The list below is a record of advice the Planning Inspectorate has provided in respect of the Planning Act 2008 process.
There is a statutory duty under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Advice we have provided is recorded below together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice and the project it relates to. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.
Note that after a project page has been created for a particular application, any advice provided that relates to it will also be published under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the relevant project page.
Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived. View the archived advice.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm View all advice for this project
My name is Thomas Sweet and I am a local resident and long-standing member of the local community in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. I have a number of objections and concerns on Scottish Power Renewables proposed construction and operation of 2 further windfarms namely East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm and the onshore facilities that support the supply and transport of power onshore and onward connection to the National Grid at Friston in Suffolk. I have sent my concerns in this email to the relevant depts. of Scottish Power Renewables, Therese Coffey MP, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, East Suffolk council memebers and Aldeburgh Town Council to consider and revise the proposals being touted by SPR as a Nationally Signficant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). I have read all of the relevant information and attended Phase 3 and 4 consultative presentations by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) and various local action groups with the conclusion that I am completely against the development proposals for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO onshore development proposals The lengthy construction and operation of this facility will cause significant damage and disruption to our local communities and our unique and valuable asset, the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB which is a nationally protected landscape enjoyed by human and animal visitors and residents. These proposals are totally unacceptable and present serious risks which will undermine and destroy our local economic and ecological endeavours in the region to the extent the impacted area will suffer extensive damage and decline to the point it effectively becomes a coastal wasteland and forgotten backwater like, it seems, many of our other coastal communities. The impact of these proposals will destroy the local business and social infrastructure which the local communities have worked long and hard to establish and which, coupled with the AONB we all enjoy, make for a unique, attractive, enjoyable, well-managed and balanced environment which sustains a significant level of active interest and tourism with all that it brings with it. In my opinion the early stage consultation for project was poorly managed by SPR with inadequate and misleading communciation to our communities and other interested parties. Failures in scoping, consultation and significant discrepancies in the RAG risk management methodology deployed in the early stages have resulted in an unfair, biased and inconistent onshore appraisal presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which underpins the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). My view is that the published assessment and presentations are skued towards a low-impact proposal hoping to get through the approval process under the guise of a "green Initiative" of renewable energy initiatives or Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) as stated by SPR in response to a request from Secretary of State for Busines, Energy and Industrial Strategy The impact is significant and needs to be considered as a whole with serious attention paid to other energy developments scheduled to occur simultaneously namely additional SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C. Over the next 10 years or more, the local region will be laid waste and made dangerous with increased construction traffic as it is industrialised on a major scale. There have been unreasonable, broad assumptions made and the absence of mitigating risks have resulted in a totally unsuitable set of development sites and locations.My main concerns are: 1. SPR have continually failed to acknowledge the views, concerns and objections of the the residents of the affected areas of development namely, the residents of Friston affected by siting fof the substation and connection to National Grid and those along the areas of landfall, onshore cable corridor and road / routing alterations. It also appears that the statements from local authorities and MP questioning the rationale behind SPR indiviual and cumulative proposals have also been ignored or skimmed over in any consultation reports or assessments. 2. Construction traffic and proposed access via minor roads and by-ways is extremely disruptive and poses an unacceptable increase in danger to life and limb of local people and especially visitors to the area. Proposed changes to roads and environment to accommodate cable routes and large numbers of HGVs over a lengthy period of time will create immediate and ongoing danger and risks to the daily lives of residents, tourists and local businesses 3. SPR have failed to adequately consider and identify the cumulative combined impact that this proposal will have when the other simultaneous overlapping developments for other SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C are taken into account. The overall impact is a damaging, shameful industrialisation of the Suffolk Heritage Coast. 4.The onshore components of this proposal would not have had to be pursued if SPR had successfully managed the existing Bawdsey to Bramford cable routes and substations in such a way that additional requirements and capacity arising from East Anglia ONE North and TWO could have been absorbed and integrated within the existing infrastructure. If SPR had real structured plans and strategy for renewable energy projects in the region then the Bawdsey to Bramford cabe route and substations could and should have been designed and implemented to accommodate all of the current and future SPR wind farm projects and output. SPR must be held accountable for this lack of foresight and planning and held to task by the Planning Inspectorate at the appropriate phase in the planning process for these new sets of proposals. From the information I have received from SPR and other relevant balanced sources, I believe this proposal displays SPR's opportunistic approach and lack of strategic planning of renewables projects from the start with submission of commercial bids and economic analysis for the relevant government bodies along with the contents of the PEIR and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for this development proposal whilst showing total disregard for the local environment AONB and its residents, visitors and supporters. I request that my concerns and objections are carefully considered and SPR take appropriate actions to revise the plans in response to the Secretary of State's request and develop and use the existing newly-built facilities between Bawdsey and Bramford.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted the developer as well as a number of other parties. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: attachment 1