The Planning Inspectorate Dear Sir/Madam, SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLE- EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS I understand that you are not in a position to respond to our concerns regarding the proposal to build the required sub-stations for the off shore wind farms of EA1N & EA2 in the village of Friston until an application has been made. However, as you meet with SPR on a regular basis, there is certain information that I want to make sure you are aware of: 1. On the 11th of March the House of Commons discussed the fact that the free-for-all siting of these sub-stations causes needless damage to large swathes of the country side. Proposals for a strategic policy in order to coordinate a rational program for the siting of sub-stations are under discussion. You can listen to this session on George Freeman MP web site, link below. attachment 1 2. Phase 4 of the consultation period revealed that EA1N & EA2 may not be developed simultaneously the consequence being that the construction process could be extended from 3 to 6 years. Add onto this the interconnector projects and you could be talking about 9-10 years of construction and disruption from the coast to Friston. 3. Phase 4 consultation period presented the traffic plan for the proposal. This plan will have a seriously detrimental effect on the access roads into Aldeburgh, Snape and particularly Thorpness. These areas are the heart of and vital to the tourist economy of the area. SPR is not taking this effect into consideration. 4. The Friston site has received universal objection from all authorities. 5. The accepted Rochdale model allows for SPR’s proposals to remain vague until after permission is received. This opens up the potential for all sorts of changes to be made by SPR post permission. Exemplar to this is the change SPR made at Bawdsey. By changing the to the transmission system SPR rendered the cable routing facilities extremely limited in capacity and created the requirement for additional land fall, trenching and sub-stations site, hardly a non-material change. What could they get up to in and around Friston? Due to the DCO procedure you alone sit in judgement of SPR’s proposal. This is an arduous and unenviable position that is now being questioned by Parliament. As it stands the consultation procedure appears to be a box ticking exercise leading to a predetermined conclusion. I trust that this is not the case and that you are truly in a position to scrutinise SPR’s proposal. I have a few questions that SPR has not been able to answer. They are with regards to how the land-fall and on-shore site was chosen. I believe that it is important that you, too have answers to these questions. 1. Why did SPR decide that the sub-stations should be to the south of the pillions closest to the village of Friston as opposed to the north of the pillions and further away from the village? 2. What is the relationship between landowners in the Bawdsey area and Friston? 3. With regards to the initial search areas 1-7 what contact did SPR make with landowners in these zones and to what result? 4. How and when did they meet the owner of the property they are proposing to purchase in Friston? When was the deal made? 5. Who controls the site to the north of the pillions and what is proposed for this area? 6. We know in that in phase 3.5 SPR rejected the Broom Covert site because of what can be summarised as possible unacceptable commercial terms. The fact the area is deemed an AONB is not particularly relevant as permissible with-in the AONB are projects of national importance. The advantages of the Broom Covert site are well known: adjacent to a nuclear power plant & other sub-stations, road access, security facilities, very limited cable trenching required, etc. EDF obviously finds it difficult to ‘share’ the Broom Covert site but what has SPR done to secure land with-in their original zones 1-2? These too, have the advantage of the Broom Covert site but are not under EDF’s control. 7. The proposed Land Fall site is now in question. It was originally deemed by National Grid that SPR could make land fall at Sizewell. We now know that this is not Sizwell but the cliffs of Thorpness Heath and that access to this area is proposed through the holiday village of Thorpness. The stability of these cliffs are questionable. Throughout this process SPR has used the National Grid as an excuse for many of its proposals. To whom is National Grid accountable? Does the National Grid or SPR understand the effect that the construction traffic will have to Thorpness for a period of 3 - 9 years? Has there been a study to show how long it will take Thorpness to recover its reputation as a holiday destination once the works are finally completed? 8. I trust that before SPR submits its application in the 4th quarter of this year, that there will be a change in legislation and that a strategy will emerge for the location of the of sub-stations and items related to them that is not needlessly devastating to the country side. However, could you please make it evident to us how we register as an interested party once an application has been made, as I understand that there is a limited period for us to do so. I hope that part of your remit is to visit the area. It would be very nice for you to meet with the local community. Our concerns will then be very obvious to you. I attach my comments to SPR and our MP’s subsequent to the Stage 4 of the Consultation period. Kind regards, Mya Manakides

Dear Mya Manakides As you are aware the proposed applications by ScottishPower Renewables are at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: attachment 2 Further information about Community Consultation, including who you should contact if you are not satisfied that the Applicant has or will take account of your comments (FAQ 2) can be found here: attachment 3 As the applications have not yet been formally submitted at this time we are unable to consider your comments however please note that, should the application be received, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time. Should the application be accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: attachment 4 Finally, I can confirm that should the application be accepted the appointed Examining Authority will visit the site of the proposed development in order to fully understand the proposal. Please see the link below to ‘Advice Note 8.5: The Examination; hearings and site inspections’ which provides further information: attachment 5 Kind regards