THE PLANNING ACT 2008

THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (EXAMINATION PROCEDURE) RULES 2010

Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park Application Appendices to Relevant Representations of Natural

for: The construction and operation of Navitus Offshore Wind Park – 970MW offshore wind farm located approximately 14.8km off the and Hampshire coast and to the west of the Isle of Wight

Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010024

Dated 23rd June 2014

APPENDICIES:

Appendix 1: Seascape Landscape Visual Impact Assessment

Appendix 2: Ornithology

Appendix 3: Fish

Appendix 4: Marine Mammals

Appendix 1: Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

INTRODUCTION Our comments are based on a comprehensive review of the Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (SLVIA) contained within Chapter 13 plus associated figures and Appendices in the Environmental Statement (ES) and site visits undertaken by Natural England on the 12th to 14th May, 2014. We also comment on the onshore effects based upon our review of the Onshore Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), Chapter 12 of the ES in respect of the onshore cable routing and substation within the New Forest National Park.

1.1. SLIVA Methodology and Approach

1.1.1. The methodology for the SLVIA has been updated to take account of the third edition of Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3). This supersedes the GLVIA2 method included in the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI)3. The revised methodology is provided in the SLVIA chapter, and in Appendix 13.4 of the ES. 1.1.2. We note that SLVIA states that the general approach was agreed with Natural England and paragraph 13.3.5 of the ES states that “the GLVIA3 methodology was agreed with Natural England in January 2014.” However, Natural England only agreed a generic GLVIA3 compliant methodology and not a detailed method and criteria specific to the proposed development. Having reviewed the revised method, we concur that it follows the guidance set out in GLVIA3, although we have a number of specific comments on its application. We set these out below. 1.1.3. Natural England has consistently commented on the approach taken by the SLVIA (Para. 13.3.102 of the SLVIA) that states that impacts that are moderate or less are not significant in the context of the EIA regulations. This sets the bar for significance relatively high, and is not consistent with the EIA methodology set out in Chapter 5 of the ES. Table 5.11 clearly indicates that moderate impacts are considered to be significant, and it unusual for the SLVIA chapter to take a different stance. However, Natural England’s principal concern is to ensure that that significance is appropriately assigned overall.

1.2. Assessing Sensitivity

1.2.1. Sensitivity of Landscape and Seascape receptors

In line with GLVIA3, sensitivity is assessed by combining the considerations of susceptibility and value.

The interpretation of susceptibility in the revised methodology places an emphasis on the probability of “undue consequences” for the receptor so that a high probability of “undue consequences” corresponds to a high susceptibility and a low probability to a low susceptibility. Limited information is provided about which factors have been considered in evaluating the susceptibility of the landscape receptors and the factors that give rise to undue consequences. The methodology simply states that the features and characteristics influence an area’s susceptibility without setting out which or explaining what constitutes lower or higher susceptibility in the context of this type of development. We believe that there is also a discrepancy in the clarity provided for how sensitivity has been judged for the different receptors. The susceptibility of seascape units is explained in greater detail, which is helpful, with specific factors contributing to higher and lower susceptibility set out. It would be useful to have a similar level of clarity in relation to landscape receptors. 1.2.2. Sensitivity for visual receptors This is assessed as a ‘single-step’ process combining susceptibility and value. The text under 13.3.8 may underestimate some views from the highly valued coastlines of the Isle of Wight, Dorset and New Forest. Receptors experiencing views from key locations in designated landscapes and on National Trails should also be defined as ‘High’ and not ‘High-Medium’. A ‘High’ should not apply just to ‘viewpoints’ or designed views. 1.2.3. Magnitude The assessment of magnitude of effect is generic to both seascape/landscape and visual receptors. While better defined than the sensitivity criteria, they could be improved with more detail specific to the assessment of the effects of an offshore wind farm on coastal landscapes and notably the perceptual characteristics associated with them. The threshold for a large magnitude of change is very high thereby requiring total or major alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics. 1.2.4. Significance The assessment of impact significance is guided by the diagram set out in Table 13.2, combining the sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of effect, which is noted in the SLVIA (13.3.99) as being different to that set out for the general EIA method in chapter 5. It would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of this table and the fact that it sets the bar relatively high (3 points out of 16 point matrix) where effects are significant. The SLVIA refers to the IEMA Special Report, 2011 as the source of the table. However, this report does not present the table as a ‘standard’ or example of best practice and specifically does not suggest that only those effects above moderate are likely to be ‘significant’. We also note that effects that are moderate (not significant in this ES) may collectively result in an effect being significant, for example Natural England would expect that a cumulative ‘moderate’ effect along a National Trail could well result in an overall significant effect. This is not stated in the methodology. 1.2.5. Direction of effects Further discussion is provided in the final SLVIA in relation to the direction of effects in Section 13.3.119 – 124 to clarify comments made on the draft SLVIA. Paragraph 13.3.124 states that in keeping with “the general planning presumption that distinctive character and designated landscapes should be protected, effects on landscape receptors are generally assumed to be adverse”. Natural England welcomes this change. Visual effects are “generally described as being neutral” while impacts on seascape character are not directly referred to in this section. This paragraph characterises the attitudes of the general public as being, in the main, positively disposed to the appearance of wind turbines in the offshore environment. However, in our opinion, there is nothing to suggest that the general public would be so accepting of this particular development in this particular location. The wide range of attitudes to wind energy and wind turbines is accepted, but it is nevertheless reasonable to take a precautionary stance, assuming that impacts will be adverse, or to apply sound professional judgement.

1.3. BASELINE The landscape and seascape baseline is similar to that set out in the PEI3 and the visual baseline has been brought in line with recommendations in GLVIA3. We note that any judgements on sensitivity are now no longer in the baseline section and have been moved to the Impact Assessment (13.5). 1.3.1. Seascape character The seascape baseline is set out in terms of Regional Seascape Units (RSU) which have been devised for the purposes of this SLVIA and Seascape Character Types (SCT’s) drawn from the Dorset Coast landscape and Seascape Character Assessment1 These form two overlapping layers, both of which are assessed separately (ref. Fig. 13.4 and 13.5) and therefore provide a confusing seascape baseline for the reader. The seascape character types provide a potentially complex baseline since they are not geographically discrete areas and are likely to have widely differing sensitivities depending on their particular location for example different areas of coastal waters or cliffs. 1.3.2. Landscape character The landscape character baseline is drawn from the published landscape character assessments for Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Natural England is pleased to note that for Dorset additional details have been incorporated from the Dorset AONB LCA to add further information. There is no reference to information being incorporated from the New Forest NP LCA for relevant areas in Hampshire. For the Isle of Wight, the 1994 AONB LCA provides the baseline.

1 LDA Design (2010) Dorset Coast Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment. Dorset Coast Forum and Dorset County Council Only Landscape Character Types (LCTs) with a coastal character or coastal views have been included within the landscape baseline, and inclusion criteria are clearly set out at paragraph 13.4. 42. This approach is appropriate in order to focus the SLVIA on potentially significant impacts. Natural England notes that the use of generic county level landscape types rather than district level or the AONB/National Park character areas means that the baseline is quite broad brush particularly as sensitivity, magnitude of change and significance of effects will vary considerably with location relative to the coast/sea. We appreciate that this is a nationally significant infrastructure project and therefore a proportionate approach to the assessment needs to be adopted. However, in order to properly understand the impacts on the landscape a geographically specific approach would be more helpful. 1.3.3. Designations Para 13.4.95 identifies the nationally designated landscapes of particular interest to Natural England. In addition to the National Park and AONBs this list now also includes the Dorset Heritage Coast: Purbeck Coast and Isle of Wight Heritage Coast: Tennyson Coast under the heading of National designations. NE is pleased to see this prominence given to the Heritage Coast. Natural England welcomes the inclusion of the special qualities that define the natural beauty of the designated landscapes in the impact assessment section of the SLVIA. 1.3.4. Visual baseline The visual baseline has been revised in line with GLVIA3, with identification of different receptor groups and representative viewpoints plus nine specific viewpoints. Natural England agree with the approach adopted in the SLVIA. 1.3.5. Visibility The SLVIA provides a useful summary of the prevailing offshore meteorological conditions. The figures for visibility shown in Tables 13.5 and 13.6 indicate similar patterns of visibility, and indicate that, at the closest (e.g. at , 14.4km away) the proposed development could be visible for at least three-quarters of the time. However, this drops significantly to less than half at 20km. To provide a worst case assessment, the greatest visibility must be assumed since it is on fine, clear days that people will visit the coast to appreciate the view.

1.4. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 1.4.1. Realistic worst case scenario (RWCS) The impact assessment is based on a ‘realistic worst case scenario’ (section 13.5.1), defined following discussions with Natural England and others. The revision to the Turbine Area Boundary of February 2014 reduced the extent of the array, as described in paragraph 13.3.127. For the purposes of the assessment, the 5MW scheme, comprising 194 turbines of up to 177m to blade tip height, was considered as the worst case for seascape, landscape and visual effects during the construction phase. For the operation phase the 8MW scheme comprising 121 turbines of 200m tip height (the ‘8MW layout’) was considered worst case, due to the greater height of the turbines. Natural England notes that the 5MW layout could also be worst case for operational effects in some cases, due to turbine density and the potential for a less coherent appearance. Natural England welcome the reference made to the 5MW layout at 5 specific viewpoints to allow comparison on the schemes (view 8, 9, 13, 25 and 28). This confirms that the 5MW layout can appear more dense and cluttered in views compared to the 8MW layout which allows greater spacing and views through the array. Natural England agrees that night time RWCS should be the 5 MW layout resulting in the installation of a greater number of lights. 1.4.2. Seascape Effects One significant effect is identified for part of one regional seascape unit (Purbeck Coast) which is identified as Major-moderate in the east and Moderate (not significant) in the west. Natural England is pleased to see the elevation in significance for this part of the coast As noted, there are no significant effects on any of the coastal seascape character types. This is a surprising result for a development of this scale within the seascape, and significant effects could be expected here. The SLVIA does not provide certainty that such effects will not occur. The complexity of the baseline makes the judgement on effects difficult to interpret. For example significant effects are identified at the regional level (part of Purbeck Coast) but none are found at the local level covering the same stretch of coastline. It is difficult to understand how the judgements on the significance of effects on the regional units and types interrelate (Table 13.8 and 13. 9).

1.4.3. Landscape Effects The introduction to this section (13.5.213) notes that an offshore development will not change any of the physical characteristics and attributes and that effects on character will be limited to effects on aesthetic attributes that relate to character and any associated perceptual characteristics. Natural England notes that aesthetic and perceptual characteristics are critical to character in many designated landscapes. We are pleased to see the more detailed geographical subdivisions for some of the generic landscape types in the SLVIA compared to PEI3 and greater consistency in judgements between areas. The assessment finds no significant effects on any Landscape Character Types (LCTs). Natural England considers that the ES underestimates significance of effect on landscape character, for those types where coastal character is key. We recognise that effects will not extend to the inland areas of the LCTs, but consider that they should be highlighted for the coastal parts of the landscape. For LCTs Limestone Plateau (Purbeck), Chalk Escarpment / Ridge (Purbeck) and Chalk Downs (Isle of Wight), Natural England considers that susceptibility should be recorded as high (undue consequences likely to arise) rather than medium and thereby elevating significance of effects to major-moderate. 1.4.4. Dorset Landscape Character Assessment Limestone Plateau LCT: This LCT lies along the elevated and prominent (part of the Dorset AONB, Purbeck Heritage Coast and ‘’ World Heritage Site). It is described (13.5.243) as having a coastal orientation and exposed nature with open views and a focus on the seascape and uncluttered horizon, with an overall sensitivity of high-medium. This is the LCT which is closest (14.4km) to the proposed development. For the part of the LCT between St. Aldheim’s Head and Durlston Head, the magnitude of effect is considered to be medium with visual effects covering more than half of this part of the LCT, resulting in a moderate effect (not significant). Natural England consider that this part of the coastal landscape will experience a significant effect. Chalk Escarpment/Ridge LCT: This LCT forms the Purbeck Ridge and includes . It is assessed as having an overall high-medium sensitivity. It forms part of the Dorset AONB and Purbeck Heritage Coast. The magnitude of effect is described as medium for the area at Ballard Down and with an overall moderate effect (not significant). Natural England consider that this part of the coastal landscape will experience a significant effect. 1.4.5. Isle of Wight LCT 1: Chalk Downs: This LCT lies approximately 17.5 km north-east of the turbine area. It extends from the Needles in the west along the chalk ridge to the downs. It is part of the Isle of Wight AONB and the Tennyson Heritage Coast. It is assessed as having a high-medium sensitivity and a medium magnitude of effect for the area that lies west of Freshwater on the Tennyson Down. This results in an overall moderate effect (not significant). Natural England consider that for this coastal landscape where the sea views are critical, the effect should be regarded as significant.

1.5. VISUAL EFFECTS

1.5.1. Assessment of Effects on Specific and Representative Viewpoints The methodology for the preparation of visualisations is set out in 6.2.2.13.4 Volume B Chapter 13 Seascape Landscape and Visual Appendix 13.2. This states that Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) wireframes and photomontages in the SLVIA are produced to comply with SNH Guidance 2006 and that photomontages ‘will assist readers of the assessment in visualising the proposals, but are not used in reaching judgements of effect’. The 2006 guidance is the current industry standard. Natural England confirms that all visualisations produced for viewpoints which are of particular relevance to Natural England comply with SNH 2006. The SLVIA photomontages are therefore technically compliant with the appropriate guidance, although it is recognised that there are concerns about this guidance with reference to offshore wind energy schemes. To counter this and in response to Natural England’s concerns, additional visualisations have been produced by the applicant as single frames for both the 5MW and 8MW layout, with 39.6 degree field of view (equivalent to 50mm focal length single frame) and 27 degree field of view (equivalent to 75mm focal length single frame). These are a useful addition. Natural England notes that the turbines are represented in the wireframes and photomontages facing into the prevailing wind. This is accepted as an accurate and most realistic method in SNH Guidance 2006. Natural England agrees with the approach to the selection of specific and representative viewpoints. 1.5.1.1. Effects on Specific Viewpoints The following table summarises the effects which are identified in relation to specific viewpoints which lie within nationally-designated landscapes or along the South West Coast Path. Effects which are judged to be significant in the context of the EIA Regulations are highlighted in bold.

Table 1 Assessment of effects on specific viewpoints Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance Visualisations provided (distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

6. Povington Hill Dorset High Low Moderate 90 photo, AONB, wireframe and 28.2 km Purbeck photomontage Heritage 26.4 degrees (17.1 Coast degrees visible)

Natural England Natural England considers that the magnitude of effect here is more than low and Comments: that effects on this viewpoint are significant.

7 Dorset High Medium Major-moderate 90 photo, AONB, wireframe and 23.1km Purbeck photomontage Heritage 31.4 degrees (121 Coast, Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance Visualisations provided (distance)

(extent of horizon occupied) turbines visible) Jurassic Coast WHS

Natural England Agree. There is a significant effect at this viewpoint comments:

8 St Aldhelm’s Dorset High- Medium Major-moderate 90 photo, Head AONB, , medium wireframe and Purbeck photomontage 19.0 km Heritage Coast, 8MW and 5MW 36.7 degrees Jurassic scheme shown Coast WHS, SWCP

Natural England Agree. There is a significant effect at this viewpoint comments:

9 Durlston Castle Dorset High- High-medium Major-moderate 90 photo, AONB, medium wireframe and 14.4 km Purbeck photomontage Heritage (should be 42.7 degrees of the Coast, high) 50mm and 75mm view Jurassic single frame

Coast image WHS, photomontages SWCP with 8MW and 5MW scheme shown

Natural England We have difficulty in understanding the reasoning for the sensitivity of receptors not comments to be high at the viewpoint which is designated as an AONB, Heritage Coast, WHS, National Trail, a heritage asset and a specific location where visitor come to enjoy sea views. At 14.4 km it is the closest point to the scheme and it is inconsistent to have a lower magnitude of change compared to Hurst Castle at 23 km distance. Natural England considers that effects on visual receptors at this specific viewpoint will be Major.

12 Old Harry Rocks Dorset High Medium Major-moderate 90 photo, AONB, wireframe and 16.3km Purbeck photomontage Heritage 37.2 degrees Coast, Jurassic Coast WHS, Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance Visualisations provided (distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

SWCP

Natural England Agree. There is a significant effect at this viewpoint (suggest at this angle of view, comments: the magnitude of change should be large)

27 Hurst Castle New Forest High- High Major 90 photo, National medium wireframe and 23 km Park photomontage

23.1 degrees

Natural England Agree. There is a major significant effect but note inconsistencies with other comments: viewpoints e.g. Durlston Castle.

28 The Needles Isle of High High Major 90 photo, Wight wireframe and 17.7 km AONB, photomontage Tennyson 28.7 degrees Heritage 50mm and 75mm Coast single frame image photomontage with 8MW and 5MW scheme shown

Natural England Agree. There is a major significant effect comments:

29 Tennyson’s Isle of High Medium Major-moderate 90 photo, Monument Wight wireframe and AONB, photomontage 19.5 km Tennyson Heritage 27.8 degrees Coast

Natural England Agree. There is a significant effect suggest major cf. Needles, as there is very little difference (same horizontal spread and just 2km further distance). comments:

32 Limerstone Isle of High Medium-low Moderate 90 photo, Down Wight wireframe and AONB, (disagree) (downgraded from photomontage 26.1km Tennyson draft ES)

Heritage 50mm and 75mm 24.8 degrees single frame Coast image Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance Visualisations provided (distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

photomontage with 8MW and 5MW scheme shown

Natural England Our site visit confirmed that the effect on this viewpoint would still be greater than comments: medium – low magnitude and in our opinion should be recorded as significant.

33 Blackgang Car Isle of High Low-very low Minor 90 photo, Park Wight wireframe and AONB, photomontage 27.8km Tennyson Heritage 24.3 degrees Coast

Natural England This viewpoint is obscured by vegetation. 100 metres to the south there is an open comments panoramic view of the seaward horizon, marking significant visual effects from this distance.

1.5.1.2. Representative Viewpoints The following table summarises the effects which are identified in relation to representative viewpoints which lie within designated landscapes or along the South West Coast Path.

Table 2 Assessment of impacts on representative viewpoints Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance

(distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

1 Portland Cliffs Dorset Walkers Negligible 90 photo, wireframe and AONB, photomontage 41.5 km Purbeck Heritage 18.4 degrees Coast, Jurassic Coast WHS, SWCP

Natural England At this angle of view and given the scale and nature of the turbines on Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance

(distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

Comments the horizon, the scale of change could be low rather than negligible at this viewpoint. At this distance it is unlikely to be significant.

2 SWCP Visitors Negligible 90 photo, wireframe and photomontage 45.5 km Walkers on SWCP 17.2 degrees

Natural England Agree (although the assessment states that only the tips will be visible, Comments whereas the hubs and blades of a number of turbines are visible in the visualisations).

3 Redcliff Point Dorset Walkers Small- 90 photo, wireframe and AONB, Negligible photomontage 44 km Purbeck Heritage 17 degrees Coast, Jurassic Coast WHS, SWCP

Natural England The assessment states that “the baseline view will be largely Comments unchanged despite discernible difference”

4 Osmington White Dorset Walkers Negligible 90 photo, wireframe and Horse AONB, photomontage Purbeck 44.7 km Heritage Coast 1.8 degrees

Natural England Agree Comments

5 Hambury Tout Dorset Walkers Small 90 photo, wireframe and AONB, photomontage 33.8 km Purbeck Heritage 22.6. degrees Coast, Jurassic Coast WHS, Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance

(distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

SWCP

Natural England The turbines will be visible extending out into the sea from the Comments headland to the southeast and scale of effect could be higher. In the draft ES PEI 3, effects are considered to be moderate at this viewpoint. The view here has not changed and this would support our concern that collectively moderate impacts on people using the SWCP can occur up to 30 km distance. This is not bought out in the final SLVIA.

10 Dorset Local Negligible 90 photo, wireframe and Seafront AONB, residents photomontage SWCP 15.8 km

6.7. degrees visible

Natural England This viewpoint does not provide a useful representative view of the Comments scheme from Swanage. A viewpoint located further north along the coast would have shown the scheme visible beyond and extending across the bay.

11 Ballard Down Dorset Walkers Large- 90 photo, wireframe and AONB, medium photomontage 17.0 km Purbeck Heritage 37.1 degrees Coast

Natural England Agree. The key elements of this view include openness, remoteness Comments and expansiveness and the project would be a foremost feature.

13 Knoll Beach Dorset Visitors Negligible 90 photo, wireframe and AONB, photomontage 18.7 km Purbeck Heritage 0 degrees Coast, SWCP

Natural England This is not a useful representation of views from Studland. Scenic, Comments long views towards Old Harry Rocks are available further north of this point. Significant visual effects are likely to arise in views representative of recreational receptors on the beaches to the north and people at the start/end of the SWCP National Trail. At this point the turbines will be seen in context of Old Harry Rocks in a similar way to the view from 27. Hurst Castle, where they are seen in the context of the Needles (at a greater distance). Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance

(distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

23 Holmsley Ridge New Travelling Negligible 90 photo, wireframe and Forest public, rural photomontage 29,6km National road users Park 19.3 degrees

Natural England The turbines will be noticeable from this location, occupying the Comments entirety of the seaward part of the view. This is relatively small, but significant for being a focal point. We consider that the scale of effect will therefore be low rather than negligible.

24 Hatchet Moor New Cyclists Negligible 90 photo, wireframe and Forest photomontage 34.5 km National Park 12.8 degrees

Natural England Agree Comments

26 Sea-Wall, Solent New Walkers Medium- 90 photo, wireframe and Way Forest small photomontage National 25.8 km Park

15.6 degrees

Natural England Agree. We note that the scale of effect is higher than in the draft ES Comments (although the sensitivity of the receptors present here has been reduced to high-medium). In our opinion there will therefore be significant visual effects for people visiting the southern part of the National Park, specifically from Hurst Spit and the southern most parts of the Solent coast as represented by view 26.

30 Compton Beach Isle of Visitors Medium- 90 photo, wireframe and Wight small photomontage 21.9 km AONB, Walkers Tennyson 20 degrees Heritage Coast

Natural England Although seen in large scale seaward views, the turbines will form a Comments new focal point and alter the open expanse of the horizon, a key aspect of the view. The scale of effects at this viewpoint should be reported as medium (as assessed in the Draft ES) rather than medium- Viewpoint Designation Sensitivity Scale of effect Significance

(distance)

(extent of horizon occupied)

small. It is not clear why this has been reduced in the final ES (a difference of 3 degrees does not reduce the overall scale of change). This is a further example of where there is likely to be a sequence of at least moderate effects

31 Mottistone Isle of Walkers Medium- 90 photo, wireframe and Wight small photomontage 24.2 AONB

25.7 degrees

Natural England Comments

1.5.1.3. Night time effects Night time effects are assessed at two viewpoints of interest to Natural England

 9: Durlston Castle (Dorset AONB and Heritage Coast)  29: Tennyson’s Monument (Isle of Wight AONB and Heritage Coast).

Moderate (not significant effects) are recorded at each location. In Natural England’s view the assessment does not consider how the lighting would impact on the special qualities of these designated areas. Dark night skies are recorded as a special quality contributing to the natural beauty of both AONBs. The views out to sea are one of the key locations to appreciate dark skies.

1.5.2. Effects on visual receptors

The main visual receptor of interest to Natural England, in addition to views from designated landscapes is recreational receptors in relation to the South West Coast Path National Trail and Isle of Wight Coast Path, Tennyson Trail and the Solent Way. The SLVIA describes users of long distance routes as of high-medium sensitivity. Natural England considers that walkers on the coastal paths who are primarily walking to appreciate the coastal and sea views are of high sensitivity.

1.5.2.1. South West Coast Path National Trail The SLVIA identifies a significant (major-moderate) effect on a part of the trail between Studland to Egmont Point, just west of St. Aldhelm’s Head with the greatest effect at Durlston and diminishing westwards. This section of the trail passes through the Dorset AONB, Purbeck Heritage Coast and Jurassic Coast WHS. Natural England considers that a sequence of moderate impacts westwards along the trail from this distance should also be recorded as significant. The Natural England site visit confirmed that there will be significant effects at the eastward start/end of the trail (Knoll Beach), where the turbines will be seen in the context of Old Harry Rocks. We note that in the SLVIA significant effects are predicted for users of the coast path as it passes along Studland’s coastal edge but not for visitors to the National Trust land at Studland. This would appear to be an inconsistency in the findings of the assessment.

1.5.2.2. Tennyson Trail and Isle of Wight Coastal Path The SLVIA identifies a significant (major-moderate) effect on visual recreational receptors using this route between the Needles and Freshwater. The SLVIA identifies a moderate (not significant) effect on the trail eastwards between Freshwater and Blackgang. Natural England considers that the sequence of moderate impacts on this part of the trail (for example at Compton Beach) should be identified as an overall significant effect.

1.5.2.3. New Forest National Park - Solent Way We note that the SLVIA identifies a significant (major) effect on the specific viewpoint at Hurst Castle (view 27), within the New Forest National Park. Representative viewpoint 26 inland on the Sea Wall, Solent Way records a medium-small scale of effect. We consider that this is underestimated and that there is a collection of significant effects for recreational receptors in this coastal part of the New Forest National Park.

1.5.3. Effects on Landscape Designations

This section includes an appropriate analysis of the special qualities that define the natural beauty of the designated landscapes.

1.5.3.1. Dorset AONB The SLVIA identifies a localised significant effect (major – moderate) on the coastline between St Aldhelm’s Head and Old Harry Rocks, which form a section of the Dorset AONB, Heritage Coast and Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Paragraph 13.805 of the Environmental Statement refers to the “exceptional undeveloped coastline renowned for its spectacular scenery,” referenced in the AONB special qualities. This is an accurate judgement. The special qualities of the Dorset AONB which are most likely to be affected by the development are listed on page 181 of the SLVIA Assessment in the Environmental Statement, and are discussed in relation to the predicted impacts on the different areas of the AONB in the following paragraphs. However the special qualities of the AONB are not considered in the ‘overall’ impact assessment of the AONB. Furthermore paragraph 13.5.829 of the Environmental Statement states that “the nature of the effect is limited to a perceptual one which would not alter the physical properties and attributes of the AONB”. Natural England considers that this underestimates the changes to the special qualities that will result from the development, specifically “tranquillity and remoteness”, “exceptional, undeveloped coastline” and “dark night skies” in the coastal parts of the AONB.

Natural England considers that a more detailed assessment should be made of how the distinctive and “exceptional” views along the coast of the Dorset AONB will be changed by the development. Such as views to landmarks and coastal features, for example views of Old Harry Rocks from Studland and where prospects out to the open sea are an integral part of the experience of the coastal edge. These are touched on in the assessment of specific viewpoints (see below), but not really drawn out in the assessment of impacts on the AONB. Based on review of the SLVIA and field survey of the Dorset AONB, Natural England consider that the level of effect on the Dorset AONB is greater than solely limited to the Old Harry Rocks to St. Aldhelm’s sub area A but also includes:-  Sub area B: Poole Harbour and Studland of the AONB and Heritage Coast where the coastal views out to sea and to Old Harry Rocks are critical to character and designation (exceptional coastline). Here the development will be seen in combination with Old Harry Rocks.  Sub area D: St. Aldhelm’s Head to . There are also exceptional coastal views from the coastal edge and inland chalk ridge from this area which encompass the development which form this area will be seen floating ‘above’ St Aldhelm’s changing perceptions and sense of scale. Natural England agrees that the inland part of the Dorset AONB where the special quality of exceptional undeveloped coastline is not experienced, will not be affected by the development.

1.5.3.2. Isle of Wight AONB Natural England notes the special qualities of the IoW AONB listed on page 177 and 178 of the SLVIA Assessment in the Environmental Statement. The AONB is divided into 5 geographic sub areas (A1, A2, B, C and D) of which only area A, the south west will have visibility of the turbines. Within sub area A1: The south west (north) from the Needles to Freshwater, the assessment acknowledges the “strong visual relationship between the cliffs and the sea at this part of the AONB; with seascapes being identified as an important characteristic of the AONB, and ‘majestic sea cliffs and sweeping beaches’ listed as a special quality” (paragraph 13.5.786). Despite the project “being introduced in relatively close proximity” and “altering the perception of tranquillity within this portion of the seaward view” the scale of effect is judged to be medium-low only. Natural England considers that the effect will be higher as a result in the change to the seaward views from this part of the AONB which will give rise to significant impacts. The SLVIA finds only moderate effects (not significant) on this area despite stating that the project would be visible in relatively close proximity to this portion of the AONB and would become a new focal point in seaward views, notably from the distinctive chalk downland such as at Tennyson Down. From the coastal edge of A2: The south west (south) from Freshwater to St Catherine’s Point. There will be open views from stretch of coastline towards the turbines, which will form a new focal point in seaward views. However, only a low magnitude of impact is reported. Natural England notes that there will be a significant impact to areas A1 and A2 of the IoW AONB. Natural England agrees that the northern coastline and inland areas of the AONB would not be subject to any adverse impacts.

1.5.3.3. New Forest National Park

There will be significant visual impact occurring at the southern edge of the National Park, along Hurst Spit and the Solent Coast, which will alter the sea views available from the National Park. This is not drawn out in the assessment, which concludes that the special qualities of the National Park will not be affected overall. Natural England agrees that the National Park as a whole will not be subject to a significant effect. See impacts of the onshore work (below). 1.5.3.4. Heritage Coasts Natural England is pleased to see the greater emphasis on Heritage Coasts in the SLVIA and note that for all Heritage Coasts sensitivity is judged to be high. Purbeck Heritage Coast: The ES finds significant effects on part of the Dorset Coast (Coast and coastal fringe from Old Harry Rock to St. Aldhem’s Head). Natural England consider that these significant effects will also be experienced from the section of the heritage coast at Studland and west of St. Aldhelm’s. Tennyson Heritage Coast: The ES finds no significant effects on any part of the Tennyson Heritage Coast. Natural England disagrees with this conclusion and consider that there will be significant effects on sections A1 and A2 from the Needles towards St. Catherine’s Point.

1.5.3.5. Dorset and East Coast (‘Jurassic Coast’) World Heritage Site

Natural England’s commentary on the impact of the proposal on the setting of the ‘Jurassic Coast’ World Heritage Site will made via English Heritage and their advice to DCMS. This in line with Natural England’s responsibilities under the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.6. ONSHORE ASSESSMENT

The methodology follows GLVIA2, unlike the SLVIA which follows GLVIA3. Natural England does not consider this to be a key issue.

1.6.1. Impacts in relation to the New Forest National Park Impacts are assessed for the construction and operation phases, and it is anticipated that impacts are more likely to arise from construction activities than from the operational phase, during which no above-ground structures will be present along the cable corridor. The following tables summarise the assessed impacts relating to the National Park.

The assessment notes that the impacts will be localised, and would result from loss or disturbance to landscape features, including long term loss of woodland. Natural England agrees overall that the National Park will not be affected significantly by changes in character or to its special qualities as a result of the onshore works.

1.6.2. Mitigation A chief omission identified in relation to the ES was the lack of detailed consideration of landscape elements, including areas of heathland, broadleaf woodland and hedgerows which would be lost or disturbed as part of the works along the cable route (although no areas of heathland within the National Park will be affected). Paragraphs 12.3.42 to 12.3.65 of the chapter provides a summary of the extent of woodland, heathland and hedgerows which will be and the approach which will be taken in restoring these. Table 12.8 (also reproduced in Chapter 10 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology) lists the location and extent of areas of broadleaf woodland which will be affected by the works and the measures which will be sought to either avoid these (through the use of HDD) or mitigate against them (through restoration post-construction). For areas of broad-leaf woodland, the assessment notes that deep- rooted tree species cannot be planted over the buried cables and therefore rides will need to be created. Natural England note that this will result in the long term loss of semi-mature and mature trees and woodland within the National Park. The assessment of impacts on the New Forest National Park details the areas of woodland which will be lost as a result of the construction and operation of the project. Natural England considers that the landscape impact of the onshore cable route during the construction phase will be significant. Post construction the permanent loss of broadleaved woodland along the sections of cable route is likely to change the landscape character of those locations affected. Provided that restoration measures are fully implemented and successful other sections of the cable route are unlikely to undergo a significant change of landscape character.

2. Appendix 2: OrnithologyNatural England has identified some data and methodological uncertainties that affect the offshore ornithological assessments within the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) and Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA)2.

2.1.1. Calculation of seabird densities and Distance sampling: Natural England has identified a lack of clarity regarding how the boat survey data have been treated to produce densities of birds on the water. Appendix 12. states that distance sampling was applied to species where there was a total of at least 60 sightings during the survey period, with a global detection function (using all data) being fitted to maximise the number of species to which distance sampling could be applied.. Natural England agrees that this is a suitable approach to estimating densities of birds recorded on the water during boat surveys. However, an examination of the data on monthly population estimates for key species in Annex IV presents 95% confidence intervals in association with some density estimates but not others which suggests that the application of the global detection functions has not been consistent.

Natural England considers it important that this issue is clarified because these data underpin the assessment. If a global detection function has not actually been applied (as suggested by the presentation of data in Annex IV), then densities should be recalculated on this basis. Natural England also notes that an estimate of ‘precision’ is given in Annex IV for those species and surveys for which density estimates have been generated using Distance. Clarification on this measure and its purpose is required. Furthermore, details of the Distance analyses (e.g. detection functions used, detection function curves and AIC values) are not provided to assess model reliability, and it is not evident whether data from transect ‘tails’ have been included.

2.1.2. Defining species sensitivity for impact assessment: Natural England note that in the matrix approach used to assess sensitivity of species to particular impacts (such as collision, displacement) sensitivity is taken into account both in assigning sensitivity and in discussion of magnitude of potential impacts (i.e. it is dealt with twice) – e.g. the collision model already accounts for how sensitive different species are to collision in terms of its input parameters (e.g. bird size, flight speed, flight behaviour etc). Natural England would suggest that it is more usual for approaches to assign sensitivity to account for this only within the assessment of impact magnitude. It is conceivable that the approach adopted could cause underestimation of the impact significance if the species-specific sensitivity was assessed to be low relative to that assessed via the actual measured impact magnitude. However, Natural England do not believe

2 The methodological uncertainties for HRA and EIA are largely the same and so have been consolidated under the one section where possible to avoid repetition that it has affected the outcome of this particular assessment in any material way.

2.1.3. Collision risk modelling (CRM): Outputs are from the Band (2012) model, recognised by Natural England. Within the 2012 model, there are two model types (‘basic’ and ‘extended’) and several options (usually referred to as 1, 2 and 3) which represent bird flight distribution in different ways. The Applicant’s modelling is focussed on Option 1 of the Band model, but with these outputs augmented by those from Options 2 and (in the HRA screening report) 3 of the Band model. Natural England considers this to be an appropriate approach to assessing and presenting collision risk estimates.

However, Natural England has a number of concerns with some aspects of how the CRMs have been calculated, as follows: i. For each survey month, the summed 'birds on the water' and 'birds in flight' densities, as opposed to birds in flight only, has been used as the input density in the CRM. Whilst this approach is precautionary it is unnecessarily precautionary because the available advice (and common practice) is to use the densities of birds recorded in flight from each month (Band 2012). This will over-estimate collision mortality. ii. Sea level has been referenced to lowest astronomical tide (LAT), which gives the maximum distance between the sea surface and the rotor swept area. Surveys have presumably been undertaken across a range of tidal states almost all of which will have been higher than LAT. Bird flight heights will have gauged against sea level on the day. However, birds recorded as flying at eg 30m above sea level on the day will not be flying at 30m above LAT, and attributing them to that height in CRM risks underestimating the percentage of birds flying at collision risk height. Collision estimates can be highly sensitive to small changes in the height of the rotors above the sea surface, and Natural England advises that the percentage of birds at potential collision height (PCH) should be calculated with the turbines referenced to mean sea level (MSL). iii. As mentioned above, Collision Risk Modelling has also been undertaken using Options 2 and 3 of the Band model, with generic flight height data for species (as provided by Cook et al. 2012). Option 2 estimates have been generated by relating generic flight height data to project specific turbine parameters to calculate the percentage of birds at collision height, and then using Option 1 as opposed to Option 2 within the CRM spreadsheet. This should produce the same outputs as directly applying Option 2 within the CRM spreadsheet, but checks undertaken by Natural England indicate that it gives markedly different outputs in this instance. The reasons for this discrepancy are likely to be linked to the fact that the generic flight height data are referenced to MSL but the CRM calculations have been based upon turbines referenced to LAT (and with a tidal offset applied in such a way that it increases, rather than resolves, this bias). Additionally the PCH values derived from the generic Cook et al. (2012) data and applicable at Navitus Bay, given the specification of the turbines considered, have been calculated by simply summing the proportions of birds between the lower and upper rotor heights. Natural England understands that this is not strictly correct (Bill Band pers. comm.) as it does not take into account the particular form of integration across the rotor swept height that is employed within the Band modelling toolkit in arriving at the appropriate number for use in Option 2 of the CRM model. This leads to uncertainty in the accuracy of the assessment. iv. It is also noted that the turbine blade width given in the CRM spreadsheet examples differs from that stated in the Table 4.3 of Appendix 12.4, whilst the minimum height of rotors above LAT will be calculated as 23m within the CRM spreadsheet and not 22m, as given in Table 4.3. These points require further clarification.

Natural England recommends that for the seabird CRMs further work is required to address the main potential inaccuracies that will result from the issues identified above. This could be done by considering the extent to which the different biases affect the outputs and amending these accordingly, and it may be necessary for clarity to re-run the CRMs.

Natural England also notes that within the Environmental Statement (ES) gannet CRM outputs are presented in relation to 99% avoidance rates, although outputs at both 98% and 99% avoidance are presented in the HRA Screening Report. Natural England does not agree that it is appropriate to focus the ES impact assessment for gannet on figures derived from a 99% avoidance rate alone, and consider that equal consideration should be given to figures based on a 98% avoidance rate.

2.1.4. Displacement: The Applicant has followed JNCC and Natural England guidance in presenting displacement matrices for key species. It is noted that for gannet, the ES and the HRA screening report discuss displacement at 60-70% and mortality at 1-10%.Whilst for guillemot and razorbill the ES uses a displacement range of 20-40%, with a mortality range of 1-10% in the breeding season and of 1% in the winter period. The HRA Screening report discusses rates up to 70% displacement. Given the almost total uncertainty concerning realistic levels of mortality of displaced birds, Natural England suggest that a suitably precautionary approach for the auk species would be the selection of a 1-10% mortality rate and displacement of up to 70% (as suggested recently at Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Hornsea Project 1 hearings) be considered for both the breeding and winter seasons in both the ES and the HRA Screening Report. However, Natural England acknowledges that the data provided within the ES will enable consideration of displacement effects at an appropriate range of rates for guillemot and razorbill.

For guillemot (at EIA) it must be the case that there is complete or partial overlap of the Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) in the different seasons. Therefore, Natural England advises that any displacement mortality impacts in different seasons are either completely or partially combined.

In considering the displacement outputs and associated data, it has been difficult to follow all of the figures and understand the derivation of population numbers on which displacement assessments are based (particularly for the auk species). In part at least this is due to the fact that the data in the ES chapter and associated technical appendix (12.1) are presented for the original PEI3 Turbine Area, whilst the assessment for the HRA screening report (which draws upon the population figures presented in Appendix 12.3) is based upon the Application Turbine Area. Whilst understanding why these discrepancies in the areas to which the data relate have arisen, Natural England request that greater clarification is provided on the population numbers assessed for auk species. Notwithstanding the reduction in size of the application area since PEI3 was submitted, it is not always clear why the population sizes presented in the ornithology technical appendix, the ES and the HRA screening report appear to differ.

The examples below for breeding season guillemot illustrate why further explanation and clarification on this issue is required. Similar discrepancies are apparent for wintering numbers and for razorbill.

- ES Appendix 12.1, Table 4.13 page 98 gives a breeding mean peak of 547 for the PEI3 Turbine Area. - ES Appendix 12.1, Annex V page 201 gives a breeding mean peak of 547 for the PEI3 Turbine Area. - ES Chapter Table 12.15 page 51 gives a breeding mean peak of 144 for the PEI3 Turbine Area. - ES Chapter Table 12.25 page 79 gives a breeding population assessed for displacement of 547 for the Application Turbine Area and 2km buffer. - ES Appendix 12.3 page 3 gives a breeding population assessed for displacement of 229 for the Application Turbine area and 2 km buffer.

Any change in numbers would require a revised assessment, given the regional importance of the population size during some periods (ES Table 12.16 and 12.17 pages 52 and 53).

2.1.5. Appropriate Population scales: Different approaches are taken in the ES and the HRA Screening report to defining reference populations against which predicted mortality from collisions and displacement can be assessed. The HRA Screening report defines Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) for key seabird species associated with different protected sites, whilst the ES assesses impacts against estimated regional, national and international population sizes for each species, which are determined separately for breeding, wintering and passage periods. The ES assesses effects on each seasonally distinct reference population within the initial species account and the combined seasonal effects on annual mortality in the cumulative assessment species accounts. HRA assesses the effects in relation only to the prescribed season defined for the relevant SPA colonies within the BDMPS.

For species other than some gulls, no suitable estimates of the national wintering population sizes have been obtained and it has been assumed that these are equivalent to national breeding populations. This will cause substantial under or overestimation of wintering numbers for several species (fulmar, gannet, skuas, kittiwake, Mediterranean gull, guillemot, razorbill and puffin), and Natural England require further justification for this approach, along with discussion of the resulting biases. Natural England also requires clarification of discrepancies in the regional 1% population estimates provided for certain species (e.g. migration estimates for kittiwake and gannet in Appendix 12.1, Annex V Tables 1 and 2 compared to ES Chapter Tables 12.16 and 12.17).

In terms of the BDMPSs used, Natural England recommends that the following clarifications or further work are undertaken: i. Natural England is aware of significant new work regarding BDMPSs for gannet, kittiwake and auks submitted as part of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck OWF examination that should be taken into account during the Navitus Bay examination process. ii. Gannet: In addition to the new BDMPS work, further clarification is required regarding the passage and winter BDMPS calculated by the Applicant within the HRA Screening Report. The breeding season BDMPS is currently assumed to derive wholly from the Alderney West Coast and Burhou Islands (AWCBI) Ramsar Site, but the Cotes de Granit Rose – Sept Iles SPA colony is also within mean maximum foraging range, and consideration should be given to including that population within the breeding season BDMPS. iii. Kittiwakes: In addition to the new BDMPS work mentioned above, further clarification is required regarding the populations and calculations presented in the passage and winter BDMPSs section of the HRA Screening Report. Note should be taken of the marked declines that have occurred in kittiwake numbers within the UK and this should be discussed in relation to population estimates that are used and which may be 10 or more years old. iv. Tern species: BDMPSs need to be provided for the four species that are relevant to this application. v. Mediterranean gull: The BDMPS for this species is described as the coastline of the English Channel. Further detail is required in order to be certain that the level of potential impact is correctly assessed on the two nearby SPA populations (Poole Harbour and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs).

2.1.6. Migrant collision risk and migropath modelling: To aid the assessment of impacts on passage birds, the Applicant has used APEM’s bespoke migration modelling tool (Migropath) to estimate the numbers of nine selected species that are considered likely to migrate through the Turbine Area. Subsequent CRMs are undertaken on the numbers that are generated from Migropath (based on assumptions concerning the percentages of those birds that fly at PCH), and the potential impact of those collisions on the migratory populations is assessed.

Natural England advises that further details are provided on the Migropath methods, particularly in relation to the specific data that are used as model inputs, whilst maps showing the assumed migration routes (and any incorporated staging sites) and how they relate to the Turbine Area should be presented for each of the nine species..

Natural England accepts that the main aim of the Migropath modelling is to provide relatively broad assessments. Natural England notes the apparently anomalous results for dark-bellied brent goose and bar-tailed godwit, indicating that no birds are predicted to pass through the Turbine Area. However, both of these species were recorded during field surveys and it is well known that their passage movements will take them along this stretch of the south English coast. Natural England is aware of the further work the Applicant is undertaking to address some of these issues for six of the nine species. This is welcomed but at the present time (and until full details are available) Natural England cannot provide an opinion on the value of this additional work.

2.1.7. Effects on migratory nightjar: The applicant has worked closely with Natural England to consider in some detail the likely effects of the proposal on nightjar migrating to or from England. A small group of local experts Natural England and RSPB staff attended a workshop with NBDL. Detailed discussion of the modelling parameters and known/anecdotal ecology and behaviour of nightjar occurred. A number of specific and general conclusions were agreed. As a result of the bird’s size and nocturnal behaviour there is little direct scientific evidence of the risk of collision or migratory behaviour. CRMs have been undertaken for nightjar on passage, based upon the highly precautionary assumption that the entire national population flies through the Turbine Area on both spring and autumn passage. Assuming all of these birds are at collision height and the birds’ avoidance rate is 98%, the resulting collision estimate represents a 0.60-0.72%% increase in annual mortality rates depending on which of the three population sizes is considered. However, since a 98% avoidance rate is uncertain, Natural England suggest greater consideration is given to the level of mortality predicted when avoidance rate is set to 95%., Natural England notes that in that case the level of additional collision mortality could be 1.5-1.8% of baseline mortality and so requires careful consideration. Following more detailed consideration, monitoring and potential mitigation may be needed as part of the DCO requirements.

2.1.8. Cumulative and in-combination assessments: Natural England does not yet consider that the ES has assessed the potential cumulative/in-combination effects adequately.

Environmental Statement – key seabird species Cumulative collision and displacement effects may be significant for those species whose foraging range, migratory pathway or wintering area overlaps with multiple sites and these need to be assessed at an appropriate BDMPS. Potentially this affects gannet, kittiwake, Mediterranean gull, lesser black-backed gull, great black-backed gull, guillemot and razorbill. Further information is required from the Applicant in relation to this, and discussions are ongoing.

HRA – key seabird species In terms of in-combination effects, Natural England considers there is a need for further clarifications regarding the consideration of the contribution of Navitus Bay to in-combination impacts on features (gannet and kittiwake) from the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA/Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA.

Natural England considers that there is a need to extend the analysis for Mediterranean gull. Thus, breeding season effects on this species should be considered in-combination with Rampion. It would also be useful if the HRA Screening report gave greater attention to the fact that the site population (15) could represent a large proportion of the local breeding SPA population (170 breeding adults), discussed the limited data relating to foraging range and carried out a CRM to actually demonstrate de minimis effects rather than asserting that effects will be such.

In relation to construction impacts, Natural England agrees that in- combination effects would only occur if construction at both Navitus Bay and Rampion were simultaneous and even in these circumstances displacement due to vessel activity and direct habitat loss would not constitute a significant impact.

However, the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to assess the indirect effects of construction on prey availability, particularly in relation to tern species. In the absence of information about the distance of the projects from one another (40nm according to Rampion) and the extent of the noise envelope created by piling effects at each project, Natural England does not yet agree that in-combination construction effects are negligible and therefore not significant.

In relation to operation and maintenance, Natural England agrees that in- combination displacement effects with Rampion are not significant in relation to breeding species, passage and overwintering species.

Migrants For migrant species, Natural England recommends that a cumulative collision risk assessment is undertaken using the Migropath approach, to establish the overall cumulative impact from the range of OWFs that these passage populations have the potential to encounter. Natural England acknowledges that to date no other Round 3 windfarm application in English waters has carried out such a cumulative analysis, although that is the primary end to which the migration modelling tools now available could/should be put.

For little egret there is a need to undertake an in-combination assessment on the local SPA populations with the Rampion OWF, given the relatively high proportion of the national population predicted to fly through the Turbine Area and that it has the highest predicted collision mortality as a percentage of the baseline mortality.

2.2. Natural England has identified some data and methodological uncertainties that underpin the onshore ornithological assessments within the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) and Environmental Impacts Assessment

2.2.1. Identification of potential impacts: Natural England require a summary table to be provided that sets out each of the different project elements in each of the different phases (i.e. construction, operation and decommissioning) along with the potential impacts associated with each element. This will provide clearer supporting information to demonstrate that all potential impacts have been identified.

2.2.2. Avon Valley winter vantage point surveys: Insufficient detail is provided on the exact survey method and bird recording protocols, whilst survey end times should also be provided in Table 1, Appendix 11.2.

2.2.3. Mitigation for potential impacts to heathland nesting birds: Heathland habitat re-instatement and creation is proposed as a means of mitigating potential impacts of construction in causing the temporary loss of nesting territories of heathland nesting birds (nightjar, Dartford warbler and woodlark). Natural England require further supporting information on the proposed approach, the known efficacy and likely timescales for establishing the required vegetation conditions. The resulting proposals will need to be fully documented in onshore working methods, and the Ecological Management and Mitigation Plan (EMMP).

2.3. Habitats Regulations Assessment for seabird features

2.3.1. Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA/Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs (FHBC) SPA – gannet and kittiwake: The work undertaken by the Applicant to determine the impact of the proposed development on the gannet and kittiwake populations associated with the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs (FHBC) SPA (via collision mortality to passage and wintering birds) predicts a low level of impact. In the case of gannet, collision mortality is predicted to represent an increase of 0.10% of the baseline mortality rate, whilst for kittiwake it is predicted to represent an increase of 0.02% of the baseline mortality rate (based upon Option 1 CRM outputs and 98% avoidance in both cases). In the case of kittiwake an error in calculating the percentage of FHBC birds within the English Channel wintering and passage populations (Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of the HRA Screening report) means that the predicted increase in baseline mortality should be 0.04%.

Due to the CRM issues highlighted, and subject to confirmation of the apportionment and the BDMPS values, it is Natural England’s view that it is not possible at this stage to rule out the likelihood of this development acting in-combination with other developments to cause a significant effect on the FHBC SPA. However, if the numbers can be confirmed by addressing the CRM issues highlighted above, then the impact on FHBC arising from Navitus Bay alone on these species would not constitute an LSE. Natural England also acknowledge that on the basis of the figures at hand now, and again subject to confirmation of both the Navitus Bay figure and the apportionment and BDMPS values used, the contribution from Navitus Bay to those cumulative totals is highly unlikely to materially change overall cumulative mortality.

Natural England has recently undertaken public consultation on the scientific case for re-classification of the FHBC SPA to include a terrestrial extension and marine extension, with the site being renamed as Flamborough and Filey Coast (FFC) pSPA. As public consultation has been undertaken on this re-classification, the pSPA should be treated as if formally classified as a matter of policy and should be considered in assessments. Natural England therefore requires that an assessment of predicted impacts on both gannet and kittiwake at the FFC pSPA is also undertaken. However, we would expect that the conclusions of such an assessment will be broadly in line with that undertaken for the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA.

2.3.2. Alde-Ore Estuary SPA – lesser black-backed gull: The work undertaken by the Applicant to determine the impact of the proposed development on the lesser black-backed gull population associated with the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA (via collision mortality to passage birds) predicts a mortality of at most one bird per annum (based upon Option 1 CRM outputs, with 98% avoidance and using two different approaches to apportioning the population). Accordingly, the impact of the development on the Alde-Ore Estuary SPA alone can be considered not to constitute a likely significant effect and to not contribute in any meaningful way to any in combination collision mortality total that may arise from other developments. However, as outlined above, Natural England requires clarification over the calculation of CRMs before these conclusions can be confirmed.

2.3.3. Alderney West Coast and Burhou Islands (AWC & BI) Ramsar Site and Cote de Granit Rose – Sept Iles SPA – gannet: Natural England notes that in combination impacts for Navitus may impact on designated seabird sites in the Channel Islands as they are within mean maximum foraging range of a number of developments. Natural England is not the Statutory Nature Conservation Body for these sites, and would recommend seeking the view of the appropriate organisation.

2.4. Habitats Regulations Assessment for terrestrial bird features The work undertaken by the Applicant to determine the impact of the proposed development on the Avon River Valley SPA and Ramsar site is sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no significant effect on the ornithological features of this site, given the proposed construction method, together with the proposed timing and temporary nature of the construction activities. In relation to the Dorset Heathlands SPA, further details are required from the Applicant on the proposed working methods, re-instatement techniques and management of potential recreational disturbance before Natural England are able to rule out the likelihood of this development causing a significant effect on the site.

3. Appendix 3: Fish

3.1. HRA screening report (Document 5.3 April 2014) Table 5.1 (p17) Natural England do not agree that the search parameters of 20km based on the 75dbht noise contour is suitable for identifying potential impacts to SAC salmon populations. It also seems contradictory to subsequent paragraphs and information presented by the Applicant as the subsequent paragraph on in- combination effects recognises the mobile nature of migratory fish and state that the search will include all other projects identified within the English Channel. Furthermore in Table 5.2 (p31) it is stated that LSE cannot be excluded for the River Itchen SAC salmon interest feature, which is located at a distance of 29.1km.

3.2. Habitats Regulations Assessment Report (Document 5.4 April 2014)

Based on the limited information presented on salmon migratory routes and behaviour it is unclear to Natural England why in Table 3.1 of the Applicant’s shadow HRA report salmon is considered to be subject to LSE for both construction noise and EMF for the River Avon SAC but why EMF is excluded for the River Itchen SAC salmon population

Paragraph 4.2.6 (p17) as discussed with the Applicant in previous meetings Natural England do not feel that based on the evidence provided to Navitus by the Environment Agency that a 4 week period (mid-April to mid-May) is sufficient to mitigate the potential impacts to smolt migration.

3.3. Fish & Shellfish Ecology Environmental Statement Chapter 10 (Document 6.1.2.10 April 2014) 3.3.1. In Table 10.10 (p16) (and elsewhere within the ES (e.g. paragraphs 10.5.26) the description for the effect of the 75dbht and above criteria has been downgraded compared to the description in the technical noise appendix produced by Subacoustech (Appendix 10.2 Document 6.2.2.10.2 April 2014) with no additional explanation as to why this has been done. Table 10.10 states: ‘Proportion of individuals may react but habituation or context may limit duration and/or extent of effect’ compared to the Subacoustech definition (page 16 Appendix 10.2) ‘Significant avoidance reaction by the majority of individuals but habituation or context may limit effect’. 3.3.2. Table 10.14, p28 The migration times for a number of species within this table appear to be incorrect and should be checked.

3.3.3. Table 10.15, p29 Is data available for the Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout populations using the Test and Itchen Rivers? Any available data about these populations should be included within the ES. 3.3.4. Paragraph 10.5.6 (p46) Natural England recognises that the piling may be intermittent however we remain concerned that even intermittent piling activity could be sufficient to prevent a large proportion of the population from entering the affected area. Further work may be required to demonstrate that periods between piling events will be sufficiently long to allow salmon to pass through the affected areas without disturbance.

3.3.5. Table 10.19 (p41) identifies the worst case maximum piling period, for one foundation, as four hours and a maximum of two monopiles being installed simultaneously. However, the maximum number of monopiles installed per day is not stated this is also true for the pin pile scenario. Likewise the number of jack up vessels proposed is also not stated. As 24 hour construction activity is proposed, it is unclear if there will be any non-piling periods during a 24 hour period. Clarification and further information on these worst case scenarios would greatly help assess the level of potential impact especially for migratory species.

3.3.6. Paragraph 10.5.20 (p48) it is unclear from this assessment of injury and mortality of fish how they can have ‘high recoverability’ following impact. The description of ‘recoverability’ provided in Table 10.4 is ‘a temporal measure of how well a receptor recovers following exposure to an effect’. It may be worth specifying if this recoverability is at the individual or population level as recoverability of individuals cannot be considered to be high.

3.3.7. Paragraph 10.5.30, p52 Natural England do not agree with the assessment of underwater noise carried out for seahorse (Paragraph 10.5.30, p54). The assessment states: “the protected seagrass beds in the region would not be affected by noise levels of 75dbht or greater thus seahorses that live in these habitats are not expected to show a behavioural response to piling noise whilst in this area”. The noise contours (Figure 10.9) shows that the 75dbht contour abuts the Studland seagrass beds and according to the map also overlaps known areas of seahorse presence. The noise technical appendix (paragraph 4.2.5.3, p13) also states that a bass audiogram has been used as a surrogate for the seahorse assessment and that bass is less sensitive than seahorse. This is not discussed in the assessment presented in the ES and suggests that the contours presented using the bass surrogate may underestimate the level of noise impact. This along with the fact that seahorses on the periphery of the 75dbht contour would still be subject to “Significant avoidance reaction by the majority of individuals” (definition Table 4-4, p12 Subacoustech technical noise appendix) should be recognised in this assessment and appropriate measures considered to mitigate the impacts.

3.3.8. Paragraph 10.5.92 (p66) Sea lamprey are mentioned in the assessment of EMF but the only conclusions drawn seem to be based on studies carried out on eels. 3.3.9. The potential impacts of EMF on sea lamprey do not appear to be fully assessed in the impact assessment (paragraphs 10.5.88 to 10.5.93).

3.4. Way forward

Natural England, the Environment Agency, Cefas and MMO are currently discussing many of the items of concern with Navitus Bay Development Limited to see if these can be resolved before the DCO reaches the examination stage. It may be possible to resolve some of the issues through the provision of further details relating to specific activities, refinement of the worst case scenarios or the provision of other mitigation measures.

4. Appendix 4: Marine Mammals Marine Mammals Environmental Statement Chapter 11 (Document 6.1.2.11 April 2014)

4.1. In general Natural England agrees that the density of marine mammals in the area around Navitus is relatively low when compared with some other parts of the UK (and other areas with offshore windfarm developments). However, the area is not devoid of marine mammals and the bottlenose dolphin ‘semi- resident’ coastal population and the harbour seal population around Chichester are of interest and any impacts upon them would be a concern, as would any impacts on harbour porpoises, which do frequent the area.

4.2. The method of assessment attempts to quantify the magnitude of effect and the sensitivity of marine mammal populations. Natural England is content that the Applicant has carried out this assessment in a clear and reasonable way. The Applicant does however acknowledge that there are limitations due to uncertainties and assumptions which have to be made (11.3.42). Natural England concur with this and believe that a precautionary approach therefore needs to be taken to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated wherever possible.

4.3. Natural England support the use of C-PODs to collect evidence of marine mammals in the area as surveying using boat methods is often only a snap shot in time and can miss individuals. However Natural England note that the second array of C-PODs deployed to monitor for presence of a more coastal population of bottlenose dolphin was only deployed for 4 months from September 2012 and therefore did not cover the spring period, which traditionally appears to have had a higher number of bottle nosed dolphins sightings.

4.4. The assessment makes reference to an area which is used to define the area of the coastal bottlenose dolphin – ‘the area regularly covered by the Durlston Marine Project (11.5.36)’ – it would be helpful to have more information on where this actually is and an explanation of why this is the area to be used to estimate the number of individuals occurring.

4.5. Natural England notes that the increase in vessel activity during construction is estimated to be around 8% and recommend that as in 11.5.102, a condition should be sought in a marine licence to formalise specific routes in order to give rise to predictable and homogenous vessel movements in order to minimise risk of collision.

4.6. Natural England note that risk of collision (for seals) would be reduced if a construction port was established to the west of the Isle of Wight, however no assessment is made as to the potential for a French construction port to be chosen and how this might affect risks of collision.