Good evening, In response to your amendments to the Sea Link proposals published in July 2024, and in addition to my previous comments to the 2023 public consultation. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any radical changes to Sea Link’s plans in Kent in regard to the choice of site, Minster Marshes and the cable route through Pegwell Bay Nature Reserve, which is very disappointing. To address some of the changes you highlight;- Permanent Infrastructure; HVDC cable route; The changes you put forward just seem to suit your own purposes; Converter station height; In regard to the converter station site, it seems that NG have finally acknowledged that Minster Marshes (clue in the name) is in fact a flood plain and that NG will therefore need to pile and a build a concrete base thereby raising the height of the converter station by up to 2m. Where will all this aggregate come from? Will it be environmentally sustainable? How will it be transported? Which route? How cost effective would this be - as opposed to using site B instead which is on raised land? How will the increased height affect the landscape and visual impact from each direction? How will the displaced water, which would have been naturally absorbed by the marshland, be calculated and accommodated in order to prevent the potential flooding of nearby towns (e.g. Sandwich); Construction and maintenance access; In line with Thanet District Council and Kent Wildlife Trust, to name just two organisations, I am strongly opposed to the use of the Hoverport which, over the years, has re-wilded with rare flora and fauna. The hoverport is an integral part of the Nature Reserve which has several layers of legal, environmental protection. Contamination of the Nature Reserve by construction materials must be avoided at all costs. Mitigation, enhancement and approach to biodiversity net gain. Your change in order limits has both positive and negative implications but - The addition (requisition) of new land along the river Stour for ‘enhanced environmental measures’ seem somewhat meaningless as it is already natural, green space. I may be wrong but the proposal for additional foraging habitat for birds moving inland from Pegwell Bay on land south of the existing Richborough to Canterbury 400kV overhead line seems to be directing birds in flight directly towards the hazardous pylons which would be disastrous. Extended Working Hours for the Onshore Scheme. Thanet is a tourist destination and Sundays are busy especially through the summer months. By proposing to work on Sundays and Bank Holidays, this would likely have an adverse impact on traffic on already busy roads potentially impacting the area’s tourist economy. The, albeit temporary, loss of PROW will impact on both local people and visitors for an extended period of time when we all acknowledge the importance of getting out into the countryside following the pandemic. Protection of Groundwater Sources. ‘The inclusion of a temporary construction compound (just off Sandwich Road) located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1, has the potential for significant adverse effects in relation to hydrogeology. This is concerning as over 75% of Thanet’s drinking water is sourced from groundwater. The whole area is also severely water stressed in terms of drinking water. Archaeology. ‘The proposed construction methodology for the foundations of the Minster Substation and Converter Station has the potential to result in the loss of a relatively large area of potential archaeological and paleo-archaeological deposits, resulting in a significant adverse effect, assuming the deposits are of high value/sensitivity.’ The permanent loss of archaeological artefacts due to the construction of the converter station can never be mitigated and would be a tragedy. Surveys. Whilst I appreciate that NGs wildlife surveys have not yet concluded, there are already some worrying anomalies between NG’s published findings and our own local environmentalist’s recordings. How can we reconcile these differences in order to establish accurate baseline figures? What credence will be given to the local groups’ findings? In conclusion. The bottom line, and we just can’t get away from it, is that this whole project is in totally the wrong place. Yes, we need clean, secure, renewable energy but not at any cost. No amount of mitigation or ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ will ever compensate for or replace this established and unique habitat and terrain. Thanet generally is becoming rapidly developed, forfeiting farmland, green spaces and biodiversity at an alarming rate. This valuable area, which NG propose tunnelling through and building on, is one of the last local sanctuaries for a plethora of native and visiting wildlife. The cumulative effect of industrial development along the Richborough Way is a real and increasing threat to the continued existence of the nearby Nature Reserve and the incredible diversity of wildlife it supports. By choosing this location NG is committing environmental destruction and are wilfully ignoring the multiple layers of designated protection the area has been awarded. I appreciate that the connection to the grid needs to be east of Kemsley to be effective but the alternative option via North Foreland (K1a) to Site B must be far less environmentally damaging; it’s on higher ground, therefore not at risk of flooding; with no need for expenditure on piling; it’s located in an area designated as a business park and is within reasonable distance for connection to the existing overhead line.Yours faithfully, Natasha Middleditch

Dear Natasha, Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards