seasonal We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) mortalities are simply summed then the predicted cumulative mortality for razorbill in the non-breeding season for the Applicant’s chosen scenario of 70% displacement and 1% mortality would be 447 birds per year. If our advised worst case scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality is used and the approach of simply summing the seasonal mortalities is taken, the predicted cumulative mortality for the non-breeding periods is 4,467 birds. This equates to 1.5% of baseline mortality of the biogeographic population, which would not be a negligible impact. Puffin: As with guillemot and razorbill, Natural We acknowledge this comment and will apply England advises that a range from 30% the same update as described for guillemot (see displacement and 1% mortality up to 70% Annex 1) displacement and 10% mortality, with 70% displacement and 10% mortality as the worst case is provided. We note that the worst case 70% displacement and 10% mortality has been used for their assessments of the project alone. Puffin: Using our advised worst case scenario We acknowledge this comment (see Annex 1) of 70% displacement and 10% mortality, the predicted mortality for the non-breeding period is 940 birds. This equates to 2.43% of baseline mortality, which would not be a negligible impact.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 49
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Gannet: The cumulative CRM annual total We do not consider it appropriate to assess the presented in the application is 3,071 birds, annual mortality against the autumn BDMPS as which equates to 3.5% of baseline mortality for this would be inconsistent. Instead we consider the largest BDMPS (autumn migration in that the autumn total mortality should be Furness (2015)) and 1.36% of baseline mortality assessed against the autumn BDMPS for the biogeographic population. Therefore we population. The autumn cumulative mortality advise that this requires further consideration was 764, which increases the baseline mortality through population modelling. We note the use of the autumn BDMPS population by 0.88% (i.e. of the SOSS gannet Population Viability Analysis less than 1%) and therefore is below the level at (PVA) model outputs (WWT 2012). We also which further assessment would typically be note that at Dogger Bank the PVA was scaled to required. With regards the annual mortality, this a North Sea scale and calculated a threshold of has been modelled using the existing PVA for 2852 as potentially significant. Therefore we the British population, as would be expected would welcome further discussions around the for an impact which exceeded this precautionary implications of the cumulative effect. 1% increase in mortality threshold. In order for this to be robust the cumulative mortality included wind farms other than those in the North Sea (e.g. Irish Sea) and this thereby avoided underestimating collisions and ensured the assessment of mortality was conducted at the appropriate population scale. This assessment demonstrated that the cumulative total for ALL UK wind farms is below the level at which the modelling found even 5% of simulated populations decline, and that this conclusion was based on what is acknowledged to be a worst case total mortality, including the fact (acknowledged by NE) that gannet nocturnal activity has been overestimated to date in collision assessments by at least 7%. Furthermore the gannet population has continued to increase since this model was developed: the model was based on a British and Irish population of 261,000 pairs (2004), which is now estimated to be over 400,000 (i.e. 50% larger), and this will considerably reduce the level of predicted impacts. EATL are therefore content that the gannet cumulative assessment is robust and demonstrates that cumulative impacts are below the level at which population consequences would be of concern.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 50
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Kittiwake: The total cumulative kittiwake CRM We do not consider it appropriate to assess the total presented in the Environmental Statement annual mortality against the autumn BDMPS, is 4,003 collisions per annum, which equates to but rather the autumn total mortality should be 3.09% of baseline mortality for the largest assessed against the autumn BDMPS BDMPS (autumn migration in Furness (2015)) population. The autumn cumulative mortality and 0.5% of baseline mortality for the was 1533, which increases the baseline biogeographic population. Therefore we advise mortality of the autumn BDMPS population by that this requires further consideration through 1.18%. The spring assessment similarly population modelling. generated an increase in baseline mortality above the 1% threshold (1.35%). As these were above the level at which further assessment would typically be required (and at Natural England's request), a population model was developed and presented in the original assessment to further explore the potential impacts. The conclusions of this assessment were that the cumulative impacts were not off concern. NE have questioned some of the assumptions made in the population modelling (in particular regarding density dependence and relevant population scales), and these will be addressed in our response to NE. Furthermore, we note that in Natural England's written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination a method for assessing EIA level collision risk impacts for kittiwake was presented which concluded no significant cumulative effects. EATL have applied the same approach for the current assessment, with the inclusion of EA3 to further support the original conclusion of no significant impacts (see Annex 1). Kittiwake: Natural England does not advocate We accept and broadly agree with Natural the use of PBR modelling when PVA modelling England's position with regards the relative is available. Therefore our consideration will merits of PBR and PVA, however we consider focus only on the PVA outputs. Although that PBR remains a useful preliminary tool to act Natural England has previously considered PBR as a filter for identifying the population impacts outputs for assessing population impacts in for which more detailed modelling (e.g. PVA) cases where up to date PVA models have not will be informative and those for which the been available at an appropriate population relative scale of impact to population size is scale2. However, the use of PBR on its own, such that PVA is unwarranted. as the means of assessing population impacts
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 51
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response on seabird populations presents a number of issues. Therefore, Natural England advises that wherever possible the population level impacts of predicted mortality from developments should be assessed using PVA models as these allow the effects of factors such as density dependence, population trends and varying demographic parameters to be explicitly investigated in terms of their effect on the population trajectory. PVA models also allow relative comparisons of population level effects with and without the additional mortality to be considered in a way that is not possible with PBR. Kittiwake: A significant cumulative impact at an EATL welcomes Natural England's broad Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scale acceptance of the kittiwake population model, is predicted, and EA3 contributes nearly 4% to however we disagree with regards to Natural the in- combination total. We are concerned to England's views on density dependence and the note that using the density dependent model, a appropriate scale at which to model impacts. All cumulative mortality of 4,000 individuals was populations are subject to limits on their growth predicted which resulted in the population (after due to competition for resources. Furthermore, 25 years) being 3.3% to 4.5% smaller than that we believe that there is strong evidence of predicted to result in a population decline in the compensatory density dependence which is absence of additional mortality. Natural summarised in our response (see Annex 1). England’s view is that the density independent There is also good evidence in support of model should be used to predict impacts, as modelling the North Sea population as a whole there is no evidence that density dependence is as has also been presented. operating on this population. Appendix 13.4 includes the predictions from density independent models which predicted that the population would be 10% lower than the un- impacted scenario. The outputs of the PVA model will need to be carefully considered before we advise on the cumulative collision total effects on the population. Further consideration is also required to determine the appropriate scale for the PVA model. Kittiwake: Further consideration is required There is good evidence in support of modelling regarding whether the PVA model has been the North Sea population as a whole as has constructed at the appropriate population scale been presented (see Annex 1). for assessing EIA impacts. We appreciate that the Applicant has conducted a PVA model at a
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 52
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
North Sea BDMPS scale (which is the scale that we are advised impacts should be measured at, because this is the scale that we have a reasonable understanding of the cumulative project impacts at, and also a reasonable understanding of the origins and numbers of birds). However, there has not been sufficient consideration given as to whether or not it is biologically meaningful and therefore appropriate to construct a PVA model at this scale. Using the North Sea BDMPS works for HRA because impacts are apportioned back to individual SPA colonies, but for EIA if we use the North Sea BDMPS scale, a biologically discrete population is not being considered. The North Sea BDMPS for kittiwake contains only about 40% of the UK Kittiwake population and only about 50% of the kittiwake from North Sea colonies i.e. 50- 60% of UK kittiwake will be distributed elsewhere in the non-breeding season and therefore subject to impacts elsewhere. Around 40-50% of the North Sea BDMPS comprises overseas kittiwakes, but these overseas birds only represent less than 10% of the birds from these overseas colonies i.e.90% of the birds from these overseas colonies are predicted to be in other areas in the non-breeding season. Kittiwake: As the North Sea BDMPS is not a We disagree on this point. There is evidence to discrete or closed population unit, the key indicate that the entire North Sea population question is then from an EIA perspective how to should be treated as one meta-population (see assess the impact. It seems practical to only Annex 1) consider cumulative impacts occurring in the North Sea UK waters as it would be difficult to get data on impacts at a wider scale (although it should be attempted to at least get information for the whole of the North Sea – not just UK waters). Therefore, we believe that there are three options for constructing population models: Kittiwake: Construct a PVA for all UK or See above. alternatively North Sea kittiwake colonies and
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 53
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response then apportion the cumulative North Sea impacts to this population scale – i.e. 50-60% of the impacts could be assumed to fall on the UK/North Sea kittiwake colony populations as 50-60% of the North Sea BDMPS birds are predicted to be from UK colonies. Additionally this is saying that the impact from the North Sea OWFs is only acting on some of the UK population as only about 40-50% of UK birds are predicted to be in the North Sea in winter. However, in the breeding season we would assume that 100% birds in the North Sea are UK birds. The disadvantage to this approach is that the 50% of cumulative impacts in the North Sea in the winter which would fall on the overseas colony birds would be ignored. Additionally this approach would ignore impacts on the 50% of UK birds that are not in the North Sea UK waters in the non-breeding season and will be subject to impacts outside UK waters. But we acknowledge that it is unlikely that a cumulative assessment across the whole wintering range is possible, so perhaps it is appropriate to focus on a practical North Sea level where we can quantify impacts from OWFs. Kittiwake: Construct a PVA model for the whole See above. biogeographic population – this would be 5-8 million birds here of which less than 2 million have any colony connectivity with the North Sea and only ~800,000 of these are predicted to be in North Sea waters in the non- breeding season. Therefore, this approach does not appear to be very practical or useful. It will not be possible to calculate cumulative impacts across the whole biogeographic range so this approach will be applying an impact occurring in North Sea UK waters to a very large population some of which never occur in the North Sea. Kittiwake: Construct a PVA model based on a See above. “population” defined as those birds present in UK North Sea waters in the non-breeding season. This is what the Applicant has done,
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 54
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response using an initial “population” size as the BDMPS population – but this is not a population and it is certainly not a closed population. Also the demographic parameters in these models relate to UK colonies, so there is an issue about applicability to birds from overseas colonies. It needs to be considered if the model is providing any understanding of the impact of the cumulative North Sea mortality on the 800,000 birds that are predicted to be present in the North Sea in the winter. Natural England would suggest that it does not, because any mortality occurring in the breeding season is likely to impact on UK North Sea colony birds only – there are about 840,000 of these. In the winter about 400,000 of these birds are predicted to be in the North Sea, but about 400,000 are predicted to come from overseas. Therefore, this equates to 1,240,000 birds in the North Sea across both the breeding season and non- breeding season. Kittiwake: As there does not appear to be a See above. good argument for Option 3 (the approach taken by the Applicant), Natural England’s advises that option 1 (i.e. using a UK North Sea colony or perhaps UK colony scale PVA model) and apportioning impacts to the UK population is more meaningful. We therefore suggest that the PVA model is re-run on this basis and the results presented alongside the PVA presented in Appendix 13.4. Kittiwake: Due to the point made above We present evidence in support of both density regarding the appropriate scale, the kittiwake dependent modelling and the North Sea PVA model (Appendix population scale in our response (see Annex 1) 13.4 of the Environmental Statement) will which supports the PVA work as presented. We need further consideration. Natural England’s also note that in Natural England's written focus for assessing impacts will be on the submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea outputs of density independent models. The Project 2 examination a method for assessing density dependent model makes assumptions EIA level collision risk impacts was presented that the population is close to carrying for kittiwake which concluded no significant capacity, which may be inappropriate and there cumulative effects. We present an updated appears to be little evidence to suggest density assessment (see Annex 1) following this
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 55
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
dependence was operating. Therefore, we approach with the inclusion of EA3 which further advise that the assessment only focuses on demonstrates that the worst case predicted density independent models. impacts on this species are within acceptable limits. Kittiwake: The Applicant states that: ‘The models EATL acknowledge this comment however, Dr used a matrix formulation and simulated an Kershaw has provided detailed technical advice annual post-breeding census over a period of in relation to several North Sea offshore wind 25 annual time steps with one year age classes farms and therefore her advice on this matter up to adults, which is a multi-age class for all was considered to be robust and reliable. individuals four years old and older. The initial population size was defined as either the spring or autumn BDMPS, against which relevant cumulative collision risks could be assessed. Annual collisions were assessed against the larger autumn population (as agreed with M. Kershaw, pers. comm.)’ Dr Kershaw has not discussed anything with the EA3 project team in relation to assessing impacts from PVA models, and this reference should be removed. We advise that the Applicant provides a rationale for using the autumn BDMPS population. Kittiwake: We note that a review of nocturnal We welcome Natural England's agreement on activity has indicated that the value of 50% this point and agree that further study would help used in CRM is likely to be an over estimate. to refine the estimates of nocturnal activity in However, we note that there has been no seabirds. However, we also believe the existing proposal/evidence collected validating evidence already makes a sufficiently assumptions about nocturnal activity. This could compelling case in favour of reducing the be something that the regulators and industry nocturnal activity factor for kittiwake that this consider as part of any monitoring conditions should be adopted and applied retrospectively within marine licences. to existing wind farms included in the cumulative assessment. Kittiwake: Natural England considers that the We welcome Natural England's resulting collision impacts have a moderate acknowledgement that EA3 makes a small adverse impact. Whilst the impacts of the EA3 contribution to the in-combination total and EATL site (alone)on kittiwake makes a relatively small will continue to explore options to further reduce contribution to the in-combination total, we would impacts and will discuss these with NE as plans welcome any proposals of best practice that progress. seeks to reduce the in-combination collision total, for example by raising the height of the lower rotor tip of the turbines. Lesser black-backed gull: The total cumulative We welcome Natural England's conclusion on
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 56
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response lesser black-backed gull CRM total is 522 this issue which is in agreement with that in the collisions per annum, which equates to 1.98% of ES. baseline mortality for the largest BDMPS (autumn migration in Furness (2015)) and 0.48% of baseline mortality for the biogeographic population. Natural England advises that further consideration is required as to the appropriate scale for assessing impacts. But as EA3’s contribution to the total is small (11 of the 522 birds, which equates to 2.1% of cumulative total), then we agree with the Applicant’s conclusion of minor adverse effects. Herring gull: The total cumulative herring gull We welcome Natural England's conclusion on CRM total is 726 collisions per annum, which this issue which is in agreement with that in the equates to 0.90% of baseline mortality for the ES. largest BDMPS (non-breeding in Furness (2015)) and 0.38% of baseline mortality for the biogeographic population. If the biogeographic population is the most appropriate population to use for annual assessments at an EIA scale then Natural England agrees that there is no need for further population modelling. As EA3’s contribution to the total is small (26 of the 726 birds, which equates to 3.6% of cumulative total), Natural England agrees with the Applicant’s conclusion of minor adverse effects. Great black-backed gull: The total cumulative We consider that the reduction in predicted great black- backed gull CRM total is 1,049 collisions (due to the increases in avoidance collisions per annum, which equates to 16.4% of rate) from over 3,000 (up to and inc. Triton baseline mortality for the largest BDMPS (non- Knoll) to the current estimate of just over 1,000, breeding in Furness (2015)) and 6.38% of coupled with the previous acceptance of the baseline mortality for the biogeographic higher total in wind farm consent decisions (e.g. population. Therefore, Natural England advises Rampion) indicates that the cumulative impact that this does require further consideration on this species remains below a threshold of through population modelling. We note that the concern. We also note that in Natural England's outputs of PBR from Rampion are presented. written submission for deadline 6 of the However, as stated previously Natural England Hornsea Project 2 examination a method for no longer accepts the use of PBR, and advises assessing EIA level collision risk impacts was that a PVA model at the appropriate scale should presented for great black-backed gull which be provided by the Applicant. concluded no significant cumulative effects. EATL present an updated assessment following this approach with the inclusion of EA3 (see
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 57
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Annex 1) which further demonstrates that the worst case predicted impacts on this species are within acceptable limits. We therefore question Natural England's advice with respect to the provision of PVA modelling, since the impacts are sufficiently small that they are very unlikely to give rise to a significant impact. Dark-bellied brent geese: Natural England We welcome Natural England's conclusion on agrees with the Applicant’s conclusion that with this issue which is in agreement with that in the mitigation measures in place to avoid winter ES. working there will be no adverse effect on integrity of dark-bellied brent geese on the Deben Estuary SPA. Red-throated diver: Natural England agrees with We welcome Natural England's conclusion on the Applicant’s approach of estimating the this issue which is in agreement with that in the magnitude of during construction disturbance to ES. red-throated divers on a ‘worst case’ basis assuming that there would be 100% displacement of birds in a 2km buffer surrounding the cable laying vessel(s). However, 10% mortality is very precautionary, therefore we conclude that even using these precautionary assumptions the additional mortality is likely to be less than 1%. Red-throated diver: Natural England advises We will discuss appropriate measures with NE for that consideration should be given in the HRA inclusion in the SoCG. to operational and maintenance activities that may cause disturbance of red-throated diver from transiting to the site from the operational port. However, if best practice vessel operations are adopted then any LSE can be removed. Red-throated diver: Therefore, if best practice is We welcome Natural England's conclusion on adopted then Natural England agrees with the this issue which is in agreement with that in the Applicant that there are no adverse effects on ES. the integrity of the Outer Thames Estuary SPA and the Greater Wash SPA alone and in combination. Lesser black-backed gull:Natural England agrees We welcome Natural England's conclusion on that it is reasonable to conclude that there will be this issue which is in agreement with that in the no adverse effects on Alde Ore Estuary SPA ES. from collisions at EA3 alone. Similarly Natural
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 58
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
England also agrees that EA3’s contribution to the in-combination total is so small as to not materially alter the overall in-combination effects. Gannet: Natural England recognises that due to We welcome Natural England's conclusion that changes in avoidance rate the current in- EA3 alone will not cause an LSE for the combination mortality is below the levels Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. However assessed for the nearby East Anglia ONE we question the requirement to undertake offshore wind farm. We agree that there is likely further population modelling for this population, to be no adverse effect on integrity the given that such modelling was presented in Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA due to the relation to the Hornsea Project Two assessment EA3 project alone. However, before concluding and the additional mortality from EA3 there is no impacts in-combination we require attributable to this population (9 individuals) will the Applicant to present outputs from the not affect the conclusions of that modelling amended PVA model. work and therefore does not merit additional analysis. Kittiwake: Natural England agrees with the We welcome Natural England's conclusion on Applicant that the EA3 project alone would not this issue which is in agreement with that in the have an adverse effect on integrity of the ES. Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA. Kittiwake: Natural England considers that the We welcome Natural England's conclusion on level of in- combination mortality under this issue which is in agreement with that in the consideration here is such that an adverse ES. effect on integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA cannot be ruled out. However, the effect of the additional predicted mortality from EA3 alone while not de minimis, is so small as to not materially alter the significance of the overall in-combination mortality figure or the likelihood of an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSPA arising from such an in-combination level of mortality. Natural England does not agree with the EATL consider that Natural England's approach Applicant’s method of assessing displacement of summing seasonal displacement generates impacts. We advise that the Applicant assess overly precautionary predictions on top of the the predicted impacts of displacement across high level of precaution already inherent in the the whole annual cycle (for both the site alone worst case scenarios of 70% displacement & and cumulatively with other North Sea projects), 10% mortality advocated. This disagreement by summing seasonal impacts. This annual notwithstanding, EATL present additional total should then be assessed against the assessment (see Annex 1) using the methods appropriate population scale. Natural England adopted by NE in their written submission for recommends that any displacement in the deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 59
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response breeding season from other North Sea projects on the basis that this approach will be accepted are included in the overall cumulative by NE. assessment of displacement. Natural England advises that the Applicant use a East Anglia THREE is beyond the foraging different approach to that used in the range of any auk breeding colonies, therefore Environmental Statement to define an auks observed during the breeding season will appropriate population scale to use for assessing not be actively breeding adults. Hence it was impacts on birds present in the project area assumed that auks present in the breeding during the breeding season months. The season will comprise immature birds and Applicant currently uses estimates of the nonbreeding adults. As the size of the proportion of immature birds predicted to be in a population from which such birds could be typical population applied to the number of birds drawn is not well understood, however it seems in the non-breeding season Biologically Defined very likely that both of these categories of bird Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) to are drawn from the BDMPS populations. calculate a breeding season population size for Indeed, given what is known about the immature birds relevant to the project area. We movements of immature birds (that they do not consider that the non-breeding season disperse to similar areas as adults and populations in Furness (2015) are applicable to gradually make their way back towards their the breeding season, either for adult or natal colonies as they approach maturity) this immature birds. We therefore advise that the seems a much more plausible assumption than Applicant produce their own breeding season assuming there is no connection between the population scales and sizes for species. wintering populations and the summer distribution of immatures as NE suggest. Therefore we are content that this approach provides a robust means to estimate reference populations in the summer. Nevertheless, we present additional assessment (see Annex 1) using the methods adopted by NE in their written submission for deadline 6 of the Hornsea Project 2 examination on the basis that this approach will be accepted by NE. Natural England recommends that for the EATL acknowledges this point, however we cumulative assessment of displacement impacts would also draw Natural England's attention to from other North Sea projects, the Applicant the fact that the range of displacement figures uses a range from 30% displacement and 1% recommended by NE is already presented in mortality up to 70% displacement and 10% the assessment. We consider Natural mortality as the worst case. We also England's worst case combination (70% recommend that the Applicant use this same displacement and 10% mortality) to be overly worst case (70% displacement and 10% precautionary. mortality) for assessment of the project alone. Natural England welcomes the Applicant’s All populations are subject to limits on their
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 60
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response approach to use Population Viability Analysis growth due to competition for resources. (PVA) modelling to assess EIA impacts on Furthermore, contrary to Natural England's kittiwake.However, we advise further assertion that there is a lack of evidence in consideration of a number of issues. These support of density dependence for this species include whether it is appropriate to rely on there is strong evidence of compensatory density density dependent outputs, and identifying the dependence (we will provide this in our appropriate population scale at which to assess response). There is also good evidence in impacts. support of modelling the North Sea population as a whole as has been presented (we will provide this in our response). There appears to be little clear evidence to See above. suggest compensatory density dependence is operating on the kittiwake population at a North Sea scale, therefore Natural England advises that the assessment should focus on outputs from the density independent models. Natural England advises that the Applicant further See above. considers whether the kittiwake PVA model has been constructed at the appropriate population scale for assessing EIA impacts. We appreciate that the Applicant has carried out at a North Sea BDMPS scale assessment which is the scale that we initially accepted impacts should be measured against. However, further consideration is required as to whether it is biologically meaningful and therefore appropriate to construct a PVA model at this scale. Using the North Sea BDMPS is appropriate for HRA because impacts are apportioned back to individual SPA colonies, but for EIA if the North Sea BDMPS scale is used it does not consider a biologically discrete population. The total cumulative effects on great black- We consider that the reduction in predicted backed gulls from collision mortality equates to collisions (due to the increases in avoidance 16.4% of baseline mortality for the largest rate) from over 3,000 (up to and inc. Triton BDMPS (non-breeding in Furness (2015)) and Knoll) to the current estimate of just over 1,000, 6.38% of baseline mortality for the coupled with the previous acceptance of the biogeographic population. Therefore, Natural higher total in wind farm consent decisions (e.g. England advises further consideration through Rampion) indicates that the cumulative impact population modelling. We note that the outputs on this species remains below a threshold of of PBR modelling from Rampion are presented. concern. We also note that in Natural England's
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 61
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
However, Natural England advises the use of written submission for deadline 6 of the PVA modelling (see row 2 above). Hornsea Project 2 examination a method for assessing EIA level collision risk impacts was Therefore, Natural England advises that the presented for great black-backed gull which Applicant undertakes PVA modelling to assess concluded no significant cumulative effects. EIA impacts on great black-backed gulls. We EATL present an updated assessment (see suggest using either a UK North Sea colony Annex 1) following this approach with the scale or UK colony scale population model and inclusion of EA3 which further demonstrates that apportion the predicted project impacts back to the worst case predicted impacts on this the respective scale. species are within acceptable limits. We therefore question Natural England's advice with respect to the provision of PVA modelling, since the impacts are sufficiently small that they are very unlikely to give rise to a significant impact. Natural England considers that the impacts from We welcome Natural England's conclusion on the project alone will not have an adverse effect this issue which is in agreement with that in the on the integrity of Flamborough and Filey ES. Coast pSPA.
Natural England considers that the level of in- combination mortality, when considered with other plans and projects is such that an adverse effect on integrity of the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA kittiwake population cannot be ruled out. However, the effect of the additional predicted mortality from the project alone while not de minimis, is so small as to not materially alter the significance of the overall in-combination mortality figure or the likelihood of an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSPA arising from such an in- combination level of mortality. SmartWind Relevant Representation on Ornithology Smart Wind - have informed EATL that the EATL note that at the time of submission the numbers for cumulative assessment for Hornsea 2 numbers within our assessment were correct. are now outdated. Updated collision tables are provided and incorporated into Annex 1 Marine mammals Now that the consultation has begun, the pSACs As agreed in the SoCG with Natural England, become a material consideration for projects EATL will complete further assessment once
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 62
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response such as East Anglia THREE. Therefore further management measures for the pSAC have been work is likely to be required by the Applicant formally adopted. Natural England will be during the Examination process to assess the consulted regarding this assessment. impacts of the project on the sites, particularly the harbour porpoise feature of the Southern North Sea pSAC. Natural England welcomes the commitment from Work to complete the MMMP will begin the Applicant to produce a marine mammal once a consenting decision has been made. mitigation plan (MMMP) and we look forward to working with the Applicant to further develop the draft MMMP that was submitted with this application. The PCoD project is due to complete at the start It is noted that no further action is required at the of April 2016 and should enable an assessment current time. of whether multiple pile driving operations in the English part of the North Sea are likely to have a population level effect on the harbour porpoise population in the wider North Sea. Should a population level effect be a possibility, relevant developers would need to review and assess their construction methodology and mitigation options to ensure there is a reduction in underwater noise. Noise reduction at source is the best mitigation to It is noted that no further action is required at the protect marine mammals from injury and current time. disturbance. Due to the scale on which noise is measured, a small decrease in sound pressure (6dB) is a halving of the sound level. While Natural England agrees that certain methods (e.g. bubble curtains) are currently not feasible for this project, there may be other methods available that could be used. New technology is being developed (e.g. hydro sound dampeners) as a result of noise thresholds being enforced in German waters. Such technology includes alternative piling methods (e.g. vibro-piling) which can reduce sound levels at source. Recognising the evolving nature of this area Natural England is content that consideration of noise reduction measures can take place prior to construction, specifically within the Marine Mammal Mitigation
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 63
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Protocol (MMMP) which is required by Part 2, Condition 13(f) of the project’s draft deemed marine licences. In pre-application discussions the Applicant has committed to exploring up to date noise reduction techniques and other mitigation technologies available at that time, including the reasons why it will, or will not be used within the MMMP when it is submitted. The DEPONS (Disturbance Effects on the It is noted that no further action is required at the Harbour Porpoise Population in the North Sea) current time. project is also due to report in the next few months and should provide further evidence of whether multiple piling operations in the North Sea are likely to have a population level effect on harbour porpoise in the North Sea. Natural England will look to discuss any further The latest information regarding the potential for developments of the issue of Corkscrew injuries any corkscrew injuries will be reviewed and any to seals post consent, during future development further advice taken into account in the MMMP. of the MMMP as required by Part 2, Condition 13(f) of the project’s draft deemed Marine Licences. Onshore ornithology Natural England’s main concern for onshore We welcome Natural England's conclusion on ornithology involved wintering dark bellied Brent this issue which is in agreement with that in the geese at the Deben Estuary SPA. However, ES. the Applicant’s commitment to seasonal construction restrictions has addressed our concerns. There are many areas along the cable route that We welcome Natural England's conclusion on support breeding birds, including breeding this issue which is in agreement with that in the marsh harrier and Cetti’s warbler. However, the ES. mitigation proposed by the Applicant, including siting the cable to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, completing targeted breeding bird surveys and targeted habitat management measures for species likely to be affected should ensure that none of the species listed suffer more than a minor impact due to disturbance or habitat loss. Physical processes, benthic ecology and sediment quality
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 64
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
The Applicant states that the export cable, Noted where possible, will be buried to a target depth of 0.5m to 5m. Natural England advises burial depths of greater than 1m wherever possible so as to avoid potential scour effects and future exposure of the export cable Natural England considers that, in the first The final survey methodology would be agreed instance, best efforts should be made to use with Natural England at least 4 months prior to drop-down photography because this is the best the survey works which could be completed up method to inform patchiness and avoids damage to 18 months prior to construction. The to the reef. Mitigation could include waiting for mitigation measures will be based on the visibility to clear during periods of slack water or, methods and technology available at the time of if available, use of a freshwater lens. However, survey and the mitigation suggested by Natural it is recognised that a single grab combined England will be considered in the survey design. with the drop- down video survey can help inform elevation and abundance. Gravity Based foundations: By committing to not EATL propose to amend the draft DCO to placing gravity based structures in areas where include the following condition in the draft DML, sandwaves are greater than 5m, the applicant is which is the same approach taken by EA1: reducing the potential for habitat impact. Natural "No gravity base foundations may be installed England would welcome further discussion with in any area of the seabed with mobile sand the Applicant on how this commitment can be waves of 5 metres or more, as identified by the included within the draft DCO. swath- bathymetry survey carried out under condition 17(2)(b), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the MMO." Elevated levels of arsenic: Natural England If dredging is required at or around site 30, notes that elevated levels of arsenic were EATL has committed to further survey work to found to be present at sample station 30, which determine the extent of any contamination and is within the offshore cable corridor. Should inform the appropriate disposal method. EATL dredging be required in the vicinity of station will work with Natural England and the MMO, 30, arsenic levels should be monitored in order post consent, once detailed design information to inform disposal. Natural England welcomes a is available. We do not believe that there is any commitment by the applicant to undertake this requirement for a monitoring programme rather a monitoring if required, but we consider that a survey to determine the nature of any proposed monitoring method should be included contamination. in the In Principle Monitoring Plan (IPMP). We would welcome further discussion with the Applicant on this matter. Orford Inshore recommended Marine EATL understand Natural England’s position Conservation Zone (rMCZ) overlaps with the regarding the Orford Inshore rMCZ and proposed export cable route. Recommended recognise that if this site is designated a pMCZ
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 65
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
MCZs are a material consideration in the marine prior to the construction of East Anglia THREE licencing process, but, weight given to the then further work would be required by EATL consideration is less than that given to to assess potential impacts to the features proposed MCZs (pMCZs) as pMCZs have been and provide mitigation if appropriate. put out for consultation. The site remains an rMCZ and it may be put forward for consultation in the future. Orford Inshore rMCZ contains a feature (subtidal mixed sediment) that may be affected by cable installation, operation and decommissioning. There are no pMCZs that are potentially affected by the project The percentage of the East Anglia Zone affected The correct figure is 0.43%. This was a by EA3 is stated in paragraph 291 of Chapter typographic error in the assessment section of 10 of the Environmental Statement Report as the ES, however it does not make a material 0.34% which is different to that stated in Table difference to the significance of the impact. 10.2 (0.43%).Please can the Applicant clarify the correct figure. Homogeneity: Natural England advises that the EATL recognises that there are habitats of assertion made by the Applicant that habitats importance for nature conservation across the across the Southern North Sea are ubiquitous North Sea, the intention was to highlight that the and of low ecological sensitivity should be habitats within the site and wider Zone are evidenced/removed/clarified. While Natural relatively common across the North Sea and England agrees with the Applicant that that given the substrate type (e.g. subtidal mixed cumulatively impacts may be low, and the East sediment) are not particularly sensitive Anglia Three zone benthic habitats are themselves, notwithstanding any designation homogenous this assumption cannot be they may have. extended to the cumulative sensitivity of habitats (many of which are Annex I features of N2K sites) across the southern North Sea. The assessment of cumulative impacts varies in Noted it should be southern North Sea throughout context between the North Sea and the southern North Sea. Natural England would welcome consistency, notably in paragraph 361 of the Environmental Statement Report. Onshore ecology Bats may still suffer a small effect during Noted construction due to loss of commuting and foraging habitat, but this is not likely to constitute more than a low impact.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 66
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
1.22 Network Rail
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
This section 56 representation sets out Network EATL continue to consult Network Rail in Rail Infrastructure Limited's (Network Rail) respect of protective provisions. EATL have interest in, and objection to, the proposed East agreed to enter into a basic asset protection Anglia THREE Project (Project). agreement with Network Rail. Network Rail owns, operates and maintains the The protective provisions within the DCO have railway infrastructure of Great Britain pursuant been agreed and are the same as those agreed to a network licence granted under section 8 of previously for the East Anglia ONE project. the Railways Act 1993. Network Rail does not object in principle to the Project, however it does object to the compulsory acquisition of rights over, and restrictions being placed on, operational land and the compulsory acquisition and extinguishment of rights in third party land on which Network Rail relies for the carrying out of its statutory undertaking. Network Rail also objects to the seeking of powers to carry out works in the vicinity of the operational railway without first securing appropriate protections for Network Rail's statutory undertaking. The draft Development Consent Order (DCO) contains inadequate protective provisions that have been suggested without any meaningful engagement with Network Rail or a proper understanding of the level of protection required by Network Rail. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection Network Rail requires:
(a) agreement from the Applicant that the acquisition of rights over operational land and third party land (including the extinguishment of any rights) is on terms agreed with Network Rail for the protection of its statutory undertaking and that compulsory powers will not be exercised in relation to such land; and
(b) that sufficient protection for Network Rail's statutory undertaking is put in place for the carrying out of works in the vicinity of the operational railway network. Network Rail has interests in a number of plots The reference to Plot 210 in the Statement of (Plots) identified in the Book of Reference and Reasons is incorrect. Paragraph 8.21 of the associated Land Plans submitted with the Statement of Reasons should read, "….and the application for the Project. The Plots include two Great Eastern Main Line at Claydon, north of sites where the Applicant needs to carry out Ipswich (Plot 395)". This will be corrected
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 67
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response works directly under Network Rail's operational during the course of the Examination. railway network. In addition reference is made, at paragraph 8.21 of the Statement of Reasons, to Plot 210 which is said to contain part of the Great Eastern Main Line at Claydon, north of Ipswich. However there is no reference to Plot 210 in the Book of Reference, and Plot 210 is not shown on the Land Plan. Network Rail cannot therefore comment on the Project in relation to Plot 210 and reserves its position accordingly. Network Rail considers that there is no EATL will continue to engage with Network compelling case in the public interest for the Rail during the course of the Examination in compulsory acquisition of rights over the Plots. order to seek agreement on these matters. The Network Rail considers that the Secretary of draft protective provisions in the proposed State, in applying section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot conclude that new rights and Order are based on those agreed previously restrictions over the railway land can be created with Network Rail for the East Anglia ONE Order. without serious detriment to Network Rail's undertaking and no other land is available to Network Rail which means that the detriment can be made good by them. Network Rail does not consider that the above issues are adequately assessed in the application documents. In these circumstances the DCO should not be made unless and until the Applicant has demonstrated that the Project as applied for would not prejudice the safety and operation of the railway and those who use it and the protective provisions within the DCO are amended in agreement with Network Rail to offer the required level of protection. Network Rail reserves the right to raise further issues in evidence and intends to take a full part in the examination process including attending, and making oral representations at, relevant hearings
1.23 NFFO
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
The NFFO is a national fishing industry Further to our pre-application consultation, representative body with membership principally pursuant of Section 42 of the planning act, EATL covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. are currently engaging with the NFFO in order to We also have in our membership Anglo-Dutch progress a joint Statement of Common Ground
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 68
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response fishing interests that fish in the vicinity of East with the NFFO and VisNed for the East Anglia Anglia Three. We therefore have a legitimate THREE project and will continue to consult with interest in the implementation of marine licensing the NFFO throughout the examination and future decisions and the conduct of other marine users stages of the project. with respect to the interactions with commercial fishing activity, both in respect to representing our members, and in providing views with respect to the implementation of marine policy and planning decisions that have a bearing on the fishing industry more generally. The NFFO has previously been party to an agreed statement of common ground with respect to the East Anglia One application. Although some of our members have been consulted prior to the preparation of this application, the NFFO itself has yet to be consulted.
Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement EATL do not propose to update the ES with covers commercial fisheries. The methodological reference to policy GOV2 contained within the approach used to assess fisheries impacts East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans. could be improved by giving more explicit The methodology applied within the ES takes consideration to assessing the likely level of account of the relevant guidance and is coexistence between different fishing activities therefore considered appropriate. EATL are operating in the vicinity of the proposed project committed to promoting co-existence, both towards addressing policies contained with the generally, through the already established East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plan including Commercial Fisheries Working Group (which “GOV 2: Opportunities for co- existence should represents the interests of local inshore be maximised wherever possible”. fisheries), and through the specific points to be agreed in IDs 9 to 28 of the SoCG (between NFFO/ VisNed and EATL) and secured through condition 13 (v) (d) of the draft DCO.
In general, the statement currently does not The points raised will be discussed and where sufficiently acknowledge the range of issues that appropriate, included within the SoCG being would have a bearing on the degree to which progressed between the NFFO/ VisNed and fisheries could be limited particularly during the EATL. Requirements for a fisheries liaison and operational phase of the project. Consequently, coexistence plan are included within the draft although there are a number of welcome development consent order (DCO)*, and will be mitigation measures proposed (e.g. The referenced within the SoCG. preparation of a fisheries liaison and coexistence plan; the operation of the *See condition 13 (d) (v) of the draft DMLs Commercial Fisheries Working Group; provision
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 69
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response for reporting lost objects; post installation deployment of trawl/gill net survey along the export cable) we consider there are a number of other areas where mitigation commitments could be strengthened in order to promote co- existence; these include, inter alia, provisions for minimising fishing snagging risks associated with inter- array cables, the notification and protection of emergent hazards prior to remedial works (e.g. cable spans), agreeing routing for windfarm vessels in static gear areas, and arrangements for any gear removals, dealing with gear damages or losses and addressing any residual impacts to individual businesses.
It would be helpful to have sight of any prepared The draft DMLs require a Project Environmental or draft fisheries liaison and coexistence plan to Management Plan to be submitted for the see to what extent matters are being addressed MMO's approval (see condition 13(d) of the that may not have explicitly been covered in the draft DMLs). This must include details of a main environmental statement documents. This fisheries liaison and coexistence plan. EATL does not appear to be included within the propose to consult with the NFFO and other documentation in the application, although it is relevant stakeholders during the development referred to in the Environment Statement of these plans post consent. (Chapter 14).
We also consider that the cumulative Existing developments are considered in the assessment should take account of existing baseline used in the assessment (section 14.5) proposals and developments that may limit within which commercial fishing activity currently fishing which can reasonably be assumed to be occurs. The cumulative assessment (section presenting a burden to existing fishing 14.6.4) considers a comprehensive range of businesses. projects at various stages of development (i.e. pre/in construction or in planning).
1.24 Norfolk County Council
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
As you will be aware the County Council EATL would like to thank Norfolk County Council responded in July 2015 to an earlier consultation for taking the time to assess the ES and on this project. Issues were raised with regard welcome their position regarding these issues. to (a) commercial fishing and (b) shipping and EATL will continue to consult with Norfolk navigation as set out below: County Council throughout the Examination and beyond. (a) Appropriate mitigation, and where necessary
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 70
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
compensation, being given to those commercial fishing interests in Norfolk adversely impacted by the operation of the wind farm; and
(b) Mitigation measures being found to overcome any potential impact on shipping and navigation, which might have an impact on East Port (Great Yarmouth)".
The Environmental Statement accompanying the application shows that EAOW have actively engaged with commercial fishing interests in the UK and the continent, with Table 14.1 demonstrating they have worked with the Marine Management Organisation; the Fisherman's Association; and the Eastern I nshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.
UK vessels operating static gear are the only receptors which are expected to potentially sustain a significant impact and then only during the construction phase, in relation to the installation of the offshore export cable. If necessary appropriate mitigation would be decided through the Commercial Fisheries Working Group, therefore the residual impact is reduced to minor. The ES concludes in the majority of other scenarios, impacts are assessed to be at worst, minor adverse, and as such no further significant impacts are expected to result from any phase of the proposed project. With regard to mitigation, page 17 of the schedule of mitigation, indicates the following:
• Appropriate liaison will be undertaken with all relevant fishing interests
• Timely and efficient notices to all mariners;
• Inter-array, interconnectors; and export cables will be buried where possible;
• Cable protection measures will be applied where cables can’t be buried;
• Minimum separation between turbines of 675
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 71
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
metres; and
• Turbines sited in regular pattern to allow vessel transit through the wind farm. Having assessed the Environmental Statement (ES) it is felt that these issues have been appropriately/satisfactorily dealt with. As such the County Council has no further comments on this project as this stage.
Key marine and navigational stakeholders have EATL welcome the Council’s position been consulted by EAOW including: the regarding the impacts to shipping and Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity navigation stakeholders. House Lighthouse Service; and Royal Yachting Association. The ES indicates that during the construction phase, any risks have been described as tolerable or broadly acceptable. During the operation phase, any risks have been described as broadly acceptable. Mitigation measures identified to reduce the risk during operation include: promulgation of information; implementation of 50 metre operational safety zone; and on site emergency response by EAOW Vessels. Having assessed the Environmental Statement (ES) it is felt that these issues have been appropriately /satisfactorily dealt with. As such the County Council has no further comments on this project as this stage.
1.25 Rederscentrale
22. EATL recognise that Rederscentrale members are active around the East Anglia Zone, and are willing to engage further with Rederscentrale throughout the Examination period. EATL hope to agree all matters through the Statement of Common Ground which is currently being progressed.
1.26 Rijkswaterstaat
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
We would like to emphasize the necessity of a EATL understand the need to for a coordinated broad international coordination related to approach to building activities in the North Sea
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 72
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
building activities in the North Sea, in order to be and will therefore participate in any suitable able to determine and minimize the effects on initiatives that come forward and gain the environment and marine life. required level of support.
We have a concern with regard to cumulative EATL note that this is being prepared and await impacts of windfarms in North Sea waters form the final document. different countries on the harbour porpoise. We propose to develop a common approach for cumulative effect assessment. We are in the process of preparing a MoU between North Sea countries (between Energy Ministers, to be signed in June) in which this could be a subject.
We recommend limiting the produced sound The assessment undertaken in agreement with levels to keep these under a level where UK advisors concludes that at the project level significant negative effects on the harbour there will not be any adverse significant effects porpoise will not occur and monitoring these on any marine species in regard to the worst produced sound levels. case assessed. Nevertheless EATL will seek to minimise impacts to harbour porpoise where possible as with any other receptor.
As specified in the draft deemed marine licence (DML, Part 2, condition 18 (1)) monitoring of the first four piling events will be required.
Research in other wind farms shows that The sensitivities used for the displacement Guillemots are considered to have a high assessments are based upon a range of sources sensitivity for wind farms, as far as disturbance as described in Section 13.7.2.1 and shown in is concerned. We therefore emphasize the need Table 13.15 of Chapter 13 and are considered to for reconsideration of the category ‘low to be appropriate. medium sensitivity’ for this species. It is also worth noting that evidence to date suggests that turbine spacing is likely to be important, with higher levels of displacement reported from wind farms with smaller, closely spaced turbines. The turbines in the East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm will be spaced almost twice as widely as those where the higher levels of displacement of guillemot have been reported.
Furthermore, even if the sensitivity category was increased to high, given the magnitude of effect (worst case increases in mortality rate of 0.12% and 0.09% for breeding and non-breeding
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 73
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
seasons respectively) the impact would remain non- significant.
The Dutch government is concerned about EATL note the concerns regarding the safety of shipping movements South of EA3. This is shipping on the southern boundary of the East acknowledged in the ANATEC reports; EA3 Anglia THREE site. EATL are in consultation chapter 15 Shipping and Navigation page 72 with the MCA and Trinity House with regards to paragraph 15.10 Additional Mitigation, Table additional aids to navigation and have reached 15.13 states that: agreement on mitigation and how it is secured within the development consent order (DCO). “Additional aids to navigation such as buoyage SoCGs are currently being finalised with both could be required following consultation with organisations. THLS and MCA to aid the displacement of traffic and prevent the creation of a high risk crossing The final Aids to Navigation will be specified by point on the southern boundary”. And again Trinity House and layout will be agreed with the mentioned in EA3 Chapter 15 appendices page MCA as per the requirements of MGN543 at the 197 Table 29.1, the risk for collision with wind final design phase of the project. Condition 13 poles is shown in charts on page 194 and 195.” of the deemed marine licences in the draft DCO, requires EATL to consult with statutory We urgently ask EATL to start consultation on maritime regulators who will approve this issue with THLS and MCA and involve construction phase layouts and buoyage. Dutch stakeholders in this process. In our view the situation on the south side of EA3 is unlikely In addition EATL have committed to placing none to be safe without additional measures.”* of the following structures within 1km of the southern boundary of the East Anglia THREE windfarm: accommodation platforms, collector substations, converter stations. This commitment has been made to reduce the chance of collision.
We understand from your email sent on the 30th May 2016 that you will consult with other Dutch stakeholders with regards to shipping movements to the south of the East Anglia THREE site. We note from the email sent on the 9th June that you are consulting with other Dutch stakeholders regarding the shipping and Navigation issues within the SoCG between Rijkswaterstaat and EATL which includes the issue of shipping movements to the South of the East Anglia THREE Site
1.27 Royal Mail
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Royal Mail is responsible for providing efficient EATL would like to thank Royal Mail for taking
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 74
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
mail sorting and delivery nationally. As a the time to provide us with information Universal Service Provider under the Postal regarding your organisation and we look Services Act 2011, Royal Mail has a statutory forward to your participation in the Examination. duty to deliver mail to every residential and We will continue to consult with Royal Mail business address in the country as well as regarding traffic and transport related issues as collecting mail from all Post Offices and post appropriate. boxes six days a week.
Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road c ommunications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network.
Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business.
In exercising its statutory duties, Royal Mail uses all of the main roads in the vicinity of the proposed onshore elements of East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm, including the A12 and A14 trunk roads, on a daily basis.
Royal Mail has no issue with the proposed East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm going ahead. However, Royal Mail has operational facilities that either run or receive mail services and use the main roads in the vicinity of the proposed onshore infrastructure. Any additional traffic congestion or delays on these roads during the construction phase may cause disruption to Royal Mail operations.
Congestion caused by the construction of the proposed East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm and resultant disruption to Royal Mail operations could be made worse by traffic from other major developments in the area. Therefore, careful attention must be given to the potential
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 75
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
for cumulative traffic impact during the construction phase.
Royal Mail notes that the applicant will manage construction traffic impact through mitigation measures set out in the Traffic Management Plan and Travel Plan. However, Royal Mail has not yet been able to satisfy its concerns based on the highways impact information that has been submitted in support of the DCO application.
Royal Mail wishes to be an Interested Party to the Examination because it is concerned that its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public in accordance with its statutory obligations may be adversely affected by this proposed scheme.
As a minimum, Royal Mail requests that the EATL have completed a comprehensive EIA for applicant is required by the Examining Authority all traffic and transport issues, the detail of the to: assessment being discussed and agreed with the relevant highways authorities. This EIA fully consult with Royal Mail during the included a cumulative impact assessment. preparation of the Traffic Management Plan and Travel Plans, An outline Traffic Management Plan was include major road hauliers such as Royal submitted as part of the DCO application Mail in its public communications strategy, (document 8.7). EATL will continue to engage keep Royal Mail fully informed in with local authorities with regard to the advance of all temporary road closures specifics of the traffic management plan to and/or delivery of Abnormal Indivisible minimise the impacts to the network for the Loads, and purposes of all road users. Consider all cumulative traffic effects.
Royal Mail may simply rely on this statement but reserves the right to alter its position or make further representations in due course once further information is available and advice is provided by its consultants on whether it satisfactorily addresses Royal Mail’s concerns.
1.28 RSPB
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
The RSPB supports the deployment of renewable EATL has welcomed the constructive input of the energy projects, providing that they are sited and RSPB throughout the Evidence Plan process
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 76
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
designed to avoid adverse impacts on wildlife. and will continue to work with the RSPB to try The RSPB is grateful for the constructive pre- and resolve all remaining areas of application discussions that have taken place disagreement. with East Anglia THREE Limited (EATL) in respect of the East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm proposal, particularly through the Evidence Plan process. Although progress was made during this process, some of the RSPB’s concerns have not been fully resolved, principally relating to in-combination collision mortality to gannet and kittiwake.
The RSPB’s principle concerns are with collision EATL acknowledge the constructive comments mortality to gannets of the Flamborough and and calculations received from the RSPB with Filey Coast pSPA/Flamborough Head–Bempton regards to the reductions in predicted collision Cliffs SPA (FFC pSPA/FHBC SPA) from the East mortality which would result from elevating the Anglia THREE proposal in-combination with other turbine hub height and thereby reducing the plans and projects, primarily with Hornsea proportion of bird flights at potential collision nd offshore wind farm Projects 1 and 21. At present height (RSPB Relevant Representation 22 April the RSPB does not have confidence that 2016). EATL also welcomes the RSPB’s potential adverse effects on the integrity of these willingness to continue discussions on these protected sites and their species can be avoided. matters. The project team are currently Should the DCO for Hornsea Project 2 not be investigating the feasibility of implementing such granted, our concerns would be reduced a proposal and will continue to engage with significantly, however, the outcome for that RSPB on these matters during continued proposal is unknown at this stage. discussions on a Statement of Common Ground. 1 Hornsea Projects 1 and 2 together represent 24% of the breeding season in-combination collision mortality attributable to FFC pSPA / FHBC SPA
The RSPB considers that the potential for adverse effects on gannets and kittiwakes arising out of the East Anglia THREE proposal could be significantly reduced through elevating the lower swept area of the wind turbines through a rise in hub height. This would have the effect of reducing the percentage of birds flying at collision height and hence reduce collision risk (as illustrated in the calculations set out in Table 1 of response document) and therefore reduce any potential in-combination effects arising out of the East Anglia THREE proposals.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 77
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
The RSPB’s focus through the Examination will be to continue discussions with EATL with respect to blade height and therefore the RSPB hopes to minimise the need for written representations from it during the Examination.
1.29 RYA
23. EATL note that the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) has no detailed comments on the East Anglia THREE project at this time, but that the RYA may wish to comment in due course on export cable landfall plans and on EATL's intention to apply for operational safety zones.
24. EATL will continue to consult with the RYA on export cable landfall and operational safety zones once more detail is available on these matters. EATL are in the process of formulating a Statement of Common Ground with the RYA which has been provided with this letter.
1.30 SCC
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Summary 1 Suffolk County Council (SCC) is supportive of the EATL welcome Suffolk County development, but has identified a number of key issues Council's (SCC) support and will that it would like to see considered as part of the continue to consult with SCC examination into this project. These issues and others are throughout the examination considered in more detail in the main report which follows. process. 2 A key issue is phasing, both within the East Anglia Three Since the submission of the East project (noting the proposal for it to be either a single or Anglia THREE application further two phase development), but also the interaction between design work on East Anglia ONE East Anglia ONE, East Anglia THREE, and future projects. has been undertaken. As a result 3 The application describes an intention to look at of this, it will be necessary to install opportunities to reuse infrastructure temporarily used for cables in a single cable laying East Anglia ONE, for example the haul road and CCSs. operation. Therefore, there will be This is generally supported because the construction and no phasing of construction along removal of these elements generates significant HGV the export cable route (offshore movements. However the gap between the projects will and onshore), although the option be a key consideration as it is important for the cable to phase construction of the wind corridor not to retain the characteristics of a construction farm and the onshore substation site for an extended period of time. will be retained. 4 Appropriate triggers will be needed to determine the To the extent that temporary circumstances in which temporary infrastructure could be infrastructure may be retained retained for an extended period and the application does between the East Anglia ONE and not adequately address this at the moment. East Anglia THREE projects, this
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 78
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
5 Similarly, if East Anglia THREE progresses as a two will be dealt with through discharge phase project, the same considerations apply to the period of Requirements contained in the between the phases, which is estimated at 50 weeks in East Anglia ONE DCO and does respect of the onshore works, but will be reliant on not therefore form part of the East prevailing funding conditions so could deviate from that. Anglia THREE application.
6 The substation at Bramford is a substantive piece of See below rows 62 - 89 infrastructure, which must be adequately mitigated for. While the assessment submitted is reasonable there are a number of methodological issues that need to be resolved to ensure that the scale of the effects are properly recognised and represented. 7 The mitigation proposals are strongly linked to those for Noted the East Anglia ONE substation on adjacent land. Officers are working with East Anglia ONE to ensure that the landscaping proposals for that project are also tailored to minimise the effects of the East Anglia THREE project. 8 Further work is needed to understand the impact of ash EATL has committed to working dieback (Chalara fraxinea) on the woodlands which with the local authorities to refine currently help to screen the impact of the East Anglia the mitigation necessary for THREE site, as their thinning or loss could significantly adequate screening. This included change the visual effects of the substation , which may a site visit with local authority mean that further mitigation measures are required. specialists on the 11th May 2016. Discussions are ongoing and outline proposals are provided in Appendix 3. 9 The economic benefits in terms of investment and job See below rows 175 - 205 creation are very much to be welcomed, but it is considered that further pressure will be placed on a labour market which is struggling to resource the construction sector at the current time. 10 The assessment submitted does not analyse the labour market and skills context of the area and is overly optimistic about the ability of existing skills and employment infrastructure to respond to the demands of the project. Further discussions with East Anglia THREE are required to understand how the initiatives developed in the Skills Strategy for the East Anglia ONE project can be complemented by further undertakings Phasing 11 The East Anglia Array is a multiphase project being Since the submission of the East developed in an uncertain financial climate, which poses a Anglia THREE application further number of consenting challenges particularly around the design work on East Anglia ONE certainty/timing of successive phases of development. has been undertaken. As a result
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 79
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
12 SCC strongly supported the enabling role of East Anglia of this, it will be necessary to install ONE in providing ducting for future phases, indeed cables in a single cable laying insisting on a Requirement to require such an approach in operation. Therefore, there will be that Order. The driving force behind that support derives no phasing of construction along from the desire to avoid a recurrence of significant the export cable route (offshore construction activity along the cable corridor on a cyclical and onshore), although the option basis. to phase construction of the wind 13 While the provision of ducts obviates the need for future farm and the onshore substation trenching activities, significant traffic movements, which will be retained. are a prominent local concern, originate with the To the extent that temporary construction and removal of the haul road and infrastructure may be retained Construction Consolidate Sites (CCS). Consequently, in between the East Anglia ONE and principle, we are supportive of the concept of retaining East Anglia THREE projects, this temporary infrastructure from one project to support the will be dealt with through discharge successive one. of Requirements contained in the 14 However, this must be caveated insofar that there is no East Anglia ONE DCO and does guarantee over the timing of future phases of not therefore form part of the East development; East Anglia ONE is due to start construction Anglia THREE application. in January 2017, while the Environmental Statement for East Anglia THREE suggests the project could start any time between 2020 and 2025. To further complicate this, that project might progress in two phases, with an estimated (but not secured) one year gap between them. 15 So while there are obvious construction efficiencies and reductions in impacts in some respects (for example traffic) by reusing temporary infrastructure, there comes a point when the retention of that temporary infrastructure for an extended period of time poses different challenges; in particular in terms of landscape/visual and ecological effects. 16 Given that a third of the cable route passes through the The submitted assessment is Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB and a further 20% based on the worst case assuming through Special Landscape Areas, we cannot support a the removal of temporary situation where those important landscapes become infrastructure upon completion of characterised by haul roads, laydown areas and disrupted East Anglia ONE construction and landscape features, particularly hedgerows, over the long reinstalling temporary infrastructure term. These are landscapes of considerable local and for the purposes of East Anglia indeed national importance and are a key attractor for THREE. tourists. As set out above, installation of the export cable is no longer proposed to be phased. It will not be necessary to retain temporary works between any phasing of the wind farm or onshore substation for
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 80
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
the East Anglia THREE project. 17 Equally, as Document 6.1.23(7) Assessment of Haul Road As set out above, installation of the Remaining in situ Between Projects indicates there are export cable is no longer proposed species, notably bats, that could be adversely affected by to be phased. It will not be long term gaps in hedgerows. necessary to retain temporary works between any phasing of the wind farm or onshore substation for the East Anglia THREE project.
18 Consequently, we seek a pragmatic and flexible approach As set out above, installation of the to the retention of temporary infrastructure, where the export cable is no longer proposed assumption is that temporary infrastructure is retained to to be phased. It will not be support future projects (and scaled to the needs of future necessary to retain temporary projects), unless in our view, there can be no assurances works between any phasing of the over the prospect of the next phase of development wind farm or onshore substation for coming forward in reasonable time and thus are able to the East Anglia THREE project. direct that that infrastructure is removed in line with the To the extent that temporary reinstatement provisions in the DCO. infrastructure may be retained between the East Anglia ONE and East Anglia THREE projects, this will be dealt with through discharge of Requirements contained in the East Anglia ONE DCO and does not therefore form part of the East Anglia THREE application. 19 The East Anglia ONE Offshore Wind Farm Order 2014 Noted includes Article 23 and Requirement 28 which are relevant to phasing. Article 23 requires that land temporarily used for construction should be returned to its owner in an agreed state (generally its previous condition) by the end of 12 months from the completion of those works which are permitted on that land, unless the owner agrees to the contrary. Where land is given up, all temporary works are required to be removed. 20 Requirement 28 requires land not incorporated into permanent works to be reinstated in accordance with the details agreed by the relevant planning authority within 12 months of the completion of the relevant stage of the connection works. 21 A similar Article 23 and Requirement 30 appear in the draft East Anglia THREE Order. 22 SCC supports these provisions, which contribute to our To the extent that temporary phasing objectives as outlined above, but notes that it will infrastructure may be retained
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 81
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
be important for there to be join up between landowners between the East Anglia ONE and and the relevant planning authorities particularly where the East Anglia THREE projects, this state to which the land is reinstated is not “full”, i.e. not to will be dealt with through discharge its original state, but rather to an interim state, for example of Requirements contained in the partial retention of the haul road for example. The East Anglia ONE DCO and does Explanatory Memorandum (Document 3.2) explains how not therefore form part of the East the East Anglia ONE works may be retained in a planning Anglia THREE application. context, but doesn’t link this to the compulsory acquisition In the event that temporary works challenges (paragraphs 5.16 – 5.19). are proposed to be retained between the East Anglia ONE and East Anglia THREE projects, East Anglia ONE would seek to negotiate landowner consent accordingly.
23 As drafted, SCC considers that there is sufficient latitude Noted in the East Anglia ONE Order to support the pragmatic approach we seek, and thus it does not need to be modified. 24 Similarly the provisions in East Anglia THREE are East Anglia THREE are content to generally acceptable, with the exception of the omission of include in the draft DCO a a need to notify the relevant planning authority of a requirement to notify the relevant commencement date for onshore construction works planning authority upon under Requirement 36 (see below). commencement of the onshore construction works.
25 However, we do query whether, for the sake of clarity, the To the extent that temporary East Anglia THREE DCO should make provision for it to infrastructure may be retained formally adopt East Anglia ONE temporary infrastructure between the East Anglia ONE and as associated development to the East Anglia THREE East Anglia THREE projects, this project if it becomes the user of them. I.e. the ownership will be dealt with through discharge of, and responsibility, for the EAST ANGLIA ONE haul of Requirements contained in the road would fully transfer to East Anglia THREE on East Anglia ONE DCO and does commencement of its use for that project. It would be then not therefore form part of the East be clear from the relevant planning authorities’, and Anglia THREE application. indeed communities’ view whose asset it is. 26 Requirement 36 gives the ability of the relevant planning To the extent that temporary authority to permit East Anglia THREE to use the infrastructure may be retained temporary assets from East Anglia ONE for the purposes between the East Anglia ONE and of its project. However, as noted above, whether this is East Anglia THREE projects, this acceptable will depend on the length of the interval will be dealt with through discharge between the completion of East Anglia ONE and of Requirements contained in the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 82
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
commencement of East Anglia THREE. It would likely be East Anglia ONE DCO and does unacceptable for example to seek to retain the East Anglia not therefore form part of the East ONE haul road for, at the extreme, seven years (say 2018- Anglia THREE application. 2025) before it is to be utilised again. 27 This similar principle of timing of commencement needs to be applied in relation to Requirement 11. As written, the Requirement only requires the applicant to notify the relevant planning authority of the intention to proceed in one or two phases, not when each would commence. 28 East Anglia THREE is more complicated than East Anglia As set out above, installation of the ONE as there is the prospect of it being a two phase export cable is no longer proposed development, and SCC fully understands the rationale for to be phased. It will not be this, but as with the inter-phase effects (East Anglia ONE necessary to retain temporary – East Anglia THREE), the intra-phase effects (East works between any phasing of the Anglia THREE: Phase 1 – East Anglia THREE: Phase 2) wind farm or onshore substation for need to be similarly managed. the East Anglia THREE project. To the extent that temporary infrastructure may be retained between the East Anglia ONE and East Anglia THREE projects, this will be dealt with through discharge of Requirements contained in the East Anglia ONE DCO and does not therefore form part of the East Anglia THREE application.
29 While the Environmental Statement for East Anglia As set out above, installation of the THREE states that there would be an 18 month gap export cable is no longer proposed between the start of Phase 1 and start of Phase 2 and to be phased. It will not be thus perhaps a fallow 50 weeks between construction necessary to retain temporary phases, this is not secured in the DCO and we would works between any phasing of the suggest there can be no guarantee of such a gap. wind farm or onshore substation for 30 Therefore we would similarly wish for a mechanism the East Anglia THREE project. whereby, at the completion of Phase 1 (at which point the To the extent that temporary land is proposed to be reinstated – see paragraph 441 of infrastructure may be retained Document 6.1.5) the relevant planning authority is notified between the East Anglia ONE and of the likely commencement date of Phase 2 and thus can East Anglia THREE projects, this make a judgement on whether it is more appropriate to will be dealt with through discharge allow the haul road to remain to support that phase. If the of Requirements contained in the period is indeed 50 weeks it is likely to be preferable to East Anglia ONE DCO and does retain it, not remove it and then replace it, which is what is not therefore form part of the East currently proposed. Anglia THREE application. 31 Consequently, we generally support the provisions of the Outline Temporary Works Reinstatement Plan (Document
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 83
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
8.16), with the exception of the need to insert trigger points where the relevant planning authority can make a judgement on the desirability of retaining the haul road or not, having regard to the range of impacts that would ensue and the views of the relevant land owners. 32 We would however note that any infrastructure retained between phases would need to be scaled to that required for future phases. For example, the Primary CCSs and secondary CCSs for East Anglia ONE may be up to 15,000m2 and 10,000m2 respectively (see Requirement 10 therein), whereas the East Anglia THREE project only requires Primary and Secondary CCSs of 3,600m2 and 1,200m2 respectively (Requirement 12). 33 Furthermore, there is likely to be a need to conduct monitoring to ensure that the conditions set out in Document 8.16 are being adhered to and that in particular mitigation measures for bats remain effective. East Anglia THREE DCO 34 Interpretations "Jointing bay” means an “Jointing Bay” would be a useful addition here underground pit where two lengths of onshore export cable are jointed to create one continuous cable. A definition for this can be included in the draft DCO. 35 Article 9 Alternative routes are not proposed Article 9 omits similar clauses to those which appear in the for the majority of the PRoWs to be East Anglia ONE order and which read: temporarily stopped up, for which (2) The public rights of way specified in Part 1 of Schedule the stopping up will be short in 3 (public rights of way to be temporarily stopped up) shall duration. Instead, these will be not be temporarily stopped up under this article unless the managed by banksmen and diversion route specified on the public rights of way plan is signage so that the affected PRoW first provided by the undertaker, to the reasonable can continue to be used by satisfaction of the relevant highway authority. members of the public during the (3) The relevant diversion route provided under paragraph onshore works construction period. (2) shall be subsequently maintained by the undertaker Clarifications on the strategy for until the re-opening of the relevant public right of way PRoW are given below (rows 122 – specified in paragraph (1). 147) and Appendix 3 to this letter. An alternative route is proposed for the duration of the temporary stopping up of Bridleway (Reference W-155/001/0) which runs close to the site of the onshore substation at Bramford. The alternative route will follow the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 84
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
existing footpath network. The alternative route has been shown on the temporary stopping up of PRoW plan submitted with the DCO application. This alternative route and the other mitigation measures proposed for affected PROWs are secured through the Outline Code of Construction Practice and accordingly, it is not considered that further amendments are required to Schedule 3 of the draft DCO.
36 Article 23 As set out above, installation of the It is not clear that this Article fully reflects the potential of a export cable is no longer proposed two phase approach, nor fully aligns with the assumptions to be phased. It will not be made in the Environmental Statement. necessary to retain temporary 37 23(3) refers to “the completion of the part of the authorised works between any phasing of the project”, which one would interpret to being the completion wind farm or onshore substation for of both phases. However some uncertainty must exist on the East Anglia THREE project. the timing of the second phase of development, so for the reasons described above, there may be benefit in considering the release of land back to landowners between phases. Perhaps the removal of the haul road could be a trigger to return land to landowners between phases. 38 Article 39 The Explanatory Memorandum It is not clear what is proposed to be varied in the East (Document 3.2) will be updated to Anglia ONE Order. This is not explained in the explain that once the East Anglia Explanatory Memorandum (Document 3.2) either. Please THREE cables are pulled through see comments on Requirement 32 below. the relevant ducts it will be the responsibility of the undertaker with the benefit of the East Anglia THREE DCO to assess the impact of coastal retreat on both the cables and the ducts serving the East Anglia THREE project. Until the East Anglia THREE cables are pulled through, the responsibility for assessment of all the ducts installed will rest with the undertaker who has the benefit of the East Anglia ONE DCO.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 85
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
39 Requirement 1 Construction will commence within The development must commence within 5 years of the 5 years of the DCO being made. Order being made, yet the Environmental Statement suggests construction may not commence before 2025 (Document 6.1.5, paragraph 17). This does not tally. 40 Requirement 11 As set out above, installation of the Please note the comment above over the relevant export cable is no longer proposed planning authority needing to be notified of the to be phased. It will not be commencement dates of all phases for East Anglia necessary to retain temporary THREE works between any phasing of the wind farm or onshore substation for the East Anglia THREE project.
41 Requirement 12 The DAS and Outline Landscape Part (3) links the design of the substation buildings to the and Ecological Management Design and Access Statement (DAS) (Document 8.3). Strategy (OLEMS) will be updated Much of the DAS is irrelevant in this context, and as such following the principles and it makes more sense to link a ‘Design Principles’ approaches undertaken by the document, as was done in the case of the East Anglia master planning exercise ONE Order. undertaken by East Anglia ONE to date. 42 There is no provision to control the size of the jointing bay EATL will add a parameter into the compounds, which are assessed as being up to 3740m2 Requirements contained within the (Document 6.1, paragraph 390). draft DCO. 43 There is no provision to control the extent of haul road EATL will add a parameter into the built as part of the East Anglia THREE project, which has Requirements contained within the been assessed as 18.05km (Document 6.1, paragraph draft DCO. The correct distance of 368)2. haul road is 18.05km. 2Note that the Design and Access Statement (Document 8.3) refers to 17.8Km (paragraph 70) 44 However, note the comment above that a haul road of up Noted to 37km could become considered as Associated Development for East Anglia THREE, if it had been constructed by East Anglia ONE. 45 The maximum parameters of the CCSs are noted. If East To the extent that temporary Anglia ONE CCSs are used for East Anglia THREE they infrastructure may be retained should be reduced to this size. between the East Anglia ONE and East Anglia THREE projects, this will be dealt with through discharge of Requirements contained in the East Anglia ONE DCO and does not therefore form part of the East Anglia THREE application.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 86
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
46 Requirement 14 The draft Requirements will be This requirement suggests that landscaping management amended to bring them in line with schemes are only relevant to the substation works, the East Anglia ONE DCO. whereas they are also relevant to all the cable corridor works. The DCO provides for the land to be reinstated post-construction so it is important that this is in accordance with a set of landscaping plans that cover all the works. 47 This requirement should therefore mirror that in the East Anglia ONE Order and as currently written does not reflect the provisions of the Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (Document 8.6). 48 Reference is also needed to link to the proposed Design At the time of submission of the Principles statement (see above) alongside the Outline East Anglia THREE DCO Landscape and Ecological Management Plan. application the master planning was not available and therefore the DAS contains outline design principles (section 5 of the DAS). The DAS will now be updated to reference the masterplanning work that is ongoing. 49 Requirement 15 The Requirement will be amended This requirement should also mirror that for East Anglia to reflect the wording used in the ONE. In particular 15(2) should differentiate between the East Anglia ONE DCO. Note that care and maintenance period for the cable corridor (5 this is currently included within the years) and the substation (10 years). OLEMS. 50 Requirement 18 The term relevant drainage board Reference may need to be made to the East Suffolk is used to enable flexibility in the Internal Drainage Board (IDB). event that there are any name changes in the future. Therefore we believe this is the appropriate term. 51 Requirement 22 EATL are considering whether There is some duplication between this requirement and amendments can be made to the others, for example 22 2(a) replicates 18(1) and 22 2(d) Requirements to avoid duplication. replicates 24 (1). It might be argued that 23 (1) and (2) sit better under Requirement 22 as the matters it seeks to control are construction effects. 52 Requirement 27 Experience from East Anglia ONE suggests that 27 (1) (c) may sit better with Requirement 16, indeed both requirements point to the same document. 53 Requirement 32 The trigger will be amended in line Part (1) needs to mirror that in Requirement 32 of the East with the East Anglia ONE DCO.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 87
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Anglia ONE Order as it is through that Order the ducts will be installed and the effects of doing so have been assessed. 54 As such it is 25 years from the installation of the ducts that remains relevant (as acknowledged in (1)(a) not from the completion of Works 5B and 7. Therefore the words “or 2043, whichever is the earlier” need to be inserted after “Work No.7”. 55 Requirement 36 East Anglia THREE are content to As noted above, this requirement should make reference include in the draft DCO a to the need to provide the relevant planning authority with requirement to notify the relevant a date of commencement for the East Anglia THREE planning authority upon project. commencement of the onshore construction works. 56 Schedule 3 EATL met with SCC to discuss the Please see comments under Public Rights of Way approach to PRoW management (PRoW) below, outlining the need for some amendments on the 25th May. to this Schedule to differentiate between PRoW which are The results of this meeting are proposed to be stopped up with and without alternative shown in Appendix 3. The routes provided. individual points are discussed 57 More generally, SCC wishes to consider further with the below in rows 122 – 147. applicant the extent of stopping up proposed as it is unlikely the extent shown here will be necessary and rather management measures could be used at a number of locations to maintain safe access 58 Note that the page numbering in the DCO goes awry in The formatting of the draft DCO will this Schedule, the first page of which is p50, but this be updated during the course of follows p62. the examination. 59 Deemed Marine Licences As set out above, there will be no It is explained in the Explanatory Memorandum phasing of construction along the (paragraph 4.6), that the DMLs have been split into six export cable route (offshore and separate licences “to provide for a situation where onshore), although the option to generation, transmission or interconnection assets in each phase construction of the wind phase (should the project be constructed in phases) will farm and the onshore substation be held by different companies post-construction”. will be retained. 60 This suggests that if the project proceeds in two phases, As matters stand, each phase, if the onshore transmission assets for each phase may the phasing option is to be ultimately be owned by different companies. adopted, would be undertaken by 61 SCC would like to understand better what implications EATL. This is no different from there are, if any, of the first phase being constructed and other offshore wind farm DCOs passed to a different company, while the applicant is yet to where the undertaker may, rather construct the second phase and similarly whether the than choosing to build out the DCO also needs to reflect the possibility of two owners of whole offshore array or substation, the onshore infrastructure. choose to construct them in more
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 88
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
than one phase as part of construction programming. If a different undertaker were to construct one phase, any co- ordination arrangements would be addressed in a transfer agreement. Article 5 of the draft DCO, 'Benefit of the Order', also permits this approach.
Landscape and visual effects 62 The applicant appears to have carried out a reasonably Noted effective assessment. However there are a range of issues that need to be resolved. 63 East Anglia ONE Substation ScottishPower Renewables is The acceptability of the impacts of the substation is currently in discussion with Local dependent on the design and quality of the landscaping Planning Authorities on a and planting required as part of the East Anglia ONE landscaping masterplanning DCO. The relevant requirements are yet to be exercise for the Bramford discharged, and these matters remain under discussion, substation the outcome of which however we note that the East Anglia THREE application will provide detail of East Anglia has made a number of assumptions about the final ONE landscaping proposals as well landscaping scheme for East Anglia ONE, which are not as likely landscaping proposals for yet agreed with the local authorities. future projects, including East 64 For example, the Landscape and Visual Assessment Anglia THREE. The (Document 6.1.29) at paragraph 48 states “The mitigation masterplanning exercise will planting to the south-west would be set on a 5m high bund confirm the baseline for East Anglia and to the east on a 2m bund, which would add to the THREE landscaping assumptions relative height of the trees.” And paragraph 50 then takes and further assessment work will this information, combines it with growth rates of then be undertaken and submitted trees/shrubs to be planted on those bunds to hypothesise as Supplementary Environmental future baseline conditions. It is assumed this is the Information. situation modelled in the photomontages. 65 SCC recognises this is rather a complex situation due to the interrelationship between the East Anglia ONE and THREE projects, complicated by the lack of clarity over the final proposals for East Anglia ONE, which includes mitigation from which East Anglia THREE benefit. However, we do not wish our consideration of the most appropriate mitigation scheme for the East Anglia ONE project to be prejudiced by assumptions made during the consenting of East Anglia THREE. We anticipate that the relevant requirements in the East Anglia ONE DCO will be
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 89
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
discharged in summer 2016, so the Examining Authority can be updated at the relevant time. 66 East Anglia ONE Haul Road To the extent that temporary The application includes an assessment of the landscape infrastructure may be retained and visual effects of the retention of the haul road and between the East Anglia ONE and associated infrastructure (Appendix 29 (5)) between East Anglia THREE projects, this completion of the East Anglia ONE project and will be dealt with through discharge commencement of East Anglia THREE. Whilst this of Requirements contained in the proposal appears likely to be acceptable in landscape East Anglia ONE DCO and does terms, further discussion is required on the necessary not therefore form part of the East triggers for its retention/removal (as discussed above). Anglia THREE application. 67 It does not appear that impacts of this retention option have been assessed in relation to other matters, for example land use (agricultural operations). 68 Presentation of visualisations VP 16 was incorrect and an In at least one of the photomontages the location of the erratum has been circulated, buildings shown appears to be incorrect and, more following a review, no other generally on the photomontages, the labelling of ‘visible inconsistencies have been features’ does not appear to be consistent. identified. 69 It would also have been helpful (if not necessary) to the In any updated visualisations general reader if in presentations showing the mitigation project year will be stated. planting in place, the project year was stated on the visualisation. 70 In other respects the presentation of the material appears Noted to be in accordance with current best practice although the use of “computer model visualisation” is not as readily accessible as wireframe on a photograph to the general reader. 71 Sensitivity of receptors There are two reasons why The sensitivity of the same receptors (in particular of sensitivity ratings are lower in the visual receptors around the substation site) has been set LVIA for East Anglia THREE lower levels than for the assessment work carried out in compared to the LVIA for East respect of East Anglia ONE. Anglia ONE. Firstly, the methodology for rating sensitivity has changed through the replacement of GLVIA 2 with GLVIA 3. Following current guidance, sensitivity is rated through the combination of the value of each receptor and its specific susceptibility to the potential effects of the proposed development. If it is known that the influence of the proposed
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 90
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
development in respect of specific receptors will be limited, for example because of distance and / or intervening landform or woodland, then this will reduce the susceptibility and, therefore, the overall sensitivity. Secondly, the baseline has changed since the assessment of East Anglia ONE. In the East Anglia THREE assessment the baseline includes the predicted presence of the East Anglia ONE substation. This is because the consent provides a degree of certainty that it will be built. The presence of the substation changes the baseline character and in so doing, in this instance, lowers the sensitivity. This is because there is already an influence from this type of development, such that the receptors will be less susceptible to the addition of a further similar development. As set out in Appendix 29.4, the susceptibility and value of the landscape and visual receptors around the proposed East Anglia THREE substation / converter station are typically medium to give, typically, an overall medium sensitivity. There are no regional or national landscape designations covering the area around the substation / converter station, and no formal viewpoints. 72 It is understood that the contention of the applicant The changes to the methodology (Document 29.1, paragraphs 63-67) that this relates applied in the assessment of East principally to the changes in methodology that have taken Anglia THREE mostly reflect the place in the interval between the two assessments being changes in the methodology that carried out. have been implemented through the update of GLVIA 2 into GLVIA
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 91
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
3. 73 Magnitude of change Through working practice, OPEN The methodology (Document 6.1.29(1) paragraphs 5-6) have found that, by combining explicitly deviates from the current guidance on magnitude of change with Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment in respect of geographical extent and duration, the calculation of magnitude of change. over-complicates the assessment by over-loading the rating with too many different considerations. A simpler approach, in which the magnitude of change rating is kept separate and then combined with the sensitivity rating, helps to more accurately identify significant effects. This avoids the potential distortion of the significant and not significant effects, which may occur by adding in geographical extent and duration to the magnitude of change. Taking some examples from the LVIA in Chapter 29, where significant effects have been assessed in respect of the access route over the cliffs and visibility of the substation from Viewpoint 11 and 12 during the construction phase, by factoring in the short term duration and the very localised geographical extent of these effects would alter the outcome from significant to not significant. Conversely, where the operational substation gives rise to not significant effects from Viewpoints 7 and 10, by factoring in the long term nature of these effects would alter the outcome from not significant to significant. 74 Whilst the current methodology states that the size or The combination of magnitude of scale of the effect, its geographical extent and its duration change, geographical extent and and reversibility should be combined to calculate the duration can alter the findings of magnitude of change, the applicant has chosen to deviate the assessment and obscure the from this focusing on size and scale to calculate identification of significant effects, magnitude of change while reporting, but not including which is ultimately the purpose of
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 92
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
geographical extent or duration in this calculation, but the LVIA. For example, if there is a rather describing them separately. high magnitude of change but if it is 75 It is understood that the contention of the applicant is that over a very short duration then the combining all three considerations in one rating can distort finding would be that the effect will the aim of identifying significant impacts in respect of large be not significant. Conversely, if scale developments. there is a medium magnitude of change and it is over a long period of time, then the finding will be that the effect will be significant. In both cases the assessment has been distorted by the addition of duration. A more transparent assessment is possible by keeping these ratings separate, stating the magnitude of change and then whether it is significant or not, and then applying the duration to explain the short, medium or long term nature of this effect.
76 Ash dieback EATL has committed to working The application material places significant reliance on with the local authorities to refine existing woodland to screen the proposed converter the mitigation necessary for station. However, the likely impact of ash dieback adequate screening. This included (Chalara fraxinea) on these woodlands, and the a site visit with local authority consequent loss of screening, has not yet been evaluated. specialists on the 11th May 2016. Discussion with the applicant is ongoing on this matter. Discussions are ongoing and outline proposals are contained in Appendix 3. 77 Aftercare and monitoring Requirement 14 of the draft DCO A mechanism is needed to resource the aftercare secures implementation of a inspections for the works which could be a significant landscaping management scheme burden on the local authorities. which must be first approved by the relevant planning authority. Requirement 14(2)(l) provides that the landscaping management scheme must include details for maintenance of landscaping. 78 Seascape and landscape baseline In the Suffolk Coast and Heaths i) Character of the landscape AONB, it is the coast and heaths Agricultural landscapes are part of the character of the that form the main feature; the AONB and the wider countryside around and within the agricultural landscape provides a project area. The variation across the county between setting to these. these landscapes is based principally on the variations in
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 93
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
soil type and drainage. This has led to the consequent variation in land use, which has and continues to shape the variations in the landscape across Suffolk. 79 Paragraph 50 - It should be noted that agricultural Noted landscapes are a component of the character of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB rather than a detracting feature in their own right as is implied here. It is the presence, absence, or condition of characteristic features in these “agricultural landscapes” that detract from the AONB. 80 ii) The character and special qualities of the Noted AONB Paragraph 23 - The landscapes used in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Management Plan are a simplified form of the detailed Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment typology, used to provide a simple thumb nail sketch of the AONB landscape. 81 Paragraph 50 - “Erosion detracts from the scenic quality Whilst we appreciate that erosion is of coastal views” - these coastal processes are part of the natural, some of the coastal character of this landscape and a normal process of erosion appears to relate to human change and not a visual or landscape detractor. activity and therefore is a detractor. 82 Subsequent to the LVIA for this project being carried out Noted by the applicant, the character and Special Qualities of the AONB have been formally set out and published in relation to a separate project, but are applicable to the AONB as a whole and follow the recognised Natural England format. This information can be found at http://www.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/yourdistrict/sizewell/aonb- special-qualities-document/ 83 iii) Local Landscape Characterisation Noted For avoidance of doubt, as the citation does not appear to be clear in the application material, the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment was first published in 2008 and revised with guidance and other additions in 2011. This work was a joint project between SCC and District Authorities. Details can be found at www.suffolklandscape.org.uk 84 Substation assessment Noted The assessment identifies significant landscape and visual impacts in the long term (20 years) both for the operation of this project and cumulatively with the “future project”. 85 As noted above, it is important to recognise that the ScottishPower Renewables is mitigation of significant effects within 20 years is currently in discussion with Local dependent on the successful implementation and Planning Authorities on a
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 94
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
maintenance of the planting scheme for the East Anglia landscaping masterplanning ONE project (the relevant requirement in respect of East exercise for the Bramford Anglia ONE has yet to be discharged) and the continued substation the outcome of which health of existing woodland blocks (the impact of ash will provide detail of East Anglia dieback on these has also yet to be resolved). This is ONE landscaping proposals as well recognised in the Design and Access Statement as likely landscaping proposals for (Document 8.3, paragraph 31). future projects, including East Anglia THREE. EATL has committed to working with the local authorities to refine the mitigation necessary for adequate screening. This included a site visit with local authority specialists on the 11th May 2016. Discussions are ongoing and outline proposals are provided in Appendix 2.
86 It should be noted that the off-site planting in the East It is considered that any mitigation Anglia ONE section 106 Agreement is also important for measures required for East Anglia the acceptability of the East Anglia THREE proposal. THREE will be within the substation red line boundary or existing woodlands immediately around it. Outline proposals are included within Appendix 2 87 Assessment of the onshore cable route Noted Paragraph 17 - “designation of AONB relates directly to the constituent LCT’s” - this is not the case as the LCT’s post-date, by over 30 years, the designation of the AONB - however the LCT’s do capture to some extent the character and special qualities of the designated area. 88 The sensitivity of the Suffolk Coast Path should be “High” The rating of sensitivity is based on throughout given that it is a nationally promoted route a combination of the value and the within a nationally designated landscape and the users of susceptibility of the landscape or which have high expectations and sensitivity in relation the visual receptors. GLVIA 3, in visual amenity of the landscape. paragraph 5.42 states; 'Since landscape effects in LVIA are particular to both the specific landscape in question and the specific nature of the proposed development, the assessment of susceptibility must be tailored to the project.' This means that the susceptibility part of the rating
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 95
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
considers susceptibility in respect of the potential effects of the specific proposed development. In Appendix 29.2, Section 29.4.8.2, the susceptibility of the Suffolk Coast Path is assessed to be medium to high. The principal attraction from the coast path is the view along the coast and out to sea and not inland to the agricultural landscape. Furthermore, as the cable route will be some distance from the path and will not be visible during construction or operation, the susceptibility of walkers to the effects of the proposed development will be lower, regardless of the value of the path. The sensitivity rating is, therefore, not concerned with the general sensitivity of walkers, but their specific sensitivity to the potential effects of the particular development being assessed. The overall rating of susceptibility is therefore, medium to high. In terms of the rating of value, a blanket value of high should not be applied to every area or feature of national importance. As stated in GLVIA3; 'The value of landscape receptors will to some degree reflect landscape designations and the level of importance which they signify, although there should not be over-reliance on designations as the sole indicator of value.' In Appendix 29.2, Section 29.4.8.2, the value of the Suffolk Coast Path is assessed to be medium to high. 89 OLEMS Noted This document is acceptable in terms of landscape issues, having been based on the document prepared for the East Anglia ONE project and subject to detail review during the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 96
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
pre- application process. Ecological effects 90 SCC has two main concerns that it would wish to see discussed further. 91 Impact on skylarks According to the locations of The impact on skylarks has not been mitigated (based on skylarks plotted in the breeding bird the 2012 Breeding Bird Surveys (see Fig 24.12.3, Sheet survey report in Appendix 24.1 of 22 in Doc 6.3.24 (1))). The Environmental Statement the ES, there would not be any indicates that 1-2 pairs will be displaced by the substation territories directly lost to the site and associated planting. footprint of the substation, as 92 The development would result in a permanent loss of shown in Figure 1 of the OLEMS. habitat for skylarks, which are a Priority Species, and The few territories likely to be therefore, in accordance with paragraph 5.3.17 of NPS present are to the west of the EN-1 which requires that the ExA/SoS should ensure that existing substation, and unlikely to species and habitats of principal importance “should be be disturbed during construction. protected from the adverse effects of development by One skylark record (in June only) using requirements or planning obligations”, SCC believes was within the area prescribed for this loss should be compensated for. earth mounding, and so some 93 Although this is accepted as not being a significant impact short-term loss of suitable habitat in EIA terms, SCC has successfully secured a planning may result until habitats re- obligation in respect to a similar situation in association establish themselves. However, that being the granting of The Progress Power (Gas Fired this would not necessarily result in Power Station) Order 2015. a reduction in breeding pairs to the local area.
94 Retention of haul road As set out above, installation of the SCC remains concerned over the potential impact of long export cable is no longer proposed term retention of the haul road on bats and in particular to be phased. It will not be the adequacy of mitigation to ensure that the impacts are necessary to retain temporary properly controlled. Any further evidence that the works between any phasing of the applicant can provide to show that such measures would wind farm or onshore substation for be effective would be welcomed. the East Anglia THREE project. To the extent that temporary infrastructure may be retained between the East Anglia ONE and East Anglia THREE projects, this will be dealt with through discharge of Requirements contained in the East Anglia ONE DCO and does not therefore form part of the East Anglia THREE application. Notwithstanding the above, further detail is provided on bat mitigation at Appendix 1.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 97
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
95 OLEMS It is intended that the OLEMS will The draft OLEMS has successfully transposed all the ES be updated as necessary requirements except Appendix 1 Hedgerow Schedule throughout the examination to refers to important hedgerows with “greater than” 1 pass capture any further points raised by of Barbastelle rather than “at least” 1 pass. stakeholders. 96 Paragraph 192 – bird nesting season should refer to March to August inclusive. 97 Paragraph 115 – should refer to Little Blakenham Pit SSSI. 98 As Natural England has provided comments on Protected Noted. EATL have also replied to Species surveys, SCC does not intend to also comment. Natural England's Relevant Representation. Archaeological effects 99 The cable corridor for East Anglia THREE largely follows Noted. The area evaluated was to the same route, and uses the same land, as that for East include the cable trenches for the Anglia ONE. In advance of East Anglia ONE, this corridor East Anglia THREE project. Fifty has been archaeologically evaluated. Extensive and areas have been identified as significant archaeological remains were identified during requiring some form of mitigation this process, as a result of which SCC Archaeological either pre-construction Set Piece Service (SCCAS) and Historic England have Excavation (SPE), pre-construction recommended a programme of archaeological mitigation, Strip, Map and Excavate (SME) or including several large areas of excavation, to be Watching Brief (WB) during undertaken in advance of the start of works. construction as part of a draft Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for East Anglia ONE submitted to SCCAS and Historic England (HE) for comment (May 2016). 100 SCCAS understands that the consent for East Anglia ONE Noted. As above, should the East includes the totality of the land required for Anglia THREE cable trench, undergrounding of cables for both East Anglia ONE and substation or construction activities East Anglia THREE, and bases its advice on this extend outside of the evaluated understanding. area then additional evaluation or mitigation may be required subject to the requirements of SCCAS and HE. 101 The only additional area identified for East Anglia THREE The East Anglia THREE substation is the site of the proposed substation adjacent to the area was separately evaluated National Grid substation at Bramford. This area was prior to the East Anglia ONE archaeologically evaluated separately from East Anglia evaluation and demonstrated ONE. The results of these investigations were relatively low archaeological inconclusive, although they did demonstrate low potential potential. Localised areas of pre- for extensive archaeological remains. construction Set Piece Excavation
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 98
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
102 However, archaeological evaluation undertaken as part of (SPE) and Watching Brief during East Anglia ONE immediately south and east of the East construction has been proposed Anglia THREE converter station site, identified a number immediately south (WB), west of features of archaeological interest, including undated (WB) and east (SPE) of the ditches and pits, and further pits of Late Iron-Age date. previous evaluation trenches in the This suggests that there is potential for discrete features of draft WSI submitted to SCCAS and later prehistoric or early Roman date within the area of the HE (May 2016). Substation. Any groundworks associated with the proposed development have the potential to damage or destroy any archaeological remains that may exist. 103 SCCAS, therefore, recommends that groundworks associated with the proposed converter station, including preparation of the site, are archaeologically monitored to ensure that any heritage assets that may exist are appropriately investigated and recorded. In order to ensure that the understanding of the significance of any heritage asset encountered is advanced and recorded an appropriate requirement is necessary and the draft Requirement 20 is acceptable. Water resources 105 SCC as the Lead Local Flood Authority is content with the Noted assessment presented in the application. SCC would be responsible for issuing Land Drainage Consents where works affect an ordinary water course which is not in the control of the East Suffolk Internal Drainage Board 106 Schedule of water crossings Once the onshore cable route is in This does not list who the consenting body would be: EA, the final design stage the crossing IDB or SCC for the respective crossings and this would be list will be updated for relevant helpful. water bodies and consenting bodies included at that time 107 From SCC perspective, if there is already a duct in or Noted. under a watercourse and it is intended to use it for additional cabling, so long as there isn’t a new crossing, consent would not be required. 108 Sustainable drainage The sustainable drainage solution We note that Table 21.3 in Document 6.2.21 the intention for the substation location will be to limit run-off at the substation through infiltration progressed post consent. There techniques, but note that the ground conditions will make has already been some preliminary this challenging and that attenuation ponds are likely to be work of relevance undertaken by necessary. East Anglia ONE and EATL will 109 This issue needs to be approached with careful build upon this. consideration and understanding of site conditions and the current and future behaviour/volume of surface water having regard to ground conditions, site topography
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 99
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
(which will change through remodelling) and land cover (including the access road). 110 We would note that regard must be hard to the current guidelines on SuDs, which have recently been updated and suggest that a single treatment stage is likely to be insufficient. 111 We welcome the commitment in Table 21.3 to explore synergies with the principles and provisions of the Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy (Document 8.6). We also consider that looking at a site wide solution at Bramford encompassing the East Anglia ONE, THREE and future projects would be sensible. 112 Flood risk assessment The Flood Risk Assessment will be The FRA is very general, and a specific Drainage Strategy updated post consent once further will need to be designed, submitted and approved which design details are known. This will reflects both local and national policy/guidance. make reference to SCCs Flood and Reference should be made to SCC’s Flood & Water water management guidance. Management guidance which can be found here: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding- and-drainage/guidance-on-development-and-flood-risk/ 113 Surface water Noted. When updating the FRA Paragraph 34 - Figure 21.2.2 is incorrect and the and determining drainage predicted Surface Water Flood Map should have been requirements post consent a requested and provided by SCC Flood & Water Team. request will be made for the relevant information from SCC at that time. 114 Substation(s) compound surface water The Flood Risk Assessment will be Paragraph 53 - The applicant needs to confirm the updated post consent and any “lifetime of development” as this will impact the climate changes or amendments (such as change value to be used. This is due to changes this) will be incorporated in the final nationally how climate change percentages are calculated. version. 115 Paragraph 54 – bullet point 4 should be amended to read “Filtering out pollutants via treatment stages; and” 116 Paragraph 55 – The applicant will have to demonstrate, using infiltration testing to BRE365, that infiltration will work on any of the development area. 117 Requirements Noted Notwithstanding the above, we are content that Requirements 18 and 22 provide sufficient opportunity for us to ensure that flood risk does not increase as a result of the development Coastal matters 118 Suffolk Coastal District Council is the Coastal Protection Noted Authority, but SCC offers the following comments.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 100
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
119 The Environmental Statement (Document 6.1.5) states The transition bays will be located that the transition bay compounds constructed as part of within 5b; the final locations will be Work 5b will be approximately 180m from “the top of the subject to detailed design which cliff” (paragraph 340). The top of the cliff is moving and will be dictated by East Anglia ONE will have done so significantly by the start of construction. as EAOL are installing ducts for Greater clarity would be beneficial and consideration use by East Anglia THREE. The should be given as to whether more precision should be location of the transition bays and added to the DCO on this point. indeed the ducts will be "future proofed" to ensure that there is no risk of exposure due to eroding coast line. The 180m figure given was indicative. 120 Document 6.1.5 refers to “the regulator” being the Noted determining authority as to whether the cable should be left in situ or not (paragraph 356). This should rather be Suffolk Coastal District Council, the Coastal Protection Authority. 121 Monitoring provisions are likely to be required in the East As the ducts for East Anglia Anglia THREE DCO to mirror those in the East Anglia THREE are to be installed under ONE (Condition 10(i) of the Deemed Marine Licence). the East Anglia ONE DCO it is The Consultation Report (Document 5.2(38), paragraph, appropriate that the requirement for p133) states that the provisions in the East Anglia ONE monitoring the ducts is included in DCO in relation to monitoring coastal change are sufficient the East Anglia ONE DML. for the East Anglia THREE project, but SCC would query Notwithstanding this, the applicant whether this is appropriate given these will be two will discuss this matter further with separate projects, potentially under different ownership the MMO. (once transmission assets have been transferred to an OFTO) and so each party needs to be held responsible. Public Rights of Way (PRoW) 122 PROW- SCC considers that the assessment undertaken is Noted generally adequate, although there is an issue with the terminology used and also with some contradiction between text and the DCO and associated plans as to what is intended. 123 The comments below are based on the information in: • Document 2.6 – Temporary Stopping of Public Rights of Way Plans • Document 6.1.22 – Land use chapter of the ES • Document 6.2.22 – Figures that support Document 6.1.22 • Document 6.3.22 (2) – Land Use Data Tables • Document 6.3.27 (5) – Construction material quantities and associated HGV demand (single phase) • Document 3.1 – Development Consent Order
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 101
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
• Document 8.1 – Outline Code of Construction Practice • Document 8.3 – Design and Access Statement 124 Terminology Appendix 3 to this letter includes Terminology in the documentation needs to be clarified as an updated version of 22.2.3 this the word “diversion” has a legal meaning which suggests a includes the revised nomenclature. permanent arrangement. It is preferable to use the phrase “temporarily stopped up and alternative route” provided. 125 For example paragraph 133 (Document 6.1.22) should consider alternative phraseology where the last sentence concludes in the word “diversion” and similarly paragraph 138 uses the word “diverted". 126 Clarity/consistency Appendix 3 provides a worked Table 22.2.3 in Document 6.3.22(2) lists the PRoW and example showing how the HGV the extent of their interaction with the works. It is not clear movements have been derived for how the figures provided for HGV movements in Table each access point. 22.2.3 relate to those presented in Document 6.3.27(5) which calculates HGV demand through each Access point . 127 As an example Table 3a suggests 242 HGVs (484 movements) using access A are needed to complete a single phase development. This seems to be significantly more than that suggested in Table 22.2.3 passing through Access A. 128 The column “Diversion Required” in Table 22.3.2 also The phrasing in Appendix 3 has leads to some confusion, particularly when read alongside been changed to either the DCO. “temporarily stopped up and alternative route provided" or “temporarily stopped up and no alternative route provided". 129 While a ‘Yes’ indicates that the PRoW needs to be The revised table has been temporarily stopped up and an alternative route is to be amended to clarify the position. provided, it is apparent that a ‘No’ in this column is Only where an alternative is ambiguous, it either means; provided is there a 'Yes'. No a. The ProW is proposed to be stopped up and no indicates that there is no alternative alternative route is to be provided, for example, or to be provided (whether there is b. The PRoW is not affected by the development and temporary stopping up or not). therefore does not need to be stopped up or an alternative route to be provided. 130 The final column “Extent of Interaction” then describes This column has been amended to how the PRoW interfaces with the development and, if show there is a ‘Yes’, in the preceding column, how that 1 - the extent in metres of any alternative route will be provided, although not consistently interaction (unchanged) so. 2 - the start and end points of any stopping up (cross referenced to
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 102
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Document 2.6). 131 DCO/Document 2.6 A meeting was held on 25th May to The DCO, in Schedule 3 “Public Rights of Way to be clarify the approach to PRoW. temporarily stopped up” lists all PRoW to be stopped up, Powers are required to temporarily not differentiating between whether an alternative route is stop up all the PRoWs scheduled to be provided or not, as established, albeit not entirely in the draft DCO. However in all clearly, in Table 22.2.3. but one case (the bridleway at the 132 Our recommendation is that Schedule 3 should be split in substation) no alternative is the manner that Schedule 3 is split in the East Anglia ONE provided as PRoW User / Order – that being a Part 1 “Rights of way for which a Construction traffic will be replacement will be provided during stopping up” and a managed through the use of Part 2 “Rights of way for which no replacement will be signage and banksmen. It is provided during the temporary stopping up”. considered that given the volume 133 As written, the DCO provides powers to stop up of HGVs and duration of works this temporarily a large number of PRoW without an alternative is the most appropriate solution. being clearly provided. This mitigation, including the proposed alternative route at the substation location, is secured through the Outline Code of Construction Practice. The rationale for retaining the powers to temporarily stop up is explained in Appendix 3.
134 We would recommend that Document 2.6, to which As discussed on the 25th May, the Schedule 3 is tied and which shows where PRoW will be intention is that an alternative will temporarily stopped up, is updated to also clearly mark only be provided at the substation where an alternative route will be provided, reflecting the for bridleway W-155-100/001/0. In commentary in the column “Extent of Interaction” in Table all other cases signage and 22.2.3. The alternative route need not be an alternative banksmen will be deployed. PRoW, but could be provided by the applicant within the Order limits. The PRoW plans will be updated to 135 Document 2.6 currently uses the terminology: reflect the agreed strategy with the • Public Footpath/Bridleway/Restricted Byway to be legend updated to reflect SCC’s temporarily stopped up preferred terminology. • Public Footpath/Bridleway/Restricted Byway to be temporarily diverted 136 We would prefer: • Public Footpath/Bridleway/Restricted Byway to be temporarily stopped up with no alternative provided • Public Footpath/Bridleway/Restricted Byway to be temporarily stopped up with alternative provided 137 This corrects the terminology issue with use of the term ‘diversion’ and would align with the suggested revision to
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 103
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Schedule 3 of the DCO – which as discussed does not differentiate between where an alternative is and is not proposed to be provided. 138 Document 2.6 would also benefit from marking on the Noted. Document 2.6 will be access points A-AL (which Table 22.2.3 uses to updated to include the access order/reference the PRoW) and the location of the jointing points as shown in Document 6.5 pits and haul road as show in Figures 22.6a-g – which Access to Works Plans. better illustrates to the reader why a particular PRoW needs to be temporarily stopped up. 139 Extent of stopping up As discussed on 25th May, Notwithstanding the above, the only locations where SCC temporary stopping up will be would expect a temporary stopping up to be required required whilst any access routes would be where the haul road runs along/across a PRoW are upgraded (if necessary) and it is deemed unsafe for the HGV and public to share otherwise management will be via it. banksmen and signage. 140 Given the levels of vehicular movements involved (as This is EATL’s intention. The shown in Table 22.2.3 – but which need to be verified), vehicle movements are provided to generally, our expectation is that formally stopping up the highlight the expected level of PRoW will be unnecessary and rather management demand and practicality of measures can be used to ensure safety. management being achieved 141 Indeed this is the also the strategy described in the through soft measures in most Environmental Statement: Paragraph 132 states: cases. The powers to temporarily Once the haul road is installed across the PRoW, further stop up must be retained to ensure management measures (i.e. signage) would ensure that that management measures haul road users are aware of the potential for PRoW users required for safe coexistence of to cross their path, and PRoW users are aware of the PRoW users and construction hazards to allow both to operate together safely. traffic can be put in place.
142 Though we would add, that even during construction of For the purposes of precision we the haul road across a PRoW, it could be possible to have highlighted a temporary provide safe continuity of access. stopping up in all cases even if this would in practice only be for the time of laying or removing haul road and active management during deliveries etc. 143 There are apparently few locations where it seems unlikely This was agreed on 25th May; safe access can be retained during the works, one therefore in the revised proposals example being Bridleway W-155/002/0 where there are (see Appendix 3) this is the only proposed to be 112 HGV movements per day at peak location where an alternative route (Table 22.2.3). is shown. 144 Where a temporary stopping up is required / provided for As discussed on 25th May, this is in the DCO, an alternative route should ordinarily be the intention in the updated provided. We could not support the temporary stopping proposals - access would be up of important PRoW for an unsecured period of time maintained for the majority of
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 104
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
without an alternative route being secured. One example PRoWs and interaction between would be E-388/016/0 which is part of the popular PRoW Users and construction Martlesham Circular walk. traffic would be managed by banksmen and signage. 145 There appears to be some errors/omissions in Table a) There is no misalignment. 22.2.3 which prevent us from taking a definitive view at A worked example is this point about the likelihood of the need to temporarily provided in Appendix 3 to stop a PRoW. For example: show where these numbers a. Apparent misalignment with HGV figures provided in are calculated. Table 3a of Document 6.3.27(5) b) This is an error, at this b. in the case of E-388/016/0, the proposed ‘diversion’ is location the haul road described as being parallel to the existing PRoW, but at crosses the PRoW (CC - this point the PRoW is perpendicular to the haul road so DD) so any stopping up this doesn’t appear to make particular sense. would just be for laying / c. it is not clear why the HGV movements through Access removal. P are not the same across each of the PRoW. The c) This is an error in the table. average daily flow of HGVs leaving cycle Regional Route The figures should be the 41 (Waldringfield Road) is 37.3, with a similar number same for each PRoW crossing/using PRoW E-388/046/0; E-388/045/0; E- affected at Access P. The 388/016/0, but only 18.7 crossing E-388/044/0, which revised table in Appendix 3 must be used to access E-388/046/0. corrects this. 146 Further discussions are required with the applicant to A meeting was held on 25th May to clarify the PRoW proposals having regard to the issues discuss the points raised by SCC. identified above and SCC will update the Examining Agreement was reached on the Authority in due course. approach for each PRoW affected as set out above. 147 Outline Code of Construction Practice Following the discussions on the SCC supports the approach set out in paragraph 63 of the 25th of May and agreements CoCP and paragraphs 71-73 of the DAS; that being where reached, it is intended to update the haul road intersects a PRoW, no temporary stopping the OCoCP, expanding the section up would be required, management measures could be on PRoW with content provided in used. Furthermore, where a PRoW is also a point of Appendix 3. access (for example a farm track is also a bridleway), if a temporary stopping is required due to the level of movements, any temporary stopping up should be kept to the minimum duration possible and an alternative route should be provided. However, this is not quite what is articulated through the DCO and supporting plans, as set out above. Traffic and transport 148 Transport assessment & Outline Travel Plan A sensitivity test, for which the The Transport Assessment (TA) refers to an assessment methodology was agreed with based upon a minimum car share ratio of 2.5, which is SCC, assesses the additional considered ambitious. The analysis of travel surveys from traffic resulting from an employee
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 105
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
the Sizewell B Dry Fuel Store scheme is of interest. This to vehicle ratio (EVR) of 1.5 for noted that “those car sharing tended to be gangs who resident workers and the resultant knew each other beforehand and travelled to work as a impact on sensitive junctions. A gang, sharing the same local bed and breakfast note was produced of the findings accommodation.” It wasn’t clear how many people shared and submitted to SCC for review a vehicle but it was mostly cars. The analysis showed an on the 10th May. The updated aggregated car share ratio of 1.14 to 1.27. This document incorporating SCC’s comparison is considered more relevant than those used comments received on 31st May is in the TA, namely Heathrow’s Terminal 5 given its local appended as Appendix 4. The relevance. note concludes that a lower EVR 149 The TA emphasises the importance of an effective travel for local workers would result in an plan; the ambitious target set for East Anglia THREE increase in traffic flows through all cannot be considered a worst case scenario as suggested junctions, but no additional in paragraphs 116 to 118. junctions to those identified within Chapter 27 of the ES are considered to exhibit significant impacts.
150 Recognising the Outline Travel Plan (OTP) proposal will The Outline Travel Plan (OTP) rely on mini buses to deliver the 2.5 minimum figure, para. 91 states “multiple pick-ups paragraph 91 of that document makes reference to pick would be made within the Ipswich up points from the A12 and A14 at locations to avoid area intercepting employees at impact on key junctions. This statement does not their residence and the train station recognise the limited number of locations to facilitate this (if applicable)”. However, OTP ambition and thus effectiveness of this approach is para. 106 refers to mini-bus pick therefore not currently accepted. up points. The intent is to pick up employees at their journey origin rather than create satellite park and ride facilities. Notwithstanding this, EATL does not wish to preclude the contractor from identifying potential P&R/pick up sites if that would represent a better solution in respect to reducing traffic demand. Full details of the pick-up strategy would be agreed with SCC prior to commencement of construction. 151 To achieve the ambitious car share equivalent of 2.5, EATL would not wish to discourage detailed information on monitoring and enforcement is those employees who may be needed. The OTP refers to managing the on-site parking based locally and would potentially facility and monitoring the local area. It is recommended wish to walk or cycle to work from that this is enhanced with monitoring workers accessing doing so. Workers who wish to the site by foot/cycle with information on their point of walk or cycle to site would be
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 106
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
origin to further inform action. required to provide their details to the Travel Plan Co-ordinator who would then issue them with a pass. Those applying for a pass will be required to provide details of their journey origin to discourage longer trips parking locally and then walking/cycling into site.
Cycling and walking trips would be monitored simultaneously with car park occupancy in accordance with the monitoring and review strategy set out in the OTP (Section 7.9). Those entering the site would be cross referenced to their journey origin to ascertain if they had made a 'single mode' trip. In summary, EATL are willing to accept the requirement for additional cycle and walking monitoring and this will be incorporated into a full Travel Plan to be informed by the main contractor and submitted prior to the start of construction. 152 Section 2.10.3 refers to three stages of enforcement, with The corrective process commits an implementation time provided for the outcome of stage the Travel Plan Co-ordinator to 2; however no information is provided on the time for each producing a report for the relevant stage of the process, which could lead to a significant authorities within seven days on delay in dealing with off-site parking issues - further detail receipt of notification of a potential and assurance is required. breach. Therefore by definition, the timescale for corrective action will be seven days to ensure if the same breach is notified again it is escalated to the next stage.
153 Although cycling is not considered significant, it is Whilst not precluding cycling as a identified for access from North Ipswich. Although the travel choice for workers, it is not OTP references a cycle distance of 8km, SCC considers considered a viable mode of travel 5km more appropriate and has identified this in the and no allowance has been made council’s Local Transport Plan. in the impact assessment for 154 Levels of cycling along rural roads, particularly during the journeys made by cycle. This is winter are unlikely to be high and the influence of lighting confirmed in paragraph 76 and 77
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 107
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
on behaviour is not considered. The OTP recognises that of the OTP. trips by rail would need to be multi-modal and an early The OTP paragraph 91 states comment refers to minibus pick up for rail trips, it should “multiple pick-ups would be made be noted that there are limitations for carrying bikes on within the Ipswich area intercepting trains and therefore any rail trip is likely to require minibus employees at their residence and pick up. the train station (if applicable)”. 155 The TA has assumed this minimum car share ratio, even See row 148 for the sensitivity testing associated with the workforce distribution. Therefore without more certainty about the delivery of this plan, it is recognised that the impact of workforce trips to the primary CCS may have greater impacts than currently identified. 156 Road safety mitigation Link 19. Table 2 of the Outline CC notes the proposals in paragraphs 195 – 201. Link 19, Traffic Management Plan sets out 21 and 27 that traffic movements along Link • Link 19 some localised road widening and TM at the 19 would be managed through this narrow point has been agreed for the East Anglia ONE narrow section with the use of proposals and it is expected that East Anglia THREE either traffic signals or stop go would inherit the road widening and do similar traffic boards. As a general rule EATL management at the narrow point. would utilise the highway • Link 21 - localised temporary 30mph speed limits are improvements implemented for proposed but it is not clear where they are - just at the East Anglia One if they remain in accesses or over a longer length in which case concerns situ. If the improvements have about compliance might arise. Some further clarification is been reinstated, the traffic required. management strategy for the link • Link 27 – the proposal to limit the timings of HGV would be reviewed in context with movements is acceptable. the characteristics of the East Anglia THREE traffic and appropriate measures agreed with SCC and submitted in the full Traffic Management Plan prior to the commencement of construction.
Link 21. The localised temporary speed limit for link 21 is proposed to cover the access only (with appropriate forward visibility). This will maximise compliance by ensuring that the public can see the link between the construction works and temporary speed limit. The exact extent will be subject to agreement with SCC and
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 108
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
submitted in the full Outline Access Management Plan prior to the commencement of construction.
Link 27. Noted. 157 Sensitivity test The commitment to undertake Section 27.6.4.6.3 identifies that further work will be further assessment of sensitive required to assess the impact on specific junctions junctions prior to commencement following consent and the appointment of the contractor. of construction is contained within Assurance needs to be given that this assessment needs paragraph 61 of the Outline Traffic to be undertaken, agreed and implemented prior to Management Plan and is therefore commencement of works and that sensitivity testing will be secured. needed to assess the impact of non-delivery of the minimum car share ratio. 158 It is noted that a high level assessment of impacts for Noted Lowestoft Port have been included; this will need a more detailed review once the port to be used has been confirmed. 159 Throughout, the assessment has been based on the 1993 WebTAG guidance is referred to in Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road National Policy Statement for Traffic, this reference is considered out of date, having Energy (EN-1) as follows: "the been superseded by WebTAG guidance. applicant’s ES should include a transport assessment, using the NATA/WebTAG methodology stipulated in Department for Transport guidance, or any successor" In this context, the requirement is for a transport assessment compliant with DfT Guidance on transport assessments (GTA) to supplement the ES. This guidance (now withdrawn and replaced by Planning Practice Guidance) focusses on the impacts of development traffic on the operation of the transport network (e.g. capacity, delay) and does not provide advice on how to undertake a fully (EU Directive) compliant EIA. Therefore, GTA (and successors) do not supersede the 1993 Guidelines for the Environmental
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 109
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Assessment of Road Traffic (GEART) but serve to provide input data for a full EIA Transport Chapter. GEART remains the current guidance for producing a compliant EIA Transport Chapter. 160 Additional comments: Table 27.8 provides a review of • Table 27.8 – the lack of a footway on Paper Mill Lane existing sensitivity of the link. The should be noted chapter closely follows GEART and • Table 27.11, p32 - it would help if the column notes that the sensitivity of a road “incorporating the towns of” allocated each link was the can be defined by the type of user same as in Table 27.12, i.e. link 5 includes Colchester. groups who may use it, e.g. elderly • Paragraph 146 - temporary speed limits seem to be the people or children and a sensitive first choice. These will not be effective without other area may be a village, or where measures (see below). pedestrian or cyclist activity may be • Paragraph 148 – omits reference to links 3,14 and 16. high for example in the vicinity of a school. The lack of a footway is therefore not a material consideration when assigning sensitivity for a given link but is a consideration when assessing the effects of severance and pedestrian amenity should this impact on the sensitive receptors identified. In the case of Paper Mill Lane few sensitive receptors were identified that would generate footfall and therefore the lack of a footway was not considered material to the impact assessment. Table 27.11 shows the distribution of in-migrant labour whilst table 27.12 shows the distribution of resident workers. The tables reflect the availability of accommodation for in-migrant labour within 45 minutes and availability of suitably skilled resident labour within 60 minutes for resident workers, therefore some destinations will not appear for in-migrants when they may appear for residents and vice versa.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 110
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Paragraph 146 - Regarding compliance with temporary speed limits the 'Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8' prescribes the use of temporary speed limits when safe stopping distance cannot be achieved. Where this is the case, advance warning of roadworks/site access will encourage drivers to slow in the knowledge that there is a hazard ahead. Para 148 - The paragraph lists all links that are above GEART screening thresholds, as links 3, 14 and 16 are all below GEART screening thresholds they are not listed for further assessment. 161 Lower Road, Westerfield An assessment of the potential This road is identified as Link 39 in the transport traffic impacts upon Henley Road assessment (Document 6.1.27). Table 27.8 records this has been undertaken to link of being high sensitivity due to its close proximity to understand the suitability of this as residential properties. The Link can be seen in Figure an alternative route to Lower Road. 27.6 in Document 6.1.27(a). Figure 27.3 indicates that A note was submitted for SCC's this road is to be used as the route from the B1077 (HGV review on 10th May and comments Distributor Route) for traffic heading towards access AD. received on 27th May. A revised 162 This link is expressly forbidden for vehicles linked to the version of the note incorporating construction of East Anglia ONE and we believe this these comments is included as should also be true for East Anglia THREE. Indeed it is Appendix 5 to this letter. already signposted as “Unsuitable for HGVs”. The assessment concludes that 163 Our preference is that traffic heading towards access AD, subject to appropriate mitigation should, upon heading north from the A1214, use Henley (avoiding school start and finish Road, and not route via the B1077, then Lower Road and times and installing warning signs) then on to Henley Road. However, with the use of the Henley Road could be used southern stretch of Henley Road we would require a instead of Lower Road. EATL has commitment for HGV vehicles to avoid school pickup/drop therefore committed to this strategy off times (this principle is captured in the Outline Traffic and the change will be Management Plan (Document 8.7, paragraph 42)). incorporated in the full Access 164 Our reasoning for such an approach is that: Management Plan and Traffic a) SCC has worked for several years with Westerfield Management Plan to be submitted Parish Council to reduce the impact of east-west-east for SCC's approval prior to traffic through the village – a lot of this traffic is through commencement on site. traffic using Lower Road as a commuter rat run across the SCC confirmed on 27th May that north of Ipswich. SCC is just about to install two fixed they are content with the Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) and enhanced gateway assessment.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 111
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
features. Use of Lower Road for East Anglia THREE would be counter to the strong feelings within the village to deter traffic on this route; b) While there are a few localised points of conflict on Lower Road, there are none on Henley Road. Any point of conflict is an accident waiting to happen and an unacceptable risk; and c) The junction of Lower Road with the B1077 is problematic – leaving Lower Road the visibility is severely restricted looking south by a property on the corner and is partially restricted looking north by a curve in the road. Slow moving HGV’s leaving Lower Road would be a hazard to traffic on the B1077. 165 Outline Traffic Management Plan Appendix 1, Figure 1 of the Outline Table 1 - reference should be made to say that the B1078 Traffic Management Plan details west of Ashbocking will not be used by construction traffic. the routes that HGVs will be permitted to use. It states that no HGVs will be permitted to route via the B1078. 166 Confirmation is also needed that Paper Mill Lane will not Appendix 1, Figure 1 of the Outline be used by any construction traffic south of the accesses Traffic Management Plan details at the northern end, and no construction traffic to pass the routes that HGVs will be through Sproughton. permitted to use. It states that no HGVs will be permitted to route south of the access from Paper Mill Lane or south of Bullen Lane through Sproughton. 167 Table 2 - reference is made to Accesses AH and AI Noted located being directly off a HGV distributor route. That is not true; the B1113 is rather a Local Access Lorry Route, but this should not cause a problem. 168 Paragraph 56 makes reference to highway condition Noted. surveys, which SCC supports and would wish to agree the locations for the use of a deflectograph at the earliest opportunity. 169 The Figures associated with this document (Figures 6, 75- As set out above (see row 161), 79) refer to the use of Lower Road Westerfield, which as Henley Road will be used in the noted above, we do not support. Figures 75-79 also Access Management Plan instead appear to omit points of conflict that would exist if traffic of Lower Road. was routed on that road. The Figures also do not appear to show a westbound low loader swept path analysis for Lower Road. 170 Outline Access Management Plan This issue was discussed with SCC Paragraph 31 - reference is made to a design speed for at the East Anglia THREE - Local
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 112
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
visibility of 50kph (31mph) being assumed for a 30mph Authority Steering Group meeting speed limit. This is not accepted. In 30mph speed limits on the 20th October 2015 where the mean speeds are often above this value. the access strategy was set out. 171 Also, the Department for Transport document TD9/93 The access strategy proposes to suggests a design speed for a 30mph speed limit should avoid the need to remove existing be 60kph. It is suggested that where the OAMP refers to hedges; trees etc. to achieve 50kph design speed this should be changed to 60kph. visibility splays for temporary There will be a need to change the corresponding visibility works, and rather proposes to splays from 70m to 90m. There are numerous instances employ temporary speed limits to change. This should include Figures 34, 35 and 36. and/or traffic management measures where visibility splays in compliance with the existing speed limit would not be achieved. Developing this ethos it was felt that a 50kph design speed reflected the adjacent highway characteristics for the majority of the access sites (i.e. narrow, winding roads with estimated speeds below 30mph) and compliant visibility splays would balance the need to maintain highway safety but minimise environmental impact. This 'rule of thumb' is assessed in Table 4 of the Outline Access Management Plan whereby if a 30mph limit is proposed the highway characteristic is reviewed to see if a 50kph visibility splay is suitable. If the characteristics are not conducive for a 50kph approach or if the visibility splay requirement cannot be met this is noted in the table and further traffic management measures are set out. 172 Paragraph 36 - reference is made to the outcome of a The safety audit process is set out safety audit. It is stated that the design team would in HD19/15 and referenced in the respond to any problems identified by accepting the safety Outline Access Management Plan. audit recommendation or proposing alternatives. This Section 3 of HD19/15 notes that: does not close out the issue if the safety auditors do not It is the Project Sponsor’s [Suffolk accept the alternative proposed. SCC requires some text County Council] responsibility to to be added to confirm that works will not commence until ensure that all problems raised by
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 113
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
the safety audit team has confirmed its acceptance of the the Road Safety Audit Team are design and SCC, as Highway Authority, agree to the given due consideration. To assist outcome. with this, the Design Team must prepare a Road Safety Audit Response Report to the Road Safety Audit Report at the Stage 1, Combined 1 & 2, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Road Safety Audits. In accordance with these standards, works would not start at that stage until SCC has approved the Road Safety Audit Response Report. This is implicit in the process but explicit text can be added to the full Access Management Plan to be submitted prior to commencement. 173 Reference is made to temporary 30mph speed limits. Our See row rows 160 and 170 - 171 advice to the applicant has been that the implementation of a temporary 30mph speed limit will not deliver speeds of 30mph unless there is enforcement or there are other measures. The applicant has not stated what will be proposed if the speeds are not close to 30mph. 174 Figure 21 shows that the swept path over-rides the verge, Figure 21 shows that the body of while there are no swept paths show in Figure 23. the vehicle would pass over the highway verge, however the wheels (depicted by the green line on the figure) would remain within the metalled highway surface. It should be noted all drawings are based on ordnance survey mapping and as such there is a degree of tolerance to each. Should any unforeseen overriding of the highway verge occur, paragraphs 56 to 58 of the Outline Traffic Management Plan commit to highway condition surveys and the repair of any damage to the public highway. Figure 23 relates to the access to the Primary Construction Consolidation Site E. To gain access to this site would require
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 114
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
the removal of the existing central island. The detail of this access arrangement is being developed as part of implementation of the East Anglia ONE project and it is proposed that East Anglia THREE would adopt the same approach. Socio-economic assessment 175 Summary As identified in Table 28.2 of the The application does not include a thorough analysis of Socio Economic Impact the labour market and skills context of the area in which Assessment, the labour market and the development will take place and a number of the skills assessment uses trusted data conclusions drawn are contradictory to the body of sources such as Experian Labour evidence presenting from other sources and the Market Statistics; Great Britain experience of those currently seeking to hire labour within Tourism Survey; Annual Survey of the area. In parallel, the overview of the strength of the Visits to Visitor Attractions; existing skills and employment infrastructure and its ability International Passenger Survey; to respond to the needs of this project are, in our view, NOMIS and Business Register overstated. Employment Statistics. The East Anglia ONE Supply Chain Plan was published by DECC in May 2015 and SPR will extend the initiatives identified in this strategy beyond the construction of East Anglia ONE with the intention that future projects developed by SPR in the East Anglia Zone, including East Anglia THREE, will evolve and support the strategy. 176 As a result, the conclusions drawn in relation to the impact The assessment methodology of the development on the labour market of the area, used has been tested and particularly in terms of displacement impact for established accepted for Nationally Significant businesses, and the potential mitigations already in place, Infrastructure Projects at understate the skills and employment challenges and Examination, such as East Anglia therefore incorrectly assess the sensitivity of the labour ONE Offshore Wind Farm; Triton market as low. This combined with the approach taken to Knoll Offshore Wind Farm; assess the magnitude of effect creates, in our view, an Progress Gas Power Station (all erroneous assessment of the significance of effect. consented). The ongoing crisis in the oil and gas sector has impacted heavily on the East Anglian region, to the extent that the New Anglia LEP, The East Of England Energy Group and the Local Planning
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 115
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Authorities, including Suffolk County Council have set up a Taskforce specifically to address the issue. 177 In respect of tourism, no assessment has been made of The Chapter does include an the demands an in-migrant workforce may place on the assessment of in-migrants on the tourist accommodation sector. The focus of the tourism tourism accommodation sector, impact has been on the visual effects of a windfarm 69km based upon an analysis of tourism off the coast, which is not considered especially useful. It accommodation originally is also suggested that the sensitivity of the sector may undertaken for East Anglia ONE have been underestimated. and updated for East Anglia THREE (please see Section 28.8.4). According to research conducted in 2015 by Nautilus Associates for the Taskforce mentioned above, 26 companies had filed for administration in the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth area between April and October 2015 and more than 1000 people made redundant, while many companies are asking staff to take unpaid leave or salary reductions. The position of the oil and gas industry nationally reflects this. Accordingly, EATL consider that the Chapter accurately reflects the sensitivity of the sector. 178 Approach to assessing significance of economic The creation of employment effects opportunities is initially treated as a The criteria used to determine the magnitude of effect for beneficial impact as it reflects the economic impacts create an issue as they seek to classify key thrust of government policy an impact as either adverse or beneficial, when in reality it and regional and local economic could be both. agendas. The potential negative impacts that could result through labour market and accommodation mis-match or deficiencies are covered and highlighted as appropriate in the assessment (please see 28.8.2; 28.8.7 and Table 28.17 and Table 28.19). 179 For example, if 1,000 jobs are created in a labour market As described above, the market is of high sensitivity that ostensibly is a positive impact, but not considered to be of high
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 116
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
in reality it is exaggerating the extent of the problem in the sensitivity. labour market. Although the labour market at the 180 However, this anomaly is hidden in the determination of time of construction for East Anglia significance of impact, because job creation will always be THREE cannot be accurately scored positively, which when combined with sensitivity predicted at this time, the offshore actually leads to ambiguity as to whether the impact is wind industry in the UK has significant in a positive or negative way. constructed 5GW of operational 181 The conclusion in the assessment is that because the plant without any skills planning project creates more than 250 jobs and the labour market conditions being applied. The skills is of low sensitivity, the significance of effect is minor- market has responded to moderate beneficial (Table 28.24). Even if one argued developers' requirements, as that the labour market was high sensitivity, the logic of the demonstrated locally as FE above would lead you to a conclusion of an impact of Colleges have built facilities such major significance, but not clearly whether that was as training towers (Lowestoft, positive or negative and thus whether mitigation is Colchester) to augment those required. constructed by the private sector (Great Yarmouth). Specialist service companies (Cwind and 3sun) have set up training academies that, along with the FE Colleges, ensure the supply of trained staff. EATL propose to continue to support the skills Strategy introduced through the East Anglia ONE throughout the construction period of East Anglia THREE. 182 Regional skills Policy and Infrastructure Analysis and The East Anglia ONE Skills Fit Strategy was conceived with The proposal is weak with respect to ensuring fit with specific reference to the aims of Suffolk and the wider New Anglia Local Enterprise the New Anglia LEP Skills Partnership (LEP) skills policy and infrastructure. The two Manifesto and the Suffolk Growth most significant policy and strategy documents for this Strategy, and was signed off by development are the New Anglia LEP Skills Manifesto and Suffolk County Council once it was the Suffolk Growth Strategy. While these are both briefly agreed that the Skills Strategy mentioned (p22 and p31), both references are cursory, aligned with the aims of these with poor analysis and no attempt is being made to draw documents. out from these documents the key elements of activity that East Anglia THREE proposes to would complement the skills and employment needs for continue to support the Skills this proposed development or could be further enhanced Strategy interventions outlined by additional actions taken by the applicant and their under this document, thereby contractors. continuing this alignment. 183 Socio-economic baselines a) Displacement. Construction The analysis of the data in Table 28.8 and the conclusions jobs are by their nature temporary.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 117
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
drawn from this in Table 28.9 are, in our view, superficial New construction projects are and inaccurate; the overall assessment that has been required to ensure construction made is that “the area has a readily available labour force. workers are consistently employed. Unlikely to lead to labour market pressure or distortion” In addition, where a labour market and therefore the assessed sensitivity of the proposed has limited available skilled labour, development on the labour market is “low”. This contractors will source the conclusion is flawed because: necessary additional workforce a) No account has been taken of the fact that this pool of from outside the local labour skilled labour is currently employed (hence low market, particularly where offshore unemployment rates) and therefore there is likely to be a construction skills are required. significant displacement effect of the project in the labour Hence, there will be limited market which has not been taken into account in the displacement in the local area. assessment; b) Cumulative Impact. Comment b) Analysis that has been undertaken of the range of noted. Cumulative Impact competing infrastructure and housing projects that Assessment takes into account the will/could be taking place within the drive to work area full range of projects and is not concurrently is superficial (see below), and will therefore 'superficial'. place a further pressure on demand for labour; c) Skills shortages. The Skills c) No analysis has been undertaken of the current skills Strategy, EA ONE workers, shortages that are reported by employers in the emerging graduates and construction, engineering and agricultural sectors - all of apprentices and potential which draw on the same pool of skilled manual and skilled availability of oil and gas workers workers; and will provide considerable additional d) The analysis of population growth does not assess the workers. A proportion of the projections of the type of inflows and the likely onshore activities will not require occupations: skilled, semi-skilled, professional. specialised skills. d) Skills Projections. Such assessments are extremely contentious and open to criticism 184 Education and Training Infrastructure The assessment identifies an While the submission identifies a number of education and extensive range of relevant training infrastructure developments, there is no analysis Education and Training of how robust these are or the impact that they could programmes (28.7.4). The contribute in mitigating the increase demand for labour assessment identifies 6 specific during the construction of East Anglia THREE. industry skills and training programmes; a further 14 relevant regional university and college courses and 4 R&D facilities with relevant activities. The potential availability of skills from the oil and gas sector is also covered. 185 Finally, the assumption at Paragraph 125 that the scale of Market responses include Grimsby the opportunity within the wind energy sector will result in College which entered the market a market response from skills and training providers to providing training courses (pre
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 118
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
increase demand for training is not evidenced in the consent) for offshore wind projects submission and neither is this hypothesis supported by off the coast of Lincolnshire. passed examples for similar developments. EAONE has selected Siemens machines sourced from Hull and as a result trainees will be sourced from the Siemens training centre in Newcastle (or an outreach facility in East Anglia). Other examples of a market response include: Forth Valley College which provide industry specific training courses which reflect the training needs of petrochemicals firms at the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland. 186 Given the very challenged state of both the private and The Department of Energy and public sector training and skills infrastructure this Climate Change published the East assumption of a market response is likely to be overly Anglia ONE Supply Chain Plan in optimistic. The applicant will need to consider how it and May 2015 its contractors can support the training and skills market to The plan sets out how EAOL will respond through a collaborative approach promote competition, innovation and skills through engagement with the supply chain The plan seeks to ensure that a suitably trained and skilled workforce is available to deliver the East Anglia ONE project There are four main principles: • To utilise existing parent company skills programmes where and when possible and appropriate • To make the best of existing local and national education and skills infrastructures and to add value to these where appropriate • To promote employment and re-skilling opportunities in the communities most closely associated with the development of the project • To ensure the necessary balance of demand and supply of skills to support the delivery
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 119
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
of East Anglia ONE As a long term asset owner, ScottishPower Renewables is committed to extending the East Anglia ONE skills strategy to the East Anglia THREE project as well as other future East Anglia projects
187 Sensitivity testing The sensitivity testing methodology In its response to the Preliminary Environmental reflects the discussion with SCC in Information Report (PEIR) as documented in Table 28.1, September 2015. SCC suggested some sensitivity testing was required to account for changes in labour market conditions between now and the construction of the project. The sensitivity testing undertaken tests deviations in the amount of jobs created (paragraphs 178-179), not in the sensitivity of the market, which is the issue where there is considerable uncertainty. 188 Cumulative economic impacts Noted. See comment below. The cumulative assessment, while accurately identifying major construction projects in the vicinity, does makes some far reaching conclusions on the ability of the construction sector to respond to them. 189 Its analysis is based simply on how many construction Analysis of total construction jobs workers there are in the sector today and how many might includes unskilled, skilled and be needed to build this selection of projects. As is well highly skilled workers; all of these documented in CITB reports and elsewhere there are skills are required for construction significant skills shortages in the construction sector and it activities. The analysis shows would be inaccurate to suggest that all “construction” there is a considerable number of workers are suited to working on these projects and this of construction jobs in the region that course represents a very small fraction of “construction” could service a range of projects. activity in the region likely to be underway which coincides SPR's commitment to the with the project. A simplistic analysis such as this would continuation of the East Anglia most likely suggest that there is no skills shortage in the ONE Skills Strategy for the construction sector and as such this assessment suffers duration of the East Anglia THREE similar failings to the standalone assessment as described construction period will further above. enhance the availability of project specific skills. 190 Recommendation As described above, the East SCC does not accept the assessment that the significance Anglia ONE skills strategy commits of effect during the construction phase (Table 28.24) is SPR to the continuation of the East “minor-moderate beneficial” and no mitigation measures Anglia ONE Skills Strategy during are required. the East Anglia THREE project. 191 It is strongly recommended that the applicant should be As discussed above, the East
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 120
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
asked to put forward additional plans for mitigation that Anglia ONE Supply Chain Plan build on the existing Skills Strategy for East Anglia ONE was published by DECC in May and increase its impact, and in doing so also addresses 2015. SPR will continue to build on these points. This action on the part of the applicant the initiatives identified in this plan would also fulfil its stated intention (paragraph 165) that beyond the construction of East the Skills Strategy now agreed for East Anglia ONE would Anglia ONE with the intention that be incrementally developed as further rounds came future projects developed by SPR forward. Reliance on the work of others (paragraph 224) in the East Anglia Zone, including to mitigate the effects of this development on the labour East Anglia THREE, will evolve market is not considered to be sufficiently robust. and support the strategy. Given the availability of offshore construction skills and the markets' proven ability to respond without intervention, there is no justification for widening the scope of this activity beyond that agreed for East Anglia ONE. 192 Tourism As set out above, there will be no Paragraph 12 states that the single phase is considered to phasing of construction along the the worst case as there would be a lower overall economic export cable route (offshore and impact. This approach may create less jobs, but a two onshore), although the option to phase approach, being longer, is a worse case where phase construction of the wind negative effects may arise, such as those on the tourism farm and the onshore substation sector. will be retained. The assessment concludes there will be no adverse tourism impact, either for visitors or tourism accommodation providers (Section 28.8.9.3 of ES Chapter 28). Accommodation providers will however benefit from additional bed-nights and spending (Paragraph 186 of ES Chapter 28). 193 Paragraph 26 states the focus of the impact on tourism This is the initial industry standard has been associated with the visual effects of the wind approach that must be undertaken. turbines. Given that the windfarm is 69km off the coast, Impacts on the tourism this is essentially a redundant exercise. accommodation sector have also been assessed. 194 The assessment rather ignores the most likely impact on The tourism accommodation the tourism sector, that being the use of tourist providers' assessment was accommodation by construction workers. SCC made refreshed and extended in similar comments in relation to the East Anglia ONE coverage for East Anglia THREE. project and the applicant subsequently produced a The distribution of in-migrant document to address this entitled Assessment of construction workers is covered in
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 121
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Workforce Effects on Tourism Accommodation Providers detail (28.8.4 - Potential in East Anglia and it is suggested this could be usefully Distribution of Onshore refreshed for this project, taking in to account cumulative Construction Workers). impacts arising from the demands on such accommodation from other projects. 195 Paragraph 162 suggests that the tourism study area is of Noted. medium sensitivity – which means the sector has “regional status and/or medium visitor numbers” (Table 28.5). 196 According to the Economic Impact of Research reports The baseline was prepared using produced by Destination Research, in 2014 there were robust data sources (VisitEngland 10.8 million trips made to Suffolk Coastal and Waveney and VisitBritain figures). This is districts, with a total visitor spend over £448m, supporting consistent with the East Anglia the employment of 12,300 individuals. ONE approach. 197 We would argue that these figures, read alongside the list As stated in Section 28.7.6 of ES of tourist attractions of national interest, for example the Chapter 28, the overall sensitivity market towns of Woodbridge, Aldeburgh, Southwold of tourism and recreation receptors combined with environmental attractions of national along both the offshore and renown, such the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and onshore study areas was assessed RSPB Minsmere, suggest that the sector is likely to be of as being medium. This approach high sensitivity. takes account of not only the status of receptors but also concentrations of tourism and recreation activity and tourism performance. It was shown in Section 28.7.5 of ES Chapter 28 that regional tourism performance had fluctuated and that the concentrations of tourism business density was fairly well spread along the study areas. As a result the assessed medium sensitivity is deemed appropriate. 198 Distribution of workers Noted. Paragraph 6 states that “Drive time catchments of 30 and 45 minutes from Woodbridge and Bramford (Figure 28.1) have been used to provide a locational assessment of onshore construction workers. Locations for in-migrant workers are weighted as a value of 1 within 30 minute drive-time catchment and 0.5 within a 31-45 minute drive- time catchment to reflect distance decay” 199 This is slightly confused by Table 28.15 which tabulates The footnote should read 'Includes construction effects with only reference to Woodbridge 30, 45 and 60 minute drive times (footnote 24) and by paragraph 183 which suggests in- from Woodbridge and Bramford'. migrants will live within 60 minutes of the onshore cable This will be corrected.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 122
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
route (footnote 26). 200 As noted previously, see Table 28.1 (p7), it is illogical that The assessment does not assume an in migrant worker would relocate to accommodation in-migrant workers will travel a further from the project than a resident worker; in fact the longer distance relative to resident reverse is likely to be true, with resident workers likely to workers (Paragraph 182 of ES commute further on a daily basis than an in-migrant Chapter 28). worker. 201 The consequence of this is that in Table 28.16 and Table The extension of the resident 28.18, those resident onshore workers are likely to be onshore workers catchment area distributed over a wider area, perhaps 60 minutes, while was considered to support Chapter those in-migrant workers (Table 28.17/Table 28.19) would 27 Traffic and Transport; however be located closer to the project. It is acknowledged that a the relatively small number of sensitivity test to look at the consequences of this workers (97) was too few to merit redistribution has been undertaken as part of the transport consideration within the Socio assessment (Document 6.1.27). Economic Impact Assessment. This was discussed and agreed with Suffolk County Council at the meeting of 4 September 2015. 202 There is an error in paragraph 191 which has seen the Noted middle sentence incorrectly copied from the middle of paragraph 186. 203 In respect of in-migrant workers, there is no analysis of the Noted. However this level of detail relative affordability/availability of accommodation in is not consistent with the level of settlements to which they are assigned. Aldeburgh, for detail required for previous ES example is notoriously expensive and it is implausible that Chapters/ EIA Assessments for construction workers would take up accommodation there other developers (e.g. see – see comments above under tourism. Progress Power ES produced by PBA). Incorporating a scoring/ weighting approach to reflect prices would add a further variable to the in-migrant assessment (which already uses a scoring and weighting approach to reflect distance decay) 204 The aforementioned suggestion of revisiting the As noted in row 201 above, the Assessment of Workforce Effects on Tourism analysis shows the number of Accommodation Providers in East Anglia done for East people involved with this element Anglia ONE should consider a distribution of in-migrants at of the study is minor. Further a maximum of 45 minutes from Woodbridge or Bramford distribution and analysis is not and consider the affordability of accommodation in that considered to be worthwhile or area. merited. This was discussed and agreed with Suffolk County Council at the meeting of 4 September 2015.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 123
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
205 Supply chain Noted. It is noted (Paragraph 13) that the East Anglia ONE Supply Chain Plan aims for 50% UK content from that project, laying the foundations for 55% over the next 3GW, which would include East Anglia THREE. Paragraph 113 goes on to say that extensive further investment in “all aspects of infrastructure” will be needed to increase local and regional supply chain capacity, but if that does continue much of East Anglia THREE’s project development and operational requirements could be met by the time of construction and operation (paragraph 115). 206 We would welcome further discussions with the applicant EATL will continue to discuss these to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to matters throughout the lifetime of maximise the benefit to the local supply chain the project. Design and Access Statement 207 Please see comments above in relation to the assumed See comments regarding baseline for the assessment of landscape and visual landscape above rows (62 to 88). effects which are repeated in this document (paragraphs 31-34). 208 This document largely repeats information found Given the status of East Anglia elsewhere in the application. Its value lies in the Design ONE master planning work at the Principles outlined therein (Table 2) which relate to the time of submission of the East substation site. It is suggested these could be extracted, Anglia THREE application it was elaborated with more imagery (for example to reflect not possible to provide a greater design solutions, not just baseline characteristics) and level of detail. EATL would refer replace the DAS as the document referred to in SCC to the work undertaken to Requirement 12 (3). date for East Anglia ONE which 209 There is some scope for refinement of the Design East Anglia THREE will build upon Principles, for example to reflect that it is the substation in the post consent period to site and environs to which the Principles apply, not just the develop the final substation design buildings. at the substation location. 210 Along similar lines it would therefore be helpful to include reference to ancillary infrastructure including the access road, fencing and lighting. 211 Finally there will be a need to ensure that the proposals for East Anglia THREE mesh with the outcome of the East Anglia ONE proposals such that the respective substation sites complement each other, rather than contrast or clash in anyway and this could usefully be reflected in the Design Principles. Health impact assessment 212 SCC is responsible for public health in Suffolk. SCC is Noted content with the HIA. The assessment makes reference to minor beneficial effect of jobs, and clearly if job
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 124
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
opportunities for local people can be maximised that would be the greatest benefit to the wellbeing of people in Suffolk Miscellaneous 213 With the exception of Top Street, Woodbridge, CCSs are Noted not “brownfield sites” as the Environmental Statement suggests (paragraph 368). 214 The Consultation Report (Document 5.2 (38)) suggests at Noted various points that the local authorities are “in agreement” with the applicant on a number of matters in an all- encompassing way. We would refer to our comments here and to our forthcoming Statement of Common Ground which will provide confirmation of our position
1.31 SCDC and WDC
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney EATL welcome the support of Suffolk Coastal District Council support the application and District Council and Waveney District Council with welcomes the economic boost to the region from regard to this development and will work with the the offshore industry. The proposals being councils in order to minimise impacts during the advanced by Scottish Power Renewables offer construction and operation of East Anglia THREE potentially significant socio-economic benefits at offshore wind farm. both national and local level. However it is considered that any localised impacts during construction and subsequent operation of the project should be kept to an absolute minimum.
It is acknowledged that the main issues EATL welcome the support of Suffolk Coastal associated with this project are slightly different to District Council and Waveney District Council with those associated with East Anglia ONE, as many regard to the use of ducts. EATL will minimise of the substantive issues associated with the impacts during construction and seek to limit the routeing of the cable corridor and the general footprint and impacts of any temporary approach to mitigation have been resolved infrastructure retained between projects or satisfactorily and will be replicated, as relevant, phases. EATL believe that the impacts of the for East Anglia THREE. Nevertheless it will still construction of the project have been considered be important to minimise as far as is practical the in the relevant ES chapters, which assume that level of activity and disturbance associated with the temporary infrastructure is not retained from pulling cables through the pre-installed ducts. To East Anglia ONE as this represents the worst this end the Council supports the intention to case. reuse infrastructure temporarily used for East Since the submission of the East Anglia THREE Anglia ONE for example the haul road and CCS’s. application further design work on East Anglia
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 125
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response However, the gap between projects will be a key ONE has been undertaken. As a result of this, it consideration as it is important that that the cable will be necessary to install East Anglia THREE corridor does not retain the characteristics of a cables in a single cable laying operation. construction site for an extended period of time as To the extent that temporary infrastructure may this could have an adverse effect on the character be retained between the East Anglia ONE and and appearance of the landscape, much of which East Anglia THREE projects, this will be dealt with is designated as either Special Landscape Area through discharge of Requirements contained in or AONB. the East Anglia ONE DCO and does not therefore form part of the East Anglia THREE application.
Approximately one third of the cable route passes Landscape implications of any retained temporary through the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and infrastructure were assessed in Appendix 29.5 of a further 20% through Special Landscape Areas. the ES. EATL do not consider that in the event It is considered important that these important that temporary infrastructure is retained there landscapes do not become characterised by would be significant impacts from this. construction activities over the long term. These To the extent that temporary infrastructure may are landscapes of considerable local and national be retained between the East Anglia ONE and importance and are a key attractor for tourists. East Anglia THREE projects, this will be dealt with through discharge of Requirements contained in the East Anglia ONE DCO and does not therefore form part of the East Anglia THREE application.
In association with Suffolk County Council the The approach to assessing sensitivity set out in Councils Arboriculture and Landscape Manager GLVIA 3 is based on a combination of ratings for has reviewed the submitted documents in so far the value of the receptor and its susceptibility to as they relate to landscape matters. Overall it is the effects of the proposed development. As considered that the landscape assessment that energy infrastructure is already an evident and has been carried out is reasonably effective, but characteristic feature of the baseline condition in there are a number of issues that need resolving respect of the majority of the receptors, this will before the parties can reach common ground: inevitably reduce the susceptibility of receptors to the proposed development. In respect of • The sensitivity of receptors (both landscape and landscape designations, GLVIA 3 makes the visual) have been set at a lower level than the following comment equivalent assessment for EA1, and lower than is 'The value of the landscape receptors will to some suggested by the GLVIA3 guidelines. The degree reflect landscape designations and the applicant has suggested that this related to level of importance they signify, although there changes in the methodology used for EA1. These should not be over-reliance on designations as differences will need to be scrutinised by officers the sole indicator of value.' before common ground can be achieved. Suffolk The deviation of the methodology from GLVIA 3 Coast Path users and AONB sensitivity are relates to the separation out of the magnitude of specific issues. change from the duration of the effect. This helps • The methodology described in Appendix 29.1 to be clear about the magnitude of change without
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 126
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response also differs from that contained in GLVIA3 and distorting it with an additional factor of time. This this will also need to be fully considered by is added by describing the high, medium, low officers before common ground can be achieved. effects as being short, medium or long term. If a • The application includes an assessment of the high effect was short term this could potentially be landscape and visual effects relating to the concluded as a not significant effect and retention of the haul road between the completion ultimately the purpose of the LVIA is to report all of EA1 and the start of EA3, and also between the significant effects. option of phasing EA3 into two parts. This will It is accepted that agricultural landscapes are a need full consideration in relation to agricultural defining feature of the East Anglian landscape. operations and the views of landowners. Whilst They are also intensively modified from their retention is likely to be acceptable in landscape intrinsic state and highly managed for commercial terms, it cannot be left as an open ended option purposes. This means that they do not have the so time limits may need to be imposed. same landscape value as the more intrinsic • The draft DCO makes no provision for landscapes such as the unmodified coasts and landscape works in the corridor route and in heaths and this distinction is important in relation to clearance of CCSs on project establishing relative values. Those features completion. which are most characteristic of the agricultural • Appendix 29.2 Landscape baseline – we have land are the hedgerows and woodland which form issues with a suggestion that agricultural enclosure. landscapes are a detracting feature in the landscape rather than a defining characteristic. Similarly it is suggested that coastal erosion detracts from the scenic qualities of coastal views, rather than being a defining characteristic and normal process of change which is our position.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer Noted. (EHO) has reviewed Chapter 26: Noise and
Vibration of the Environmental Statement and the relevant requirements listed in the Draft Development Consent Order. The EHO is satisfied that the Environmental Statement Noise Report covers all the relevant noise and vibration issues. Furthermore the EHO considers that within the Draft DCO the Control of Noise is covered by Requirements 22 & 24, Air Quality by Requirement 22, Artificial Light by Requirements 22 & 23, Waste Management by Requirement 22, Pollution Prevention by Requirement 22, Contamination Assessment & Mitigation by Requirement 19 and Working Hours by Requirement 25.
The Outline Code of Construction Practice aims
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 127
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response to ensure that the onshore elements of the proposed East Anglia THREE project comply with relevant European and UK legislation and requirements in the DCO. The document is also a mechanism to deliver environmental commitments as set out in the ES and to promote environmental and construction best practice.
The hours of operation for all ground works, Noted. It should be understood that EATL do not directional drilling, constructional activities and propose to undertake any directional drilling as any traffic movements to or from the site shall be part of the East Anglia THREE project. limited to 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to The hours and exceptions listed by SCDC match Saturday, with none on Sundays or Bank those in the OCoCP section 3.1 Holidays, except;- • Where continuous periods of operation are required, such as concrete pouring and directional drilling on the foreshore, • For the delivery of abnormal loads to the site which may cause congestion on the local road network, • Internal fit out of substations. Prior agreement shall be sought from the Local Planning Authority for all operations, which are to be undertaken outside the above times.
The positioning and enclosure of any standby EATL will amend the OCoCP in order to comply generators used close to residential properties with this request. shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
Contractors shall be required to demonstrate This is listed under section 5.1 of the OCoCP that;- • Good practice procedures to minimise noise are instigated as set out in BS5228:2014, • Best Practicable Means (BPM) as defined in Section 72, of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA), Have been applied to all onshore works
All residents who are likely to be affected by EATL will amend the OCoCP in order to comply constructional noise that exceeds 64dB(A) with this request. expressed as a 1 hour L(A)eq value shall be notified at least 24 Hours in advance of the works and given an estimate of how long the elevated noise levels will continue.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 128
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response
Details of the location, height, design, any activity This is listed under section 3.7 of the OCoCP sensors and illuminance of all floodlighting used during construction shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Measures to limit obtrusive glare to nearby residential property and to minimise sky glow shall be incorporated in the design of the constructional phase floodlighting.
6. Detailed information in respect to;- This is covered under requirement 22. (2) (g) of • All licensed contractors and disposal facilities the draft DCO used for the movement of waste materials during the construction of this development, • The storage of waste materials (both liquid and solid) produced during the construction phase of the development Shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
Site access for members of the public shall be EATL will amend the OCoCP 2.2 Health and restricted during the constructional phase of the Safety principles to address this point. development, to ensure public safety. A method statement detailing the safety measures to be imposed on site shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
Construction dust shall be controlled utilising This forms part of requirement 22. (2) (e) of the environmental management techniques as draft DCO agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
Vehicle emissions and non-road mobile Outline mitigation to address this issue is machinery (NRMM) emissions shall be minimised provided in section 6.2 of the OCoCP by incorporating best practice control and management measures as agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
In the event that any telecommunication or Impact of electrical cabling on telecommunication television interference arises at nearby residential or television interference has not previously been properties due to the installation of the electrical raised as an issue. EATL is not aware of any cabling; the operators shall rectify the situation, previous examples where telecommunication or within an agreed time scale as approved by the television interference has occurred as a result of installation of electrical cabling. EATL would
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 129
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response Local Planning Authority. welcome sight of any examples which Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council can provide in this regard.
A full decommissioning plan detailing all site This forms part of requirement 31 (1) of the draft reinstatements and removal of commercial waste DCO. shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority at the end of the operational lifetime of the East Anglia Three offshore wind farm.
The Environmental Report indicates that the noise Offshore noise was scoped out of the assessment disturbance impact from the constructional piling as all parties were in agreement that there would works of the offshore turbines is likely to be be no impact to onshore receptors. Offshore negligible. However, in the event that piling works will occur 69km from the shore at a constructional noise complaints are received in minimum, EATL therefore do not believe that respect to offshore work from local residents and there is any requirement for such mitigation. be considered justified by the Environmental Protection Section at Suffolk Coastal District Council, then the following mitigation measures shall be implemented;
• Rubber noise reduction skirting shall be made available and fitted on all piling rigs during night time piling operations between 23.00 – 07.00 hours.
The Environmental Statement indicates that the EATL agree that there is no requirement for normal operational turbine noise will be operational noise mitigation for the wind farm. imperceptible at distances in excess of 23 km. Hence, assessment against ETSU-R-97 criteria is not deemed necessary and no noise conditions are recommended.
SCDC considers that the above controls are Onshore noise controls are outlined in the necessary to ensure that the proposed onshore OCoCP and the requirements of the draft DCO. and offshore construction works and activities do As stated above EATL do not believe that any not impact adversely on the amenities of local controls are required for offshore activities due to residents. the distance from receptors onshore.
Waveney District Councils and Suffolk Coastal EATL welcome the support of Waveney District District Councils Economic Development Officers Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council for have reviewed the document and has identified a the project. number of key issues that it would like to see considered as part of the examination into this project. WDC is positive on the development and
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 130
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response the overall investment in the Port of Lowestoft and the creation of jobs. Chapter 28 Socio-economics, Tourism and Based on labour market intelligence WDC would Recreation of the East Anglia THREE support the view of SCC on the conclusions environmental statement (ES) (document drawn in relation to the impact of the development reference 6.1.28) identifies a high concentration on the labour market and displacement for of construction workers and an extensive range of existing businesses. We believe the skills and relevant training and education courses in the employment challenges are understated and do region. EATL believe that due to the following not agree with the assessment that the sensitivity reasons there is likely to be a sufficient level of of the labour market as low. Trade Association skilled labour to service the Project: Renewable UK predicts that there will be up to 105,000 jobs within the sector by 2020. This is a East Anglia ONE Skills Strategy; high-end estimate as the marine and renewables The likely availability of East Anglia sector currently employs around 19,000 people, One workers post completion of that but with a still active pipeline of new build projects project; and maintenance work the figure could increase The potential availability of oil and gas significantly. workers given the reduction in offshore activity related to the predicted depressed price of oil over the short to medium term; and The potential procurement of some specialist offshore construction skills from outside the area. The ES chapter notes that such an availability of labour is unlikely to lead to extensive displacement of labour from other existing construction projects.
East Suffolk (including Waveney currently has low The level of unemployment is only one of a unemployment rates) the analysis of the data in number of factors that informs the sensitivity of Table 28.8 and the overall assessment that has the labour market. Sensitivity also includes: been made “the area has a readily available • The number and proportion of the construction labour force unlikely to lead to labour market related workforce; pressure or distortion” and therefore the assessed • The level of skilled manual workers and sensitivity of the proposed development on the apprenticeships; labour market is “low”. • Energy related jobs; and • Population projections. Each of these factors has the potential to contribute to the available labour supply, resulting in an assessed low level of sensitivity.
The cumulative effect on demand for labour within A cumulative impact assessment has been Waveney is high as the Flood Barriers and third carried out based on a worst case scenario (i.e.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 131
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response river crossing and development of the Outer all the projects are completed at the same time). Harbour will potentially run Parelli. This showed the cumulative requirement was less Notwithstanding greater emphasis on domestic than 10% of all construction workers. housebuilding.
SCDC and WDC would particularly want to As identified in Table 28.2 of Chapter 28, the reinforce the following comment of SCC: labour market and skills assessment uses trusted • The assessment submitted does not analyse the data sources such as Experian Labour Market labour market and skills context of the area and is Statistics; Great Britain Tourism Survey; Annual overly optimistic about the ability of existing skills Survey of Visits to Visitor Attractions; International and employment infrastructure to respond to the Passenger Survey; NOMIS and Business demands of the project. Further discussions with Register Employment Statistics. The East Anglia East Anglia THREE are required to understand ONE Supply Chain Plan was published by DECC how the initiatives developed in the Skills Strategy in May 2015 and SPR will continue to build on the for the East Anglia ONE project can be initiatives identified in this strategy beyond the complemented by further undertakings. construction of East Anglia ONE with the intention that future projects developed by SPR in the East Anglia Zone, including East Anglia THREE, will WDC acknowledges the existing Skills Strategy evolve and support the strategy. for East Anglia ONE and that such Strategy will be incrementally developed as further rounds comes forward but believes this could be enhanced in readiness for EA Three and other EA projects . Such actions would have a positive impact on a recognised LEP high impact sector and drive up skilling and educational, STEM based activities. This is particularly key in Waveney where the Port of Lowestoft is the Construction management Hub and acknowledged O & M base for the next 30 years and progression pathways for skills training and apprenticeships need early consideration.
Under 28.12 Summary, there is reference to a Noted. programme of up-skilling and training programmes being developed, supported by regional initiatives central government. It states these initiatives would mitigate any potential adverse labour market pressures.
It should be noted that a number of major changes to skills funding and training standards are taking place within the Further Educational Landscape which will come into effect in the next 12 – 24 months. The changes present challenges
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 132
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response to private Training Providers and to Further Education Colleges and could have a negative impact. Early acknowledgment and consideration on interventions will help mitigate such change. WDC attended the annual Skills Summit in London March 2016 and it is clear that an abundance of uncertainty and lack of confidence on forthcoming training initiatives exist as articulated by the Keynote Speakers.
The applicant produced a document entitled The tourism accommodation provider assessment “Assessment of Workforce Effects on Tourism was refreshed and extended in coverage for East Accommodation providers in East Anglia”. WDC Anglia THREE. The distribution of in-migrant and SCDC would support SCC’s suggestion that construction workers is covered in detail (Section this document should be refreshed taking into 28.8.4 - Potential Distribution of Onshore account cumulative impacts arising from the Construction Workers of the ES). demands on such accommodation from other projects. The Destination Management Organisation should be involved in this subject.
Past experience of drive times to Lowestoft from EATL do not disagree. The ES states in-migrants Woodbridge area would suggest that both in- will travel up to 45 mins and that residents will migrants and residents will travel 45 minutes. travel at least 45 mins (up to 90 mins). (Based on travel to Sizewell when it was constructed.)
It states in 28.8 “The East Anglia One project Noted developed a skills strategy to support its Supply Chain Plan. EATL would continue to build on the initiatives identified in this strategy beyond the construction of East Anglia ONE with the intention of evolving and supporting the strategy. This work will be led at a business wide level and will be developed with involvement from EATL.” The Councils welcomes a robust Supply Chain Strategy which will continue to evolve and identify support mechanisms for take up by local and regional companies. SCDC and WDC support SCC with their request for further discussions on infrastructure to ensure maximum benefits for the local supply chain.
The Councils senior Coastal Engineer has Noted reviewed the submitted documents in so far as they affect Bawdsey Cliffs. The Requirements
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 133
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response within the Draft Development Consent Order for the developer to submit detailed method statements for approval by the local planning authority and Natural England with regards to Landfall and Decommissioning, are welcomed.
Chpt 5 pg 90. Transition Bay(s) located ‘up to’ The ducts and location of the transition bay will be 180m landward of cliff top. determined by East Anglia ONE and will be subject to consultation and agreement with Assuming HDD starts at a Transition Bay and the relevant authorities under Requirement 11 of the cable must be viable until 2020 +3 to build + 25 East Anglia ONE DCO. ops = 2048 (plus risk of extension???) say 2060, Notwithstanding the above, erosion at the landfall then location of the TB must be carefully is considered in Appendix 7.4, application doc assessed by a Coastal Erosion risk assessment 6.3.7 (4). At Bawdsey cliffs, where the landfall is that considers data and policy in SMP 7 and also located, the SMP policy is “No Active current discussions regarding the sustainability of Intervention”. As the shingle beach becomes the management policy for the East Lane depleted, it is likely to lead to erosion of the Bawdsey promontory which is a key control point backing cliffs. These are currently relatively for this section of coast. This is a key issue. I stable with only occasional slumping. A highly suggest that the HDD start point location be conservative upper bound of retreat of the defined and not described in vague terms. Bawdsey cliffs over the 25 year operational
lifetime of the proposed East Anglia THREE The level / profile of the HDD through the cliff and project is 100m, at an average rate of 4m per under the foreshore, in both short and long duct year. options, must consider the potential cliff and beach profile in year 2060 after erosion to ensure A similarly conservative estimate of the changes no exposure in the viable life time period. in the intertidal and sub-tidal exposures of London Clay at Bawdsey is that there is lowering by up to Under the short duct option the cable beach 0.75m during the 25 year operational lifetime of emergence point will be at risk of exposure by the proposed East Anglia THREE project. erosion as the shoreline retreats. The long duct Therefore it is considered that, for East Anglia option emerging 1100m offshore appears likely to THREE, there would be a very low risk of the duct avoid this risk. becoming exposed or the transition bay compromised within the lifetime of the project. With regard to the longer term i.e. repowering, this would be subject to a separate application at that time.
Chptr 5 pg 90. Long or short duct options. The decision on whether a long or short duct will be installed will be made by East Anglia ONE. As Work nr 5B states that the short duct option will stated above this design will be subject to emerge at MLWS and will therefore require consultation and sign-off with the relevant access to the beach for equipment to install, and planning authority. pull cables through, ducts and make a joint. If the short duct is installed the design for East
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 134
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response The short duct beach emergence point will Anglia THREE will be future proofed to ensure therefore be subject to foreshore erosion over the that the cable, which will be installed by EATL, will operational life. It is not stated what inspection stay buried (as discussed above). Once it is and maintenance actions are required in event of known which option will be employed appropriate cable exposure on the foreshore and/or below the inspection monitoring and mitigation schemes will low water mark. be developed. I presume there is a need to keep the cable buried on the foreshore. If so then a statement to this effect together with a plan for maintenance, including inspection routines and access for vehicles, is required. Also of benefit would be signage at appropriate locations that give contact details for the public to report sightings of an exposed cable or duct.
Impact on use of beach and foreshore by vessels As stated above the decision on whether a short and equipment engaged in coastal management or long duct is installed will be made by EAOL. works. Impact to the cliff and foreshore will be a key consideration when finalising the design of the Any constraints on access to / over the foreshore duct at landfall. area by other operating authorities related to the duct / cable locations should be stated and should The location of the ducts will be determined by be a consideration in the long or short duct length East Anglia ONE and will be subject to decision process. consultation and agreement with relevant authorities under Requirement 11 of the East My assumption is that the long duct option is less Anglia ONE DCO. likely to introduce constraints that would negatively affect the actions of others and is therefore preferable Clarity on how this matter will be resolved and how consultees can influence the outcome is required.
Will the ducts and cables installed in the cliff by As stated in Requirement 32 of the draft DCO, the HDD and/or laid on the foreshore / beach be impacts of the ducts and cables on coastal removed at life expiry? erosion will be assessed at the end of the project If not who is liable for the ongoing task of life and if impacts cannot be appropriately management of the gradually emerging mitigated are required to be decommissioned duct/cable? under Requirement 31 of the draft DCO. Is this matter deferred to negotiation / agreement Under Requirement 31 a decommissioning plan of the Decommissioning plan? must be submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority and then implemented as approved.
Suffolk Coastal District Council recently As East Anglia ONE is installing the ducts for East
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 135
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs response considered an outline planning application for up Anglia THREE, this issue is currently being to 215 dwellings on land at Top Street, considered by East Anglia ONE. Martlesham. The cable corridor runs through the site from east to west and the indicative layout shows an easement along the cable corridor. The submitted Planning Statement states “We have been advised by EAOW that a 30m wide permanent easing for the ducting is sufficient within the 75m cable strip, originally identified and submitted as part of the EAOW1 planning application. EAOW have also agreed that the easement strip through which the cables will run can be used as open space within the site”.
Planning permission for this scheme was refused in March 2016 and the Council expects that an appeal against this decision will be lodged, although as yet one has not been lodged.
1.32 Smart Wind
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
This representation is submitted by SMart Wind EATL would like to thank SMart Wind for taking Limited (“SMart Wind”) on behalf of (a) SMart the time to provide us with information regarding Wind and (b) Optimus Wind Limited and Hornsea Project Two and we look forward to Breesea Limited (who as the developer of Smart Wind's participation in the Examination. Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two We will continue to consult with SMart Wind (“Project Two”), are together hereafter referred regarding any issues that may affect it. to as the “Project Two Developer”). SMart Wind and the Project Two Developer wish to register as interested parties for the examination phase of the proposed East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm project. SMart Wind and the Project Two Developer are wholly owned by DONG Energy Power (UK) Limited. Project Two is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project ("NSIP") which would have a total installed capacity of up to 1,800 megawatts. The application for development consent for Project Two was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 30 January 2015, with the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 136
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
examination period subsequently closing on 16 December 2015. A decision is due from the Secretary of State as to whether to grant development consent for Project Two by 16 June 2016. SMart Wind and the Project Two Developer may wish to make representations on the potential effects of East Anglia THREE on Project Two and on any cumulative and in-combination assessments. In particular, the cumulative and in-combination At the time of submission of the East Anglia th assessments for offshore ornithology conducted THREE DCO application (18 November 2015) for East Anglia THREE (submitted as part of the numbers within the assessment were the EIA and HRA accompanying the correct based upon information which was application) seek to provide collision risk available at that time. Updated collision tables estimates for Hornsea Project Two. Project Two will be provided during the Examination. It notes that some of the figures within these should be noted that, on the basis of preliminary documents are not correct and intends to make work, it is anticipated that the cumulative further detailed submissions on this point during collision numbers are likely to be reduced. the examination of the East Anglia THREE application.
1.33 Suffolk Preservation Society
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
Historic environment
The SPS’s principal concern is the further As part of the embedded mitigation strategy the significant impacts of a Converter Station on the substation was located in order to gain maximum setting of designated heritage assets together benefit from existing screening (in particular that with considerable concerns about future provided by the existing areas of Ancient identified expansions. This area is rich in cultural Woodland). Further planting is to take place to heritage, characterised by numerous medieval the south-west, north and east of the substation rural settlements and any further industrialising site to complement the existing planting and effect, in particular the Converter Station, will provide further screening. This will obviously take undoubtedly result in harm to their setting. time to develop but by year 15, the screening by These villages rely upon their agricultural setting the mitigation planting will be sufficient to reduce as part of their intrinsic historic significance. any impacts to not significant / negligible, including any views from surrounding settlements. Visualisations and photomontages including the anticipated screening effects of the mitigation planting were provided as part of the Seascape, Landscape and Visual Amenity chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES)
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 137
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
(Figures 29.9 – 29.24). Assessment of impacts to setting (which can include non- visual impacts) must consider which aspects of the current setting of an asset contribute to its significance or importance.
Based on the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and site visit, potential impacts to setting were considered for:
Two Registered Parks and Gardens; Six Grade I and one Grade II* Listed Building; and Eight Grade II Listed Buildings. A summary of the assessment of potential impacts to the setting of these assets was provided in Chapter 25 Onshore Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Table 25.10 of the ES. The medieval settlements referred to in the response (such as Burstall and Flowton) have no formal designation and lie over 1km from the substation site. All are active communities and reflect development and use up to the present day. Chapter 29 identified that although the landscape here is largely rural, this agricultural landscape has been significantly modified by modern farming and a number of intrusive modern features such as the existing substation. Of the identified assets only the Grade II Listed Fidgeon’s Farmhouse (LB1293253) was identified to have any significant views incorporating the substation location. Development here was considered to comprise a change within the largely agricultural setting of the asset but not to affect its main aspect.
The SPS has strong reservations about the The assessment of setting within the Onshore adequacy of the assessment, in particular during Archaeology, Chapter 25 of the ES used bare- the operational period. The methodology used earth topographic data in order to generate a has failed to provide a clear and accessible ZTV. Within this all designated assets in a narrative account of how the significance of the radius of up to 4km were considered. This heritage assets’ setting will be affected and how radius was extended to 10km for Registered the development will reduce or enhance that Parks and Gardens. Within the 500m Study significance. The Barnwell Court of Appeal Area of the site non-designated assets (such as
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 138
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
judgment makes clear that considerable locally listed buildings) were also considered. importance and non- discretionary weight must This ZTV was then (as part of the work be given to the issue of setting including that of undertaken for East Anglia ONE) compared to lower grade buildings. actual views and existing screening (buildings and vegetation). Information provided in the Landscape, Seascape and Visual Assessment, Chapter 29 of the ES was also considered which included visual impacts to the landscape character. No non-designated heritage assets were identified as sensitive receptors within the 500m Study Area. Landscape and Visual Impacts
The landscape and visual impacts have been The methodology accords principally with underestimated. Currently, apart from identifying guidance set out in the updated GLVIA 3 (as that the Converter Station will be detailed in Appendix 29.1 of the ES) as well as a uncharacteristically large and thereby dominant number of other documents. The visualisations in the landscape, very little further detail has include computer models for each of the been provided, including any detailed design or viewpoints and photomontages for those with proposed mitigation. It is unclear how this potential to undergo significant effects. These installation will interact in terms of siting, scale present an accurate representation of what and massing with the other buildings being viewers would see in terms of how the different proposed under East Anglia One or later phases. buildings will interact and include the additional phase of mitigation planting after 15 years.
Mitigation plans have been refined through East Anglia ONE detailed design and these enable the computer model and photomontages to show with more certainty the effect of the mitigation planting / bunding.
The SPS does not consider the landscape All receptors within the study area have been impacts of the scheme have been fully identified assessed, with those with potential to be or adequately mitigated and believe that careful significantly affected being assessed in detail. design and layout would have minimised some This process has highlighted which receptors will impacts. be significantly affected. It is not possible to fully mitigate all landscape and visual effects. The mitigation measures, which have recently been refined (see final row below), mitigate the majority of the significant effects although this will occur gradually over the approximate 20 year period it will take for the planting to mature.
The cumulative adverse impacts of the project As sensitivity is assessed as a combination of
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 139
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
together with existing and future development the value of the receptor with the susceptibility have not been given adequate weight. In of the receptor to the proposed development, it particular the SPS rejects the assumption that if is the susceptibility that will inevitably be a setting is already harmed by existing reduced. The addition of a further development infrastructure this renders the setting less to a situation in which other similar sensitive to further change. The SPS considers developments already define the baseline, will that a compromised landscape or setting is more make the receptors less susceptible than if sensitive to harm, not less. there were no other developments in this location.
The SPS considers that the proposed mitigation The proposed mitigation comprises extensive is inadequate and should be informed by a woodland planting that has been designed to strategy for effective landscape planting with mitigate the visual effects from the key visual provision for substantial planting off site, taking receptors of the nearby settlements. The design into account the inevitable decline in the regions principles from East Anglia ONE are still existing tree and hedge scape. applicable and refinement has taken place through the detailed design of the mitigation The Design and Access statement remains very works, which has been based on these superficial. To state that the design principles principles. previously agreed during East Anglia One are The information provided in the application for equally applicable in this case is unacceptable East Anglia THREE reflected the fact that work and requires refinement to make them more fit for East Anglia ONE was on-going and therefore for purpose. was necessarily high- level in order to not
prejudge or contradict the work being Finally we would raise the case for an undertaken for East Anglia ONE. Since the non- environmental fund to compensate (in part) material change application for East Anglia ONE those that will be undoubtedly impacted upon was consented, both the design of the East and disrupted during the life of this project. The Anglia ONE substation and the potential absence of any such recognition of the impact mitigation for it have been refined. The current from such significant infrastructure provision masterplanning exercise being undertaken by within small rural communities we consider to be SPR for all East Anglia Offshore Wind projects wholly unacceptable and inequitable to the cost seeks to develop the mitigation across all being paid by those communities. projects in an integrated way. Prior to submission of the DCO application, EATL stated the intention to undertake further landscape assessment to account for the ongoing masterplanning process. Therefore it is EATL’s intention to submit a revised assessment as part of Further Environmental Information.
1.34 SWT
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
We support the use of cable ducts laid as part EATL welcome the support of SWT with
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 140
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
of the East Anglia ONE offshore windfarm regard to the use of the ducts to be installed project for the onshore transmission cables by East Anglia ONE. required for this project. We consider that this will reduce the onshore ecological impacts resulting from the construction of this scheme.
We note that two construction approaches are Following detailed design work for East Anglia described in the Environmental Statement (ES), ONE (which will be installing the ducts for a One Phase approach and a Two Phase East Anglia THREE) a single duct is now approach. Whilst the Environmental Impact proposed for East Anglia THREE. Therefore Assessment (EIA) set out in the ES concludes for East Anglia THREE there will now be a that the magnitude of negative impacts from single onshore cable laying operation. It is either approach is the same, the One Phase proposed to update the DCO accordingly. approach would take approximately half as Note that the option for phasing will be long as the Two Phase and therefore any retained at the substation and at the wind temporal impacts would be lessened using this farm. approach. We would favour the use of any approach which reduces the likely ecological impact of a scheme, irrespective of whether the reduction is significant in EIA terms.
Paragraph 23.6.1.7.1.2 (252) of the Chapter The ducts for East Anglia THREE have been 23 (Terrestrial Ecology) of the ES makes consented as part of the East Anglia ONE reference to the use of a long duct at landfall Offshore Wind Farm Order, and therefore do site. This would appear to be the preferable not form part of the East Anglia THREE landfall option from an ecological perspective. offshore wind farm application. EATL understand that both long and short duct options are still under consideration at the time of writing. The decision on which will be used will be made by East Anglia ONE as they will be installing the ducts for East Anglia THREE.
Water vole – it should be noted that since the EATL do not propose to update the ES as the publication of the application documents for guidance does not materially change the comment, the licencing regime for water voles assessment, however the Outline Landscape on development sites has been updated and and Ecological Management Strategy the Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (Dean, (Document Reference – 8.6) is a living M., Strachan, R. Gow, D. and Andrews, R. document and will be revised during the (2016) The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook examination to reflect any updated guidance. (Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series) Eds Fiona Matthews and Paul Chanin. Mammal Society, London) has been published. Whilst this may not strictly change the mitigation measures required to be implemented, a licence from Natural England may now be required to implement them. The
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 141
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
relevant sections of the ES and the Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy should be updated to reflect these changes.
We note that parts of the access along the EATL are committed to minimising impacts terrestrial cable route would follow/re-use wherever possible noting that it will be those used during the installation of the necessary to carefully balance effects cables and ducts as part of the EAOW ONE between different receptor groups. The project. Whilst we consider that reusing such greatest concern for local residents affected routes is, in principle, logical (particularly in by the East Anglia THREE project is traffic areas of existing low ecological value), there and transport issues. The single greatest appears to be the potential for the material requirement (and therefore HGV trip requirement to remove mitigation planting generator) is for the construction and removal provided as part of the EAOW ONE project a of the haul road for access. EATL is in relatively short time after its implementation. discussion with Suffolk County Council and Where this is to be the case, careful other stakeholders regarding the potential to consideration is required to ensure that re- leave the haul road in situ (this was discussed opening of gaps is minimised. We would also in Appendix 23.7 document 6.3.23 (7)) upon recommend the use of temporary fencing completion of construction works for East across the newly created gaps in order to Anglia ONE and potentially between phases of ensure that bat commuting routes are East Anglia THREE, as this would reduce maintained. impacts upon the local community. In either case (if the haul road is retained or not retained) the reinstatement of habitat will need to be carefully managed to determine the most efficient and beneficial ways of undertaking this. It should be noted that upon completion of the construction works for East Anglia ONE, reinstatement would take place in either case in full apart from areas where the haul road would be retained for future projects. . Therefore, for example, a 55m gap in a hedgerow would be reduced to 5.5m. The gaps would be bridged via temporary fencing as described in document 8.16 the Outline Temporary Works Reinstatement Plan (OTWRP). The acceptability of the period over which any area would be left without reinstatement is currently under discussion with SCC.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 142
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
1.35 The Crown Estate
25. EATL note The Crown Estate’s request to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm and will continue to engage with you during the Examination process.
1.36 Trinity House
26. EATL also note your suggested amendments to the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) set out in your letter dated 18 April 2016. EATL are discussing your proposed amendments with the MMO and MCA and, where appropriate will include these in the next iteration of the draft DCO.
1.37 Transition Ipswich Energy Group
27. EATL are very grateful for your support. Unfortunately the type of information you have requested previously is commercially sensitive and EATL are not in a position to supply such details to you at this time. However EATL look forward to engaging with you through the Examination process and beyond when further information will be made available.
1.38 The Wildlife Trusts
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
TWT has concerns regarding the impact of The assessment is precautionary and based underwater noise from construction on marine on worst-case scenarios. All current and mammals, in particular the cumulative relevant information will be included to assess disturbance to harbour porpoise. We the potential cumulative and in-combination recognise that the conclusions drawn are a impacts when preparing the EPS licence ‘worst case scenario’, but as they are deemed application and HRA. realistic, they should be treated accordingly. Data limitations mean the Applicant has rightly taken a precautionary approach to impact assessment. However, the high uncertainty regarding the cumulative effects of behavioural impacts at a population level makes a precautionary approach even more necessary. This will have consequences for the EPS licence process. Whilst the DEPONS project, which the Applicant references, aims to address this, it is currently not advanced enough to draw meaningful conclusions.
The concerns relating to disturbance to harbour EATL agree that the Southern North Sea pSAC porpoise are elevated by the overlap of the in now a material consideration and have
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 143
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
Project and the proposed Southern North Sea committed to undertake an assessment in due SAC for harbour porpoise. Whilst we accept course once information to inform the that until recently the details of this site have assessment is made available. Following not been known, it must now be treated as a advice from Natural England, it is anticipated material planning consideration and an HRA that this assessment will be undertaken prior to will have to be conducted. It is likely we will the Planning Inspectorate drafting the Report have further representations to make on this on the Implications for European Sites (RIES). matter.
We welcome the inclusion of a draft Marine All current and relevant information will be Mammal Mitigation Protocol (MMMP) and draft reviewed and taken into account when In Principal Monitoring Plan (IPMP) with the preparing the final MMMP, this will include, application. However, we note that the draft where applicable, consideration to reduce any MMMP only includes details of how the risk of significant disturbance. EATL is open to injury would be reduced and does not expanding consultation on the MMMP post consider the reduction of the disturbance consent to include wider stakeholders. This is impact. Given the risk of cumulative effects of reflected in the draft SoCG with TWT. disturbance and the potential impacts on the pSAC, we believe there should be a greater commitment to mitigation for disturbance. We accept that the details of the MMMP cannot be determined until closer to construction. However, as this is then outside of the planning consent process, there is no requirement for consultation with non- statutory stakeholders. Given the importance of the MMMP, we believe this should be a more transparent process and would like a commitment to wider consultation on it. We are currently in discussions with the Applicant on how this may be achieved.
We support the suggestion in the IPMP of site All current and relevant information will be specific monitoring using C-PODs post reviewed and taken into account when construction. We believe that this will give fine developing the final Monitoring Plan, to ensure scale information about return rates to the site, it is appropriate for the site. which cannot be achieved by the more strategic DEPONS monitoring that aims to answer questions regarding population level impacts. We also note that the DEPONS project is outside the control of the Applicant and this DCO process and therefore should not be relied upon to provide any necessary monitoring. We believe that the overlap with the pSAC will require a robust monitoring programme to ensure no adverse effect on
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 144
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
integrity.
1.39 Vattenfall Wind Power
28. East Anglia THREE Limited (EATL) would like to thank you for taking the time to provide a relevant representation to the development consent order application made by EATL for the East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm. We look forward to engaging further with Vattenfall during the Examination period and beyond.
1.40 VisNed
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
VisNed is a federation of recognised Fish EATL recognise that VisNed will have Producer Organisations in Dutch demersal considerable interest in our proposals and are fisheries, mainly targeting flatfish species. willing to engage further during the course of the VisNed represents fishing companies landing Examination. approximately 80% of the value of Dutch demersal fisheries. Our members' vessels operate all over the North Sea including British waters outside the 12 mile limit. The offshore waters off the East coast of England are the most important fishing grounds for a large part of our fleet that has Dover Sole as their main target species. The East Anglia Three Offshore Wind Farm development is planned on these prime fishing grounds. This means VisNed has a legitimate interest and would like to be registered as an Interested Party. We consider it of the utmost importance to keep EATL are committed to continued dialogue with the negative impact of this development on our Visned throughout all stages of the Project. All fisheries to a minimum. The extent of safety points mentioned within the Relevant zones during construction, the choice of location Representation are addressed within the SoCG and cable trenches are of great importance to us. between VisNed and EATL. No less important are the details about the layout The final layout of the windfarm will not be of the project, allowing our members' vessels to determined until consent has been granted. fish safely within the project with least possible Once this has been determined details of the hindrance to their fishing operations. layout will be submitted to the MMO for their approval. However it should be noted that the turbine layout will be in a linear fashion with at least 675m between turbines and 900m between rows of turbines. This is secured by Requirement 2(d) of the draft DCO and condition 1(1)(d) of the draft DMLs for the generation assets. In this matter we closely cooperate with our The support and agreement of VisNed to the
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 145
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
British partner, the NFFO, and we hereby would relevant representation submitted by their British like to express our support for and agreement partner, the NFFO, is acknowledged. EATL are with the issues raised in the NFFO's submitted currently consulting with the NFFO and VisNed in initial representation. These issues concern the order to progress a joint SoCG. EATL are insufficient acknowledgement in the committed to promoting co-existence with Environmental Statement of the range of issues VisNed and its member vessels through the limiting fisheries in the project as well as the specific points listed under 'Management strengthening of mitigation commitments. Like Measures' within the SoCG. A requirement for a the NFFO we also see the benefits of having fisheries liaison and coexistence plan will be sight of a fisheries liaison and coexistence plan. included within the draft development consent We think the cumulative assessment should take order (DCO) (see condition 13(d)(v) of the draft into account existing proposals and DMLs), as referenced within the SoCG. developments that limit fishing and/or can be burdening to fishing businesses. The Existing developments are considered in the opportunity of developing a Statement of baseline used in the assessment within which Common Ground to clarify mutual views on the commercial fishing activity currently occurs and aforementioned issues before considering to which commercial fishing interests have submitting a written representation would be already adapted. The cumulative assessment welcomed. considers a comprehensive range of projects at various stages of development (i.e. in construction or in planning). 1.41 WDC
Relevant Representation Comment EATLs Response
The North Sea offers a variety of rich cetacean Noted. habitats, and East Anglia THREE offshore wind farm lies within the Southern North Sea pSAC for Annex II species harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). In particular, the development lies in an area of the pSAC where harbour porpoises are found throughout the year, and where key prey species for the harbour porpoise occur.
The harbour porpoise is considered particularly Noted. All of these potential impacts have been vulnerable to disturbance, injury or death from assessed within the Environmental Impact the noise generated by pile driving, which is also Assessment and recorded in the Environmental potentially capable of damaging hearing of Statement at Chapter 12 (Document Reference – harbour porpoises and driving away key prey 6.1.12) sections 12.6 and 12.7. species.
Research conducted so far has shown the The assessment has looked at both physical and potential for pile driving to be audible by harbour behavioural effects upon harbour porpoise, using porpoises beyond 80 km from the source, cause site specific data and modelling together with a behavioural changes in harbour porpoises up to full review of relevant information and studies. 15 km from the piling site and could mask EATL have undertaken a precautionary
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 146
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
communication at 30 – 40 km. In many areas assessment, the methodology and outcomes of harbour porpoises left the area during which have been agreed with Natural England. construction and in some instances did not later return to their usual numbers. Even where areas have been recolonised, it is not clear if these are the same animals returning or new animals moving into the area.
The construction of East Anglia THREE offshore At this time it is not possible to rule out LSE upon wind farm has the potential to negatively impact the integrity of the Southern North Sea pSAC, the integrity of the Southern North Sea pSAC, not however at the time of the submission of the just in the immediate area, but also further application there was insufficient information ranging due to the distances at which harbour available to undertake a meaningful assessment porpoises can be negatively impacted by noise of the Southern North Sea pSAC. As further generated during the construction period. information becomes available EATL will undertake further assessment. Following advice from Natural England, it is anticipated that this assessment will be undertaken prior to the Planning Inspectorate drafting the Report on the Implications for European Sites (RIES).
WDC is concerned about the potential for The EIA assessed noise impacts from all phases cetaceans, in particular harbour porpoises, to be of the development, notwithstanding, the disturbed and displaced, including by the noise recognition that construction noise is likely to introduced into their environment. Noise will be have the greatest effect. produced throughout the life of the development, Sections 12.6.1.1 to 12.6.1.3 of the including construction, operation and Environmental Statement records the decommissioning, and from associated vessel assessment of impacts underwater; Sections traffic. 12.6.2.1 to 12.6.2.3 consider the impacts of underwater noise during operation; Section Marine renewables impact on cetaceans in ways 12.6.3.1 considers impacts of underwater noise ranging from collisions to habitat displacement during decommissioning and Section 12.7.1 due to the effects of noise and disturbance. considers cumulative impacts of underwater noise. Noise pollution has the potential to displace animals and populations, interfere with normal behaviour and, at very high intensities, be physically damaging. All cetaceans are offered ‘strict protection’ under the Habitats Directive.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 147
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
The cumulative effects of these developments EATL have produced a cumulative impact with other industries operating in the marine assessment (Section 12.7) that is intended to be environment, such as other renewable comprehensive and precautionary. The developments, shipping and oil and gas assessment highlights the many areas of exploration, are also largely unknown. Yet it is uncertainty and precaution involved when important that cumulative and in-combination looking at both the effects and the likely impacts be adequately considered and our scenarios of projects constructing and operating understanding developed. in future.
Applicant comments on relevant representations Page 148
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm ...... July,2016
ScottishPower Renewables
Offshore Wind Development
Address: 4th Floor, 1 Atlantic Quay, Glasgow, G2 8JB
www.scottishpowerrenewables.comApplicant comments on relevant representations Page 149