Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm

Representations received regarding Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
M Thomas
"The disruption that this project in its entirity will cause to local inhabitants and wildlife during its inception and development far outways the benefits that might be achieved, from a project that has failed in other parts of the world, especialy when subsidies are reduced or withdrawn, making the project unviable."
Parish Councils
Mablethorpe and Sutton Town Council
"The Mablethorpe and Sutton Town Council support the development of off shore wind turbines, however would like reassurance than on shore route is to be underground with no pylons in the area. The Council would also look to the developers to provide a proper apprenticeship scheme working with local young people and the Tennyson High School, Seaholem Road, Mablethorpe to encourage future employment opportunities in marine engineering. The Council would also like to see the developer utilising the existing Industrial Estate in the town for purposes connected with the proposal to help boost the local economy and jobs situation."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Royal Yachting Association
"The RYA notes that the safety zone application will be made once the final number and precise location of the turbines has been determined. It is currently anticipated that an application would be made in 2015. The RYA further notes that during the operational phase, a 50 m safety zone around each of the Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREI) within the site may be required in order to ensure the safety of operation and maintenance vessels and other vessels navigating in the area. The RYA will wish to expand upon this later during the examination and provide a written representation. The application references the minimumheight of lower blade tip as 27.4m above LAT. MGN 371 calls for 22m above MHWS. Unless the UKHO change the reference point for air draughts on charts the methodology in MGN 371 should be adhered to to enable passage planning."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Derek Clark MEP
"I object to all Wind Farm developments everywhere. Wind Turbines are useless, they only provide power for 30% of the time. Within the parameters of that 30% their output varies from 26% of maximum in a moderate breeze up to maximum at near gale strength after which they have to be shut down. Because of the uncertain nature of the wind the only way Wind Turbines can operate is as ‘Balancing Partners’ with Conventional Power Stations which are therefore constantly at work turning out Carbon Dioxide. A direct Coal Fired Power Station turns out 10.8 tons of CO2 per year per gigawatt; in partnership with Wind Turbines it is still 7.5 tons per year. In addition, manufacturing the concrete, steel and aluminium for the Wind Turbines emits about as much Carbon Dioxide as a Coal Fire Power Station emits in producing 10 gigawatts per year. The cost of £300,000 per Turbine is much less cost effective than a conventional Power Station. Wind Turbines have to be replaced after 20/25 years, a Coal Fired power Station is good for 50 years. Wind Turbines are therefore a contradiction in terms. Moreover, Off-shore Turbines present a hazard to shipping and the resulting exclusion zones deprive Fishermen of at least part of their livelihood. Therefore, Wind Turbines do not present an opportunity for ‘Free’ electricity. Why do those who promote them, Electricity companies, Manufacturers, Local Authorities and the Government not make this information available to the public. In fact it is suppressed and this is supposed to be a free country wherein people are supposed to be given all the facts of a case in order to make their own minds up. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Associated British Ports
"As Harbour Master Humber the Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm development is out side of our Statutory Harbour area, our primary concern is the commercial effect on trade with the Humber ports due to the adjustment in the navigation routes of vessels entering and leaving the estuary, however I understand that this issue is being addressed through the local Chamber of Shipping on behalf of ship owners. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Russell Warne
"we have no objection to renewable energy but as we have recently built our own home in 2009 we would strongly dissaprove of any infrastructure above ground that would devalue our property now or in the future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr James Pocklington
"I consider that it is vital to the wider public interest that this wind farm is commissioned without delay. As a nation we risk significant disruption to our energy supplies through and over reliance of energy imports. If we do not rapidly invest in clean and local generation of electricity we will become vulnerable to energy shortage and the wider implications of global climate change. These are real threats to the health and safety of our citizens both now and in the not too distant future."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
National Grid
"I refer to the Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm proposal and confirm that National Grid does not wish to make any representation in respect of this Order. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
John Bowler
"I wish to object to this application on the following grounds Turbine Cluster Will cause massive environmental damage to the sea bed and surrounding area. There will be little or no C02 savings due to the manufacturing process, the construction process, and the need to provide permanent oil/ gas/ coal fired back up when the turbines are not producing electricity. The amount of electricity produced will be only about one quarter of the quoted theoretical output. The environmental costs are vastly greater than the benefits. A direct coal fired power station outputs 10.8 tons of C02 per year per gigawatt, and as back up alone this is still 7.5 tons ofC02 per year per gigawatt. Wind turbines only have a lifespan of 20/25 years before replacement, but coal/ oil/ gas power stations will be good for at least 50 years. The turbines are obviously a hazard to shipping, and deprive fishermen of part of their livelihood. The cost of wind turbine electricity is much higher than alternative means, with vast subsidies from taxpayers and tax on electricity users that the country cannot afford. Infrastructure Whilst it is proposed that cabling onshore will be underground, this will still cause much environmental damage during construction. So far as Bicker Fen is concerned, the proposal of National Grid pic to build a new 45 acre sub-station solely for the use of Triton Knoll ) is totally unacceptable on Grade 1 farmland, which is desperately needed to grow food. In addition, the use of greenfield sites before brownfield sites is directly contrary to the National Planning Policy framework. In addition, RWE npower will also propose to build infrastructure on Bicker Fen (I am unable to find out what from the developers as yet), destroying more Grade 1 agricultural land. Again, this infrastructure must be sited on a brownfield site. The construction of all this infrastructure will cause major environmental damage to Bicker Fen, and unacceptable damage to the lives of local residents. RWE npower published promises that all infrastructural would be sited in East Lindsey and this promise should be honoured. This is a brief outline of my objections."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Witham Fourth District Internal Drainage Board
"Witham Fourth IDB was formed in 1935 and has powers under the Land Draiange Act 1991 in respect to the supervision over all matters relating to the drainage of the District. It is responsible for over 700km of watercourse and 7 pumping stations, covering an area of 40500 hectares. The Board’s area is bounded by the River Witham on the southwest, the Wash on the southeast, with the River Steeping and the Wolds to the north. The cable route may impact watercourses either owned or under the supervison of the Board. Aspects of the proposal may be subject to Land Drainage Consent under the Act or fall under the Board's Byelaws, requiring the applicant to consult the Board. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Westminster Gravels Limited
"The proposed Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm(TKOWF) has a common boundary with Westminster Gravels Limited (WGL) marine aggregate licence Area 440, this is identified in the applicants supporting submissions. However, it is our opinion that the applicant failed to appreciate the potential interactions with the already established Area 440 at the time of locating the Triton Knoll site. Area 440 is a relatively modern marine aggregate licence and has been used extensively to provide essential coarse sand and gravel to coast protection schemes on the UK east coast. Since 2000, over 5 milliion cubic metres of highly specified and relatively scarce coarse sand has been dredged from Area 440. Significant reserves remain to be dredged from Area 440. With the current permission to dredge terminating 31/12/2014, WGL intend to seek a 15 year extension to their permission. With the potential development of TKOWF issues regarding safe working and navigation will impact the recovery of viable reserves of sand and gravel. Should the TKOWF be developed the result of adopting separation zones would greatly affect the number of turbines. RWE approached WGL to engage in talks to explore the possibilities of sharing these zones. The size of the zones have not been agreed, however, their effect would be to sterilize large portions of existing and future marine aggregate resources in Area 440. Naturally this results in significant financial loss to WGL, and WGL would expect to be compensated for this, especially in light of ‘being there first’. RWE and WGL have had extensive consultations to resolve and mitigate impacts but have yet to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Without reaching a satisfactory agreement with the developer RWE , WGL strongly object to the TKOWF development . However, should a satisfactory conclusion to ongoing discussions with the applicant be met, WGL would remove any objections relating to the TKOWF development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Grant
"I have recieved 4 title deed plans from Ardent on behalf of RWE npower renewables to request access for a non intrusive ecological survey for an underground power cable over some of our land. At this stage I would like to know why the cable does not carry on going under the Wash via The Haven watercourse and into the South Fourty Foot Drain towards the Bicker sub station? Why does this power cable need to go underground disrupting grade 1/2 intensively farmed and drained arable land? Why does the power cable need to go to the Bicker substation and not be connected to RWE renewables existing Wind farm at The Hollies near Skegness or somewhere else near the coast? The answers to these questions should be addressed before any surveys are carried out. I agree wind farm development should be offshore but disagree that power cables should be put underground disrupting drainage and productive arable land if at all possible. "
Local Authorities
Leicestershire County Council
"It is understood that Leicestershire County Council has been consulted on the application as an adjoining authority. Having assessed the submitted application documents, the County Council does not wish to comment on the proposal given the distance at which the proposal lies from Leicestershire. "
Local Authorities
response has attachments
City of Lincoln Council
"Thank you for your consultation on the above and I would confirm that the City of Lincoln Council have no objections to this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr John Yeadon
"The application is flawed: the site of landfall and route of the onshore cable is not stated. it is impossible to assess the environmental impact of the project without this information. The peaceful rural environment of my home is threatened by the onshore component of this project. The needs of sensitive human beings such as my wife and I, who for health reasons could not survive without a placid environment, should be carefully considered. We should receive at least as much consideration as badgers, newts, bats and birds. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Kylie Yeadon
"The application is flawed: the site of landfall and route of the onshore cable is not stated. it is impossible to assess the environmental impact of the project without this information. The peaceful rural environment of my home is threatened by the onshore component of this project. The needs of sensitive human beings such as my husband and I, who for health reasons could not survive without a placid environment, should be carefully considered. We should receive at least as much consideration as badgers, newts, bats and birds. "
Local Authorities
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
"East Riding of Yorkshire Council wishes to register as an interested party. Under the Council's scheme of delegation, planning officers are obliged to ratify their formal response to this application at planning committee, which they have not yet had the opportunity to do. Officers expect that, given the location of the development in relation to the Authority's area, the Council's comments will be limited to landscape/visual impacts. A report is being prepared for Planning Committee on 17 May, and the Council's full and formal response will be provided following that meeting. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Farmers' Union
"The NFU represents farmers in the area of Lincolnshire affected by the proposals taking place on land. The NFU is concerned about the land take for the proposed substation and its siting which appears to be for the convenience and cost of the undertaker. Too much land is being taken for the substation and it is in the wrong place. We are concerned that there will be an underground cable and new overhead electricity line which will affect many farmers in Lincolnshire. We are opposed to the use of compulsory purchase powers by a private profit making company."
Local Authorities
Boston Borough Council
"Boston Borough Council wish to register as an interested party, owing to the impact the proposal will have on our Borough as a result of the intention to connect to the national grid at Bicker Fen. It is understood that the connection cabling and substation is not part of the current proposal being considered by Planning Inspectorate and will be submitted to ourselves and our neighbours, East Lindsey DC, in the next year or so. However, the two aspects are clearly connected, and the Borough Council wishes to be able to monitor the examination of the windfarm so it may comment on any amendments to it and appreciate any changes to the impact on the Borough."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Environment Agency
"Offshore wind farm Development Consent Order to construct and operate a wind farm comprising 288 wind turbine generators and associated offshore infrastructure. Triton Knoll, 33km off Lincolnshire Coast. The Environment Agency has been formally notified by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited (the applicant) that the above application has been submitted to and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for determination. We have considered the details submitted in support of the application and I can confirm that as the site and associated works lie a significant distance (33km off the coast of Lincolnshire) offshore, this part of the application is outside of our jurisdiction and we have no comments to make on it. I understand that a further application package will be submitted for the onshore works at a later date. It is likely that we will have further detailed comments to make on this application at the appropriate time. Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below. Yours faithfully Annette Hewitson Principal Planning Officer "
Local Authorities
response has attachments
East Lindsey District Council
"I refer to the above mentioned proposal which has now been accepted by the IPC under project reference EN010005. This Council have now considered the proposal and wish to formally register as an interested party. They have noted in this case that this is not an automatic procedure and but wish to be formally involved in the process because of the issues relating to impact on the seascape, cumulative effects of the turbines and any implicit effects on landscape, and also any subsequent affects from the future onshore works. Furthermore whilst it is accepted this proposal doesn't involve onshore elements the Council wish to advice at this stage any underground cables should take the most direct route to the Bicker Fen substation. Please note that all advice is given at your request and is without prejudice to any decision made on the receipt of a formal planning application at a later date. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact the department."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Perenco UK
"IPC reference: EN010005 Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Order Perenco wish to explain the substantial risk to its business operations and the potential impact to security of gas supply to the UK if planning permission were to be granted without mitigation agreement between RWE and Perenco, or RWE were unable to re-route the existing Line of Sight (LOS) communication. Perenco relies on the LOS communication to provide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems used for monitoring and controlling of our offshore connections to the Bacton Gas terminal. Loss or interruption of the existing LOS communication between Sutton on Sea and our Offshore platforms could result in the failure to provide effective Safety and Emergency Response and could result in the Production Shut Down of gas producing platforms. Perenco therefore wish to enforce an objection to RWE's planning and windfarm applications unless there is a binding condition which clearly requires the developer to agree a scheme of remedial measures to re-route existing communications services in use by Perenco. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Belgian federal directorate-general Environment, Marine Environment unit
"Belgium is interested to evaluate, in any stage of the process, whether the project is likely to have an impact on the Belgian socio-economic and environmental circumstances."
Local Authorities
North Lincolnshire Council
"This application has been discussed at the Strategic Development Team which looks at major and significant development proposals. Due to the distance of the proposed wind farm from North Lincolnshire the team felt that there were no issues affecting North Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire Council does not wish to make any comments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills ( L & P ) Limited (Savills ( L & P ) Limited ) on behalf of Trustees of the Harley Foundation
"We Savills ( L & P ) Limited duly authorised Agents for and on behalf The Trustees of the Harley Foundation ( the owners of the freehold Farm known as Bishops Farm , Sibsey , near Boston , Lincs PE22 0UF ) , are concerned about the potential cable route that we understand is intended to go across the farm .The Tenant is Ian Grant . This is very productive farmland , and the proposed route as we understand it will cause significant damage to the drainage infrastructure of the farm .Our experience is that rarely is the drainage reinstated to a sufficient standard to prevent future yield losses , and loss of profitability . It would be more helpful if the route close to Bishops Farm were to go further to the North , so not affecting Bishops Farm . The disturbance to this farming business would be significant , and if it went further to the North , it need not affect this farm at all . Disturbance to flora and fauna would also be unhelpful . In conclusion if would seem unnnecessary for this farm to be affected , with a change in route for the cables to the North . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathryn Beaumont
"I am objecting to Package 1 for the Triton Knoll wind farm Project for the following reasons:- 1) The application has been split into two Packages - Package 1 - wind farm, Package 2 - the associated electrical system. 2) The destruction of the cockle fishing industry in the Skegness area due to the construction of a wind farm and associated systems (as reported by BBC News Lincolnshire 5th March 2012) 3) Research into the effects of offshore wind farms has not been rigorous enough to identify and eliminate such dangers to the marine ecosystem. 4) Information regarding the provision of Government Subsidies to power companies for building of wind farms are difficult to access by the public and need to be made more transparent. 5) There is no guarantee that the electricity generated by the wind farm will benefit solely the citizens of the UK. If the electricity is exported to mainland Europe the UK taxpayers will be subsidising other countries. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Beaumont
"I am objecting to Package 1 for the Triton Knoll wind farm Project for the following reasons:- 1) The application has been split into two Packages - Package 1 - wind farm, Package 2 - the associated electrical system. 2) The destruction of the cockle fishing industry in the Skegness area due to the construction of a wind farm and associated systems (as reported by BBC News Lincolnshire 5th March 2012) 3) Research into the effects of offshore wind farms has not been rigorous enough to identify and eliminate such dangers to the marine ecosystem. 4) Information regarding the provision of Government Subsidies to power companies for building of wind farms are difficult to access by the public and need to be made more transparent. 5) There is no guarantee that the electricity generated by the wind farm will benefit solely the citizens of the UK. If the electricity is exported to mainland Europe the UK taxpayers will be subsidising other countries. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Bowers
"i have objections to package 1 for the triton knoll wind farm as follows; 1. the package is in 2 parts. 2.Serious effects on the fishing industry. Not enough research into the effects of offshore wind farms on marine life. 3.Lack of info on subsidies to power companys. what there is is very difficult to obtain. 4.lack of information on how much of the work involved will be carried out in the uk by british companies."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Redshaw
"Triton Knoll being an early round development is relatively small construction in a very important shellfish area. This area is very important to several shellfish vessels from Grimsby and Bridlington, including my own vessel, Innovator MR1, Which relies heavily on this area. Along with my landing company (Coastal Shellfish) which was set up to handle catches taken from this area. Catches from this area consist of crabs, lobsters and velvet crabs. Sizes varying from small to large, as the area been offshore it is not too heavily fished, with around 25% of my vessels catch coming from this area you can imagine that the closure of this area would have a large effect on my business. Especially as it seems totally impossible that we will in the future be able to fish economically after the turbines have been constructed. As already discussed with representatives of the Triton Knoll wind farm. My landing company would also suffer a significant reduction in landings, as well as Innovator at least one other vessel relies at least partly on this area for its catches. "
Local Authorities
Norfolk County Council
"It is recommended that: RWE Npower Renewables and the Planning Inspectorate be informed that Norfolk County Council does not wish to raise any objection to the above proposal providing: 1. There are no demonstrable impacts on Norfolk associated with the onshore grid connection infrastructure which is to be located outside Norfolk; 2. Appropriate mitigation, and where necessary compensation, is given to those commercial fishing interests in Norfolk adversely impacted by the operation of the wind farm; and 3. Suitable navigation and shipping mitigation measures can be agreed with the appropriate regulatory bodies, to ensure that Norfolk’s Ports (King’s Lynn and Wells) are not adversely affected by this proposal. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Savills (L&P) Limited (Savills (L&P) Limited) on behalf of Magdalen College, Oxford
"Our principal concerns relate to the on-shore cabling arising from this scheme. Our clients own property which may be affected by the on-shore cabling arising. The on-shore cabling has the potential to do unnecessary damage to the histroric landscape, environment, drainage, use, and amenity of our clients' property."
Other Statutory Consultees
Directorate of Airspace Policy, Civil Aviation Authority
"Dear Sir/Madam, Having reviewed the Draft Development Consent Order the CAA is content that the issues of aviation lighting and charting have been addressed and therefore have no further comment. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me, details below. Yours Faithfully Neal Henley N R HENLEY Squadron Leader (RAF) Surveillance and Spectrum Management Directorate of Airspace Policy Civil Aviation Authority 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE Tel: 020 7453 6534 Fax: 020 7453 6565 [email protected] "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Lindsey Marsh Drainage Board
"I refer to the above application which is under consideration. The Board have no comments to make regarding the offshore element of this proposal to which this application specifically refers. The Board do however note the search area for the proposed on shore connection point and cable route to Bicker Fen. This will have potentially serious implications for the Board with many Board maintained watercourses needing to be crossed. The Board look forward to further consultations in respect of the on shore works in due course. In advance of future consultations, the applicant should note that no works are to take place within eight metres of a Board maintained watercourse without prior consent of the Board. A plan showing the location of the Board's boundary south of Mablethorpe is enclosed for your information. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact the Board's Planning and Byelaw Officer, Mr. A. Dale."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
M Spence
"I am of opinion this is only a part of the overall application e.g. no route of cabling or site of sub station has been identified & therefore application is incomplete. As for route of cabling this could affect my land and home, as indicated on previously submitted plans sent to local authority. I therefore require further information on every stage of the application e.g. cable route & sub station. It is difficult to answer Section 4 until further information is forthcoming on the other two sections of the application."
Local Authorities
North East Lincolnshire Council
"In terms of economic development there is strong support for this development in principle given that it would strengthen the regions offer in terms of renewable off shore energy production. Grimsby Port is developing as the main centre on the east coast for the operation and maintenance of off shore wind turbine sites and would ideally serve this proposal. The development therefore has the potential to support the growth of Grimsby Port helping to regenerate the local and wider area."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
The Coal Authority
"The Coal Authority has received notification of the above application from RWE Npower Renewables by way of a later dated 16 March 2012. The Coal Authority does not wish to make any specific observations on the application for the proposed offshire wind farm at this stage. However, it is noted that electrical connection works to connect the offshire wind farm to the national grid transmission network will be required but do not form part of the current application. It is understood that these works will therefore be subject to a separate future application. For future reference, The Coal Authority would draw attention to the fact that the potentail electrical infrastructure area of search (as depicted in Figure 2 of the Cable Statement [Document Reference 07/01]) may involve operations within an area which is licensed for Underground Coal Gasification operations. In taking forward any future electrical connection proposals within this area, any potentail implications arising from the UCG operations should be taken into account and addressed. I trust this is helpful. However, please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information or would like to discuss this matter further."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Damms
"We wish to know where the onshore sub-station is to be located"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Overton
"i am an independent fisherman working from skegness we fish off the lincolnshire coast and also on the triton knoll area where the windfarm is to be built. in the very early stages we were visited and had a discussion about the proposed windfarm but have heard nothing since. i would like to be involved and informed regarding construction and cable route as i believe this project could disrupt my fishing activities"
Other Statutory Consultees
English Heritage
"English Heritage is the Government’s advisor on all aspects of the historic environment in England. English Heritage is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and we report to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The National Heritage Act (2002) enabled English Heritage to assume responsibility for maritime archaeology in the English area of the UK Territorial Sea. However, we are aware that the proposed array development is located on UK Continental Shelf adjacent to England and therefore any comment we offer is given without prejudice to our responsibilities. We have the chapters and other sections of interest to us within the Trition Knoll Offshore Wind Farm prepared by RWE npower renewables Ltd (dated January 2012) and we offer the following comments: Volume 2, Chapter 11 Marine Archaeology We noted the detail set out in paragraph 11.20 regarding the identification of archaeological receptors in the study area; it is therefore important that the physical process modelling will consider all types of proposed foundation design to determine how the identified archaeological receptors might be affected. However, please note the statement made in paragraph 11.26 regarding the potential to encounter other, presently unknown, archaeological materials within the proposed area of development. Paragraph 11.43 mentions the application of an assessment of historic value associated with particular sites and we must draw your attention to the UK Marine Policy Statement and the acknowledgment that only a small proportion of sites are subject to statutory protection, but that other sites, which may be of equal archaeological interest, should be afforded the same policy position as designated historic assets. We noted that no attention was given to the preparation of an archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) which is of direct relevance to the agreement of mitigation necessary to inform delivery of this proposed project. Please note that we stated in our submission to the developer, dated 12th July 2011 (response to the Preliminary Environmental Information Report) that ‘…the WSI is prepared by a body affiliated to a professional association, such as the Institute for Archaeology, and that attention is directed at the planning and delivery of analysis which is supported by information obtained from any geotechnical surveying campaign commissioned for this project. Any archaeological reports produced are to be agreed with English Heritage prior to the development commencing.’ Tables 11.5 and 11.6 both mention assessment of geophysical anomalies on a case-by-case basis and delivery of other mitigation measures as (archaeological) receptors are discovered at any phase of the proposed development. It is therefore highly relevant that the developer agrees a WSI with English Heritage so that both the geophysical assessment of anomalies and identification of mitigation measures are appropriate and agreed prior to development commencing. The developer should therefore obtain a copy of Model Clauses for Archaeological Written Schemes of Investigation – offshore renewabels projects, published by The Crown Estate in December 2010. We also draw your attention to the statement made in paragraph 11.67 regarding further archaeological assessment and we stress that to support any further assessment will require the preparation and agreement of a WSI. Table 11.7 (and paragraphs 11.49 and 11.55) assert that indirect impacts to erosion and sedimentation regimes, of any proposed foundation design, will be negligible. However, an assessment does not seem to have been included of the direct impacts associated with ground preparation required to support construction of different foundation designs (see paragraph 11.32) as set out in Table 11.4 (Rochdale Envelope scenario assessed). The statements made in paragraph 11.76 require attention for the following reasons: • The use of the term ‘preservation by record’ does not accord with accepted archaeological practices for the management of change within the historic environment; • The handling of material discovered through the course of development should be address through The Crown Estate Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries; • The WSI prepared for this project is to be agreed prior to any aspect of development occurring and will therefore inform delivery of the development layout (both foundations and inter-array cabling), so that all necessary detailed survey programme plans (e.g. geophysical, geotechnical and/or drop down camera/video) will be prepared with objectives that support archaeological interpretation and analysis. The requirement to produce a WSI will therefore comprise a component of any deemed Marine Licence granted for this project. Draft Development Consent Order (with Deemed Marine Licence), dated January 2012 We have reviewed Schedule 2, Part 1 (deemed Marine Licence) and we support the inclusion of 8(h) regarding the preparation, in agreement with the licensing authority and English Heritage, of an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation. However, we require amendment so that the deemed Marine Licence addresses the following: • Any completed and agreed archaeological reports produced through the WSI are deposited, by the applicant, within a public archive in accordance with the OASIS (Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS’) system. The deposit of reports in a public archive will support understanding of the historic environment and enable commercial archaeological contracting services to comply with professional standards of service as required by bodies such as the Institute for Archaeology. We also recommend the following amendments to the deemed Marine Licence: • The appropriate section of the Marine Licence is amended to include the geographic locations of Archaeological Exclusion Zones to inform positioning of installation vessels required for the delivery of the consented project; and • The preparation of the pre-construction monitoring baseline is to include seabed anomalies of archaeological interest that might be affected by the positioning of any installation vessels necessary to delivery the proposed development. Volume 3 (Annex J) Seascapes and visual impact assessment In our response to the developer, dated 12th July 2011, regarding the Preliminary Environmental Information Report we noted that no direct mention was made to the consideration of the English Heritage Historic Seascape Characterisation programme. We must therefore request clarification if the EIA will attempt to utilise the methodology prepared for Historic Seascapes Characterisation. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
"The Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust supports development of renewable energy sources and infrastructure but is firmly of the opinion that such development should not be to the detriment of the natural environment. The Trust has concerns regarding the potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed development on priority habitats and species. Of particular concern is the potential collision risk to birds which the wind farm could pose once operational. Even using a 98% avoidance rate the predicted annual number of collisions as a result of the development is high for a number of species, in particular gannet, lesser black-backed gull, great black-backed gull and kittiwake. The collision risk for gannet could have a significant impact on the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs Special Protection Area (SPA) breeding population. The cumulative impacts of this development with proposed wind farms in the Greater Wash are also of concern for species such as sandwich tern. It is important that the mitigation measures relating to Docking Shoal, Race Bank and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farms are confirmed before the mitigation for this development is finalised to ensure that there would not be adverse impacts on the sandwich tern breeding population of the North Norfolk Coast SPA. The proposed site is adjacent to the draft Marine Conservation Zone (dMCZ) Inner Silver Pit (NG6). The Silver Pit has been identified as a clustering area for harbour porpoises and seals. The Trust therefore welcomes the mitigation proposed to reduce potential impacts on marine mammals from piling noise. Given the uncertainties around the death of seals with cork screw wounds we would recommend that, as part of the Marine Mammal Mitigation Protocol (MMMP), Marine Management Organisation observers are on board vessels when ducted propellers are being used for dynamic positioning to reduce the likelihood of injuries to seals. Given that there is an uncertainty surrounding the effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) on fish, especially elasmobranchs, we would advise that the precautionary principle is applied and that the cables are buried, if possible, to a depth of 3m to minimise the impacts of EMF. We welcome the commitment to undertake a pre-construction survey for Annex 1 habitats, such as Sabellaria spinulosa, and consequently micro-site the wind farm structures to avoid any important habitats that are identified. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Maritime & Coastguard Agency
"The MCA has no specific concerns from a safety of navigation perspective with the application and Navigation Risk Assessment as presented."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Mrs Angela Bagley on behalf of Mr Ken Bagley, Chairman, Boston and District Fishermen
"The Boston and District Fishermen's Association members have a government legal right to fish within Area VII of the North Sea. Our concerns are based on the disturbance to the sea bed and the knock-on effect this could have on the shellfish within this area caused by the erection of this new windfarm. We also have grave concerns regarding the proposed route of the cabling required for this windfarm, an issue which as yet you appear to have no firm proposed route for. We therefore require to be kept informed of proposals for this development and urgently wish to be advised of the cable routing as soon as this is available."
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Trust
"NATIONAL TRUST, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND THE GUNBY ESTATE The National Trust is a charity and Europe’s largest conservation organisation with a current membership of 4 million people. With the support of our Parliamentary Act we are legally responsible for the protection of some of the most beautiful, historically important and environmentally sensitive places in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Trust comments on proposed developments where it is judged that they would affect the special significances of the sites the Trust cares for on behalf of the nation or would have a significant impact on the area surrounding them. National Trust approach to Renewable Energy The Trust’s Energy Policy strongly supports a major increase in renewable energy generation nationally for electricity, heat and power appropriate to the site, and a significant expansion in micro-generation. This is important to mitigate climate change and reduce pollution and other damage to landscape, soils, wildlife, buildings, water and society associated with the exploitation and use of fossil fuels. Many of our properties are already experiencing the impacts of climate change such as flooding, storm damage, rainwater incursion, and habitat and species changes. The Trust believes that appropriate renewable energy development will help to reduce the damage to our properties from further climate changes and bring long-term benefits to society by reducing the risk of severe impacts in future. However, we also believe that the location and design of all energy generation and distribution schemes should take account of the full range of environmental considerations, including the protection of valued landscapes, biodiversity, the historic environment, and peoples’ well-being. The Gunby Estate and Monksthorpe Chapel At Gunby the National Trust’s interests comprise not just the Hall and its immediate parkland and garden, but also much of the wider agricultural estate land and modest blocks of woodland that formed part of the original land holding of the owners of Gunby. The overall Estate extends to 560 hectares of land the vast majority of which is held ‘inalienably’. There are three agricultural tenants who farm the Trust owned Estate land and also several residential tenants occupying a range of accommodation on the Estate. VISUAL IMPACT OF THE OFF-SHORE WIND FARM Having reviewed the off-shore works, including the additional work on visual impacts from the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB, the National Trust considers that it is unlikely that there would be any undue adverse impacts upon views from the AONB. The Trust’s interests at Gunby Estate are situated close to, and in small part within, the AONB boundary and it is considered that any impacts upon views from Gunby would be negligible. ON-SHORE IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE OFF-SHORE WORKS National Trust has considered the submitted document entitled “RWE Cable Statement” (Doc 07/01) with particular regard to potential impacts upon its interests. Whilst the Trust understands the background to the decision to separate out the on-shore and off-shore elements of the proposals it is considered important to recognise that the two are inextricably linked – you cannot have one without the other. In many respects the on-shore elements are potentially more contentious than the off-shore ones with likely impacts upon residents, tourism and publicly accessible environmental assets. The Trust supports in principle the location of the grid connection point at Bicker Fen and of the major new on-shore sub-station in the vicinity of that connection point. It also considers that the provision of DC cabling from the off-shore collection point within the wind farm site to Biker Fen is appropriate, i.e. as opposed to AC cabling or overhead lines. To date there has been no opportunity for the Trust to contribute to the consideration of route options or the selection of a preferred route. Recent discussions with RWE indicate that the on-shore cabling could have direct implications upon its land, including for example the Registered Historic Park and Garden at Gunby, the setting of Gunby Hall, Monksthorpe Chapel and its setting and a range of known and potential archaeological resources such as ‘ridge and furrow’. There are also likely to be impacts upon nature conservation assets – both flora and fauna – both within the Parkland at Gunby and on the wider Estate. Short and medium term impacts upon visitors to the Gunby Estate as a result of the works are also anticipated. The list of ‘key constraints’ (para 7.18 in Doc 07/01) at present omits many historic environment assets, including Listed Buildings and in particular Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Table 4 in the Cable Statement omits the consideration of historic environment impacts, apart from archaeology, from the scope of the EIA for the on-shore works, and the consideration of landscape and visual makes no reference to historic landscape character assessment. The submitted plans of “On Shore Archaeology” (Dwg No 02/04/b) and “Lincs Conservation Plan” (Dwg No 02/05/c) are similarly partial and, for example, exclude Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. National Trust therefore remains concerned about the inevitable on-shore implications of a decision to proceed with the Triton Knoll off-shore wind farm, the robustness of the selection of strategic and detailed route options, the direct and indirect impacts upon the heritage and ecological resources that the Trust has a duty to protect on behalf of the nation, the adequacy of any mitigation measures and the impacts upon visitors and the local economy. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Wells and District Fishermens Association; and North Norfolk Fishermans Society
"Wells & District Inshore Fishermen’s Association and North Norfolk Fishermans Society comprises of approximately 50 static gear vessel owners/fishermen many of whom have fished in the proposed wind farm site and construction area for several generations. Together, we have a number of representations that we wish to make:- • We are concerned with the effect the construction of the wind farm will have on the marine environment, in particular with the placement of a permanent foreign object on the seabed, the disturbance of sand/sediment etc during construction and physiological trauma from underwater noise. We are concerned that the removal of the seabed through it’s preparation for receiving the turbine foundations or by placing scour protection around the turbine foundations will result in direct loss of habitat with a detrimental effect on fisheries. Many wind farms are being constructed in areas of commercial importance to crab and lobster fisheries yet studies examining in detail the full effects on these species are lacking. We submit that further construction should be delayed until such time as studies on these species can be completed using existing sites and the full long term effects established. • We request a condition in the MMO licence that the inter array cables are buried to a depth of at least 1.5m and that all efforts will be made to use the burial method with the least amount of impact on the marine environment. Our concerns regarding burial methods are that the increased amount of fine sediments being re-suspended is fatal to epifauna and infauna in the vicinity. This will in turn, environmentally effect the fishing ground which will take several years to recover. There are insufficient studies surrounding the impact of suspended sediment on crabs and lobsters – important species within commercial fisheries for our members. • We are concerned about potential impact from EMF. Again, we request that burial of the cable at a depth of at least 1.5m should be included as a condition of the licence. Also, there is insufficient evidence surrounding EMF and its effects on crabs and lobsters. An appropriate monitoring regime should be put in place with adequate baselines to assess EMF and its effect on fisheries. Not enough information is available about the influence of cable passages on crabs and lobsters. • Placement of the permanent foreign object hinders the right of free and unhindered navigation and constitutes a public nuisance. • Increased steaming time (and thus increased cost) to other fishing grounds. Members will incur additional expense moving gear as a direct result of the project. Many members have smaller, weather sensitive vessels and are limited to the amount of gear they can move in one trip. Even a small increase in steam times can be prohibitive. • Interference with fishing activities by fouling and/or loss of gear. Vessels transiting to the project area both during construction and the operation phase have a tendency to cut off the marker dhans placed on static gear resulting in the fishermen losing gear or having to spend large amounts of time searching for their gear. • To ensure the safety of marine users during construction we request that a clause is added to the MMO licence specifying that a dedicated guard vessel with sound local knowledge and crew are engaged during construction. • Complete loss or restricted access to traditional fishing grounds during construction, operation and decommissioning together with the loss of opportunity to fish. The proposed wind farm site forms part of the fishing ground for many of our members. They rely on the area for their income. Our members will be prevented from undertaking their usual revenue generating activities during the construction phase. The effect of this is heightened due to the cumulative impacts of other marine activities e.g. other wind farm projects, dredging etc • The potential for complete loss of fishing grounds for the operational lifetime of the wind farm and for as long as foundations remain in situ. The implications of offshore wind farms on specific fishing activities and techniques is unknown. The continuance of fishing activities within an operational site will vary on a site by site basis and is dependent upon a number of factors e.g. tide therefore, generalities about the availability of a particular site for fishing during its operational lifespan cannot be made. • It is often cited that fishermen can relocate to different grounds. This is a grand theory however, given the cumulative effect of the wind farms and other marine activities e.g. dredging in this area, the remaining accessible ground will become congested with pots and other static fishing gear (displacement). Furthermore, vessels who use other non-static fishing methods will be forced to use the same ground resulting in fouled gear all around. The wind farm will impede access to grounds affecting profitability by reducing catches directly or making it harder or more costly to achieve the same catch. Smaller vessels are limited in their ability to fish elsewhere. In addition the increased space competition to other accessible areas could also increase resource pressure. • Fishing activity is not distributed evenly. Fisheries distribution depends on many factors. The importance of a fishing ground changes annually and is subject to seasonal variation. The commercial importance of a ground can be influenced by national and international markets making value difficult to predict. Additionally, many stocks in the North Sea are transitioning to recovery which is likely to lead to an increase in level of fishing activity over the life of the wind farm. There is insufficient detail provided on how the developer intends to comprehensively address the residual impacts to the fishing industry. Furthermore, the fisheries mitigation provided is generic and no real detail is considered. There should be a clear, coherent plan which details the approaches to the residual impact and details operational issues. • We are concerned about the socio economic impacts. North Norfolk is a maritime area and the fishing industry contributes to the social and cultural fabric of the community, whose attractiveness is valued by the tourism industry. Accordingly, to continue to erode the fishing industry seeks to undermine an industry which underpins what is quintessentially North Norfolk. • It is not clear how the exclusion area will operate as there is mention that one third of the construction area will be closed at any one time but there is also reference to a complete exclusion from the area. Could we have clarity on this issue and could we have assurances from the developer that they will have clear lines of communication with their sub-contractors in this regard. Often, in our experiences, situations occur where the developers instructions are an exclusion zone of 500m from various turbine locations as per their published notice to mariners and the subcontractors broadcast and enforce much greater exclusion zones often up to 2 miles which they then effect around all construction vessels and around the entire site. • This consent process is rather misleading as the export cable is subject to a separate consent and the project specifics are vague so this hampers the ability to make fully considered representations. "
Parish Councils
Diane Fairweather on behalf of Bicker Parish Council
"The parish council have been approached by residents in the village to object to this application. A wind farm was erected in Bicker 7 years ago with a sub station and the disruption to this quiet village was almost unbearable for many residents. Whilst renewable energy is important, this application comes in two packages, and it is the second package that causes concerns. Where the electrical system is required to connect to the national grid. Originally national grid offered a grid connection in East Lindsey, which is far nearer the off shore site, but had a strategic review in December 2010 and offered a connection at bicker fen as an alternative. Apparently the existing sub-staiton is not sufficient to take this additional 1200 megawatts of renewable energy and a seperate sub station will have to be constructed. This is prime agricultural land, which is the back bone of our farming community and access to the area is in poor. Following the lodging of this interest i look forward to receiving regular updates in order to assure the residents of Bicker all that can be done is being done "
Other Statutory Consultees
Health Protection Agency
"HPA requested at the scoping phase that the Environmental Statement contain one section summarising impacts on public health. The Applicant has not provided such a section within their application. The following HPA response is based therefore on the information contained in section 15.5 of the Applicant’s Scoping Report which is included as Appendix A of the Environmental Statement Based on the information presented in the Environmental Statement the HPA is not able to consider whether the development is likely to lead to significant public health impacts. The Applicant is referred to the HPA advice presented in the IPC Scoping Opinion Report. More information can also be found in HPA wind farm position statement, which is available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/ProductsServices/ChemicalsPoisons/Environment/EnvironmentalAndPublicHealthLegislation/PlanningAct2008/NationallySignificantInfrastructureProjects/ The Applicant states in the Scoping Report that the Scheme will demonstrate that the ICNIRP restrictions on public exposure will not be reached or exceeded and a desk study will determine the strength of magnetic fields likely to be generated by the proposed connection options for the cable current flows and / or maximum loads that might be used. A generic assessment will be made against permitted exposure levels where the cables run in close proximity to relevant public or occupational uses or other receptors. The export cable(s) and the onshore components do not form part of the current application for the offshore wind farm. The applicant states that these will be subject to separate consents and the HPA will want to be consulted on these in due course. HPA will expect to make further comments at such point when the assessment becomes available. The HPA comments are restricted to public health impacts relating to exposure to chemicals and radiation. The HPA reserves the right to add additional points to the detailed response "
Other Statutory Consultees
Joint Nature Conservation Commitee
"Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s Relevant Representations in respect of an application by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited for a Development Consent Order for the proposed Triton Knoll offshore wind farm and associated offshore infrastructure in the Greater Wash off the coast of Lincolnshire and North Norfolk. Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010005 1. Relevant Representations As fellow Defra agencies, and in order to provide the best service to our customers and the public we serve, Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (“JNCC”) endeavour to adhere to the principle of “One Voice” in Government by providing an integrated view on projects which we share in common. In this way expertise can be drawn from a wide range of disciplines across the two agencies. Natural England and JNCC have decided to pool their resources in this case. Natural England and the JNCC have distinct statutory roles and we will make it clear in our representations with regards this matter in what capacity we are addressing any potential environmental impacts. Natural England 1.1. Natural England is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (“NERC” Act). Natural England is the statutory adviser to Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England’s wildlife and natural features. Under section 1(3) of the NERC Act Natural England’s functions are exercisable in relation to England and the territorial sea adjacent to England up to 12 nautical miles. JNCC 1.2. JNCC is a non-departmental public body established under the NERC Act. JNCC is the public body that advises the United Kingdom Government and devolved administrations on United Kingdom wide and international nature conservation. Legislative Framework 1.3. Natural England is a statutory consultee: 1.3.1. in respect of plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) which are likely to have a significant effect on European sites and European marine sites (including Special Areas of Conservation (“SAC”) (and candidate SACs (“cSACs”)), Special Protection Areas (“SPA”), and, by way of Government policy, sites listed under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar site”)) which lie within 12 nautical miles from the English coastline; and 1.3.2. in relation to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the “1981 Act”), proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) has been notified. 1.4. JNCC is a statutory consultee in respect of plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations which are likely to have a significant effect on European offshore marine sites (including SACs (and cSACs), SPAs, and, by way of Government policy, Ramsar sites) which lie beyond 12 nautical miles from the United Kingdom coastline. 1.5. Natural England and the JNCC are also statutory consultees pursuant to the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (the “2007 Regulations”). Under regulation 25 of the 2007 Regulations, before deciding to undertake, or give consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which is to be carried out on or in any part of the waters or on or in any part of the seabed or subsoil comprising the offshore marine area, or on or in relation to an offshore marine installation and which is likely to have a significant effect on a European offshore marine site or a European site (either alone or in combination) and which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, the competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Under regulation 25(3)(a) of the 2007 Regulations, where the assessment relates to a European offshore marine site, the competent authority must consult the JNCC. Where the assessment relates to a European site (including a European marine site ), then the competent authority must consult Natural England, in accordance with regulation 25(3)(b) of the 2007 Regulations. 1.6. In determining this application, the Secretary of State will be acting as the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations and the 2007 Regulations. The Secretary of State is also a section 28G authority with specific duties under the 1981 Act in respect of SSSIs. 1.7. The designated sites relevant to this application are: 1.7.1. the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (which lies within 12 nautical miles); 1.7.2. the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank, and North Ridge cSAC (parts of which lie within and beyond 12 nautical miles); 1.7.3. the Humber Estuary SAC (which lies within 12 nautical miles); 1.7.4. the North Norfolk Coast SPA (which lies within 12 nautical miles); and 1.7.5. the Flambrough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA (which lies within 12 nautical miles). 1.7.6. the Wash SSSI. Section 40 NERC Act 1.8. Section 40(1) of the NERC Act places a duty on public authorities (which includes the Secretary of State, for the purposes of determining this application) with regard the conservation of biological diversity. This duty is as follows: ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.’ Recommended Marine Conservation Zone (“MCZ”) 1.9. The Secretary of State may, by order, create MCZs pursuant to section 116 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Silver Pit area has been recommended as an MCZ which will be subject to a public consultation process in due course. The Silver Pit recommended MCZ lies adjacent to the western edge of the proposed development site. Natural England and the JNCC are satisfied that the proposed development will have no impact on the Ross worm feature of the recommended MCZ. Background 1.10. Natural England’s and the JNCC’s advice is based on information submitted by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) in relation to the Triton Knoll offshore wind farm (the “project”). The bulk of the project will be located beyond 12 nautical miles. 1.11. Natural England and the JNCC believe that there is an urgent need to develop clean energy developments in order to mitigate climate change. We therefore support the Government’s commitment to offshore energy generation and its goal to ensure that 15% of our energy demand is met from renewable sources by 2020. We will continue to work proactively with developers to ensure that sustainable energy development can proceed in a manner that avoids unacceptable impacts on the natural environment. 1.12. These relevant representations contain a summary of what Natural England and the JNCC consider the main issues to be in relation to the DCO application (as well as the Deemed Marine Licence contained therein), and the impact of those issues. They contain an outline of the principal points which Natural England and the JNCC wish to make on the application at this stage and seek to identify the aspects of the application about which Natural England and the JNCC have concerns. Natural England and the JNCC may have further or additional points to make if further information becomes available in relation to the project. 1.13. For the purposes of the statutory consultation process specified under the Habitats Regulations (and 2007 Regulations), so far as these representations relate to European sites or European marine sites (i.e. the Wash and north Norfolk Coast SAC, the North Norfolk Coast SPA, the Flambrough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, the Humber estuary SAC and parts of the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge cSAC) the appropriate nature conservation body is Natural England. So far as these representations relate to a European offshore marine site (i.e. parts of the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge cSAC which lie beyond 12 nautical miles) the appropriate nature conservation body is the JNCC. 1.14. Natural England and the JNCC have been working closely with Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited to provide advice and guidance since 2008. Natural England and the JNCC have worked together to provide coordinated advice and have also worked with other fellow Defra agencies, such as the Marine Management Organisation. 1.15. Whilst Natural England and the JNCC have been working with Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited for a number of years, not all our pre-application advice has been taken into account or addressed in the submission documents. These representations set out the significant issues which remain outstanding. The overall position 1.16. Natural England and the JNCC are not satisfied on the basis of the information submitted that, for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations (and the 2007 Regulations), the project will not have a likely significant effect on the Flambrough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, North Norfolk Coast SPA and Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC, and, accordingly, advise that an appropriate assessment is necessary. 1.17. Natural England and the JNCC note that Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited have produced a shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment in which they have assessed the potential for an adverse effect on the North Norfolk Coast SPA, the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, the Humber Estuary SAC, the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC and the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge cSAC. Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited conclude in that shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment that, taking into account impact predictions, evidence from other sites, uncertainties and whether there is reasonable cause for concern, that the project, together with mitigation and monitoring as proposed, is not expected to have an adverse effect on the integrity of any of these sites, either alone or in combination with other projects. Natural England and the JNCC are not satisfied that sufficient information has been provided by Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited 1.18. Natural England and the JNCC are satisfied that the project in the form currently proposed is not likely to have a significant effect on the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank, and North Ridge cSAC. 1.19. When examining, and before the determination of, this application, the Examining Authority will need to consider whether all the relevant requirements of the Habitats Regulations and the Habitats Directive are satisfied, including the requirements of regulation 62 of the Habitats Regulations that where there is a negative assessment of the implications for the European sites there are no alternative solutions and that the project must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. 1.20. Natural England and the JNCC are satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that, for the purposes of the 1981 Act, the project is not likely to damage the Wash SSSI. 1.21. The Examining Authority may wish to ensure that the matters set out in these relevant representations are addressed as part of the Examining Authority’s first set of questions to ensure the provision of information early in the examination process. Issues 1.22. Set out below is Natural England and the JNCC’s advice on the issues which have not been resolved satisfactorily as part of the pre-application process. These are matters relating to the impacts of the project that in Natural England and the JNCC’s view must be addressed properly by Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited and the Examining Authority as part of the examination process before consent can properly be granted. Ornithology 1.23. Natural England and the JNCC are concerned that there is uncertainty regarding various aspects of the information that has been provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in the Environmental Statement. Accordingly, it is not possible to safely conclude that this development acting in-combination with other developments in the region is not likely to have a significant effect on the following SPA species as a result of potential collision risk impacts: 1.23.1. Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), which are a named feature of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA; 1.23.2. Gannet (Morus bassana), which are the main component species of the seabird assemblage of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA; and 1.23.3. Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), which are a named feature of the North Norfolk Coast SPA 1.24. These species are relatively long-lived bird species with relatively high survival and relatively low reproductive rates and are therefore vulnerable to increases to adult mortality. Natural England and the JNCC are concerned that these populations could be impacted by additional mortality due to collisions with offshore wind turbines. The potential significance of collision mortality as a result of the project, either alone or in combination has been addressed in the various reports provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited. However, there remain a number of uncertainties around the assessment of the significance of impact and further information is required in order to address these uncertainties. Marine Ecology 1.25. Potential disturbance of the harbour seal population of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC and the Wash SSSI: The harbour seal are a species which is listed under Annex II of the Habitats Directive and are a primary feature for the selection of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast as a SAC. The conservation objective for harbour seals within this SAC is to maintain or increase the population. Natural England and the JNCC advise that currently, there is insufficient information provided in the application documents regarding the population level impact of the project in-combination with other plans and projects in the area. Natural England and the JNCC therefore believe that there is likely to be a significant effect on harbour seals, which should be appropriately assessed, and are concerned that insufficient information has so far been provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in the Environmental Statement and shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment to be able safely to conclude that this development, acting in-combination with other developments in the region, will not have an adverse effect on the conservation objectives of the harbour seal population of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC. 1.26. Harbour seals are also a feature of the Wash SSSI. Therefore this information will also be required in order for the section 28G authorities to be able safely to conclude whether the proposed development is likely to damage this interest feature of the Wash SSSI. Proposed location of the land fall parts of the proposed wind farm 1.27. Currently there is little information about where the landfall part of this development will be located. In the 0701 Cable Statement document supplied with the application documents, Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited have only described their area of search for the cable route and landfall options, saying that it will be on the ‘Lincolnshire coast’ and identifying their current grid connection location offer at Bicker Fen. The Secretary of State, acting in its capacity as competent authority under the Habitats Regulations, has a duty to consider impacts on European sites in-combination with other plans or projects. As it is inevitable that an offshore wind farm will require some form of landfall development for its cables, it is necessary that the impacts of this landfall element should be considered in combination with the proposed development. To date no such information has been provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in the application documents. Natural England is concerned about this and advises that the Examining Authority should require further information on the proposed landfall development for consideration as part of the examination and consenting process. Physical processes 1.28. Natural England is concerned that whilst sufficient information has been provided in the Environmental Statement to allow a conclusion of no likely significant effect to be drawn, there is limited mention of designated sites at the coast and the impact that changes may have on these. This is particularly important in relation to wave regime and sediment transport and the far field impacts these may have. Whilst Natural England accepts the modelled changes are small and the far field effects are therefore limited, the Environmental Statement does not appear to have assessed the wider interest features that may be affected. Some designated coastal sites can be very sensitive to small changes and these effects should be assessed, if only to be ruled out. Section 40 NERC Act 1.29. Natural England and the JNCC note that there are other species identified in the Environmental Statement which are not features of the designated sites. The Secretary of State will have to give regard to those species, in accordance with their duty under section 40 NERC Act, when determining this application. Statement of common ground 1.30. Natural England and the JNCC intends to continue discussions with Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited to seek to resolve these matters through the provision of further assessment and/or information by Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited which can then lead to the agreement of matters in statements of common ground. Natural England and the JNCC May 2012 "
Other Statutory Consultees
Marine Management Organisation
"TRITON KNOLL OFFSHORE WINDFARM PROJECT BY RWE NPOWER RENEWABLES LTD PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPLICATION AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is an interested party for the examination of Development Consent Order (DCO) applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects in the marine area. The MMO has received notice of such an application for triton Knoll Offshore WindFarm (IPC ref: EN010005). Please find below the MMO’s initial comments on this application. Please note these are only initial comments and the MMO reserves the right to make further comment on this application throughout the examination process. The MMO is interested in this project because it involves installing up to 288 wind turbines, associated developments and cabling within the marine area. The MMO has made an initial assessment of the draft DCO and has the following comments on Schedule 2 for your consideration: 1. Part 1 Section 1 (1). Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) is used several times within the deemed Marine Licence schedule and should therefore be included in the definitions listed here. 2. Part 2 Section 1 (1).In paragraphs (a) and (b) maximum turbine height is provided measured from LAT. However, in paragraph (e) the minimum clearance distance is given from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) not LAT or Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT). The change from LAT/HAT to MHWS is potentially confusing and it would seem logical for all heights to be standardised from one agreed measurement either MHWS or HAT/LAT. The MMO feels that the 22m clearance required in condition (e) should be from HAT. 3. Part 2 Section 6 (3) (c). The MMO requests that this condition is amended to state that a copy of the licence will be available for inspection on board each vessel involved from which authorised deposits or removals are to be made. 4. Part 2 Section 6 (4) and (5). The MMO considers it very important that these conditions are amended to ensure they allow the MMO access at all times. The current conditions state at reasonable times. However, under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 246 (1) and 247 (2) the MMO can only enter premises at a reasonable time unless we suspect that by entering at a reasonable time it frustrates the purpose of entering. 5. Part 2 Section 7 (2). The MMO requests that a reference be included in this condition to a guidance document describing best environmental practice. 6. Part 2 Section 7 (4). The MMO requests that this condition is amended to include a statement to ensure that the site must be characterised and designated as a disposal site prior to any disposal of drill arisings. 7. Part 2 Section 7 (8). This condition needs to be amended to state that in the event that the initial survey does not locate the missing materials the survey will be expanded at the request of the MMO until the missing object is located. 8. Part 2 Section 9 (1) (f). The MMO request that this condition be amended to clearly show that if the foundation installation requires piling (such as is often required for monopile or jacket foundations) a Marine Mammal Mitigation Protocol will be required. 9. Part 2 Section 13. The MMO requests that a condition is added here to require the measurement of background/ambient noise levels to provide a baseline upon which the net impact of energetic introduction to the site can be monitored. 10. Part 2 section 13 and 15. The MMO requests that a requirement to conduct pre and post construction benthic monitoring is added to these sections. This should include both infaunal and epifaunal surveys to monitor all benthic habitats. 11. Part 2 section 14 (11) the MMO requests that this condition be amended to state that the monitoring report must be submitted 4 weeks after the final of the four piles has been installed. 12. Part 2 section 15 (3). The MMO requests that this condition is removed or reworded as the post construction monitoring may highlight impacts that need further surveys and investigation beyond 3 years. It is also possible that the surveys may not need to be conducted for 3 concurrent years. The MMO in consultation with JNCC and Cefas may request certain monitoring be conducted on years 1, 5 and 10 post construction. 13. Part 2 section 15 (2) (b). The MMO requests that this condition is amended to state that in year 1 post construction the entire wind farm is surveyed. This will ensure that those turbine foundations with the greatest scour are selected as sample turbines for subsequent years surveys. 14. The MMO requests that a condition is added to the deemed Marine licence schedule of the DCO to state that piling must not commence between the peak herring spawning period between 1st September and 16th October. The MMO has made an initial assessment of the Environmental Statement (ES) and the report to inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment and has the following comments for your consideration: General comments 1. The impacts of the disposal of dredge material and drill arisings has not been fully assessed. These activities will require separate applications for Marine Licenses when the full detail of the disposal is known and the full impact will be reassessed prior to any licence for disposal being granted. Fish and Shellfish resources 2. The Herring larvae survey results only give a snap shot description of distribution and abundance of herring spawning in the area. The surveys do not cover the whole spawning period and therefore cannot define the whole spawning period. The MMO is concerned that the ES states that the potential impact of piling noise on herring is considered to be of minor significance (ES V3 Annex F1 section 4.91). It can be seen from figure 4.8 that noise impact from piling can potentially impact a large proportion of spawning ground. The MMO has therefore asked for a piling restriction to mitigate impacts to spawning herring. 3. The MMO notes that the impact on several receptors such as EMF on electro sensitive species has been sufficiently assessed for the site. However, additional assessment of a range of receptors will be required as part of the Marine Licence process for the export cable. This will also need to be assessed in combination with the site when the application for the export cable is submitted. Commercial Fisheries 4. In section 8.146 a potential major significant impact on commercial fisheries has been identified for those vessels currently fishing within the site. The proposed mitigation seems restricted to proposed discussions with the effected parties and the impact has been set to negligible or minor based on a successful outcome. Is there any evidence that such outcome can be assured? 5. The MMO notes that within the ES volume 3 Annex I Commercial Fisheries further evidence is required to support some of the conclusions. 6. The exclusion of vessels from other marine developments (such as aggregate extraction sites or other offshore Wind farms) will significantly reduce the fishing opportunities for the potting sector and lead to conflict with other fishers and the potential for reduced catch rates in some areas. The nature of this displaced fishing effort will depend on whether the fishers are willing and allowed to continue to fish within the OWF sites during operation. The ES assumes they will and the severity of potential impacts is based on this assumption. 7. The ES has determined that for the seven or eight potting vessels currently fishing within the site there is the potential for major significant impact. However, the cumulative impact of all marine developments in the Greater Wash area for all commercial fishing sectors is considered of minor or negligible significance. It should be noted that the cumulative impact for those seven or eight vessels will still be major. 8. There is concern that the value of fisheries in the Triton Knoll site has been derived solely from MMO landing data for ICES rectangles 35F0 and 36F0 apportioned by relative area of the site. 9. It is noted within Chapter 8 that there was a low response from the fishing industry to questionnaires which necessitated extensive site visits. Is the developer confident they captured all the information necessary? Underwater Noise 10. The MMO notes that the modelling sound propagation and species impact zones using dB HT scale. It should be noted that this metric has not yet been peer reviewed in scientific literature. 11. Baseline ambient noise levels have not been provided for the site. This information is required to assess the net impact of energetic introduction to a given site. Although information on ambient noise levels from other sites are included representative baseline noise levels must be gathered. The MMO has therefore requested that a condition is added to the deemed Marine Licence schedule of the DCO to require pre construction ambient noise monitoring to establish a baseline. Minor comments on the ES 1. In section 8.24 a caveat should be included to note that benthic organisms are usually highly aggregated in response to suitable habitat and rarely uniform. A caveat should also be added to the estimation of the value of the commercial fisheries to note this potentially uneven distribution. 2. In section 8.6 limitations of VMS data should include a note to state that most shellfish vessels are not included as they are below the current vessel size threshold. 3. In section 4.3 the compulsory catch reporting system for <10m potting vessels does not include whelks on a compulsory basis as it was designed to capture fishing activity for crabs and lobsters only. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Ministry of Defence
"The Ministry of Defence (MOD) wrote to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on 31 March 2010 identifying that the applicant, in association with other developers, had agreed to provide mitigation to address the unacceptable impact of the development upon the Air Defence Radar at Trimingham. MOD undertook not to raise an objection to this proposal on the provision that a number of conditions (or requirements) would be addressed in the development consent order, if granted. MOD has reviewed the draft development consent order (document reference: 03/01) that has been submitted with the application. MOD is satisfied that the requirements specified in the draft order would allow MOD to maintain its position of not raising an objection to this application. MOD considers that the following paragraphs of the draft order should be included in the development consent order, if granted: - Schedule 1, Part 1, paragraph 1 - Schedule 1, Part 3, paragraphs 3 and 18. MOD has no objections to this application subject to the above paragraphs being included within the development consent order, if granted. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations
"We welcome the recognition by the developer of the impacts to the fishing industry resulting from this development, including residual impacts that cannot be mitigated through project design. Although we consider such matters should be resolved as far as possible pre-consent, the commitment to resolve these impacts is welcome (p8.17, 8.133 of Environmental Statement). However, given that it is proposed such matters, are resolved post development consent, we ask that a coexistence agreement that details how the resolution of impacts are to be addressed is required as a condition attached to any development consent going forward. A fisheries liaison plan (as per best practice guidelines: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/uk%20energy%20supply/energy%20mix/renewable%20energy/policy/offshore/groups/file46366.pdf) should also accompany any agreement. We also recognise that the developer proposes fisheries monitoring actions to be agreed with Cefas and the MMO (ES, 8.134). We ask that an appropriate monitoring regime is established which can contribute to assessing potential effects upon fisheries recognising that often in the past such regimes have been not been satisfactory as reviewed by Cefas (2010, Strategic Review of Offshore Wind Farm Monitoring Data Associated with FEPA Licence Conditions). The developer should, where possible, make use of local fishing vessels in conducting this work, which may be considered as part of a mitigation strategy. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Natural England
"Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s Relevant Representations in respect of an application by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited for a Development Consent Order for the proposed Triton Knoll offshore wind farm and associated offshore infrastructure in the Greater Wash off the coast of Lincolnshire and North Norfolk. Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010005 1. Relevant Representations As fellow Defra agencies, and in order to provide the best service to our customers and the public we serve, Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (“JNCC”) endeavour to adhere to the principle of “One Voice” in Government by providing an integrated view on projects which we share in common. In this way expertise can be drawn from a wide range of disciplines across the two agencies. Natural England and JNCC have decided to pool their resources in this case. Natural England and the JNCC have distinct statutory roles and we will make it clear in our representations with regards this matter in what capacity we are addressing any potential environmental impacts. Natural England 1.1. Natural England is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (“NERC” Act). Natural England is the statutory adviser to Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England’s wildlife and natural features. Under section 1(3) of the NERC Act Natural England’s functions are exercisable in relation to England and the territorial sea adjacent to England up to 12 nautical miles. JNCC 1.2. JNCC is a non-departmental public body established under the NERC Act. JNCC is the public body that advises the United Kingdom Government and devolved administrations on United Kingdom wide and international nature conservation. Legislative Framework 1.3. Natural England is a statutory consultee: 1.3.1. in respect of plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) which are likely to have a significant effect on European sites and European marine sites (including Special Areas of Conservation (“SAC”) (and candidate SACs (“cSACs”)), Special Protection Areas (“SPA”), and, by way of Government policy, sites listed under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar site”)) which lie within 12 nautical miles from the English coastline; and 1.3.2. in relation to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the “1981 Act”), proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) has been notified. 1.4. JNCC is a statutory consultee in respect of plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations which are likely to have a significant effect on European offshore marine sites (including SACs (and cSACs), SPAs, and, by way of Government policy, Ramsar sites) which lie beyond 12 nautical miles from the United Kingdom coastline. 1.5. Natural England and the JNCC are also statutory consultees pursuant to the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (the “2007 Regulations”). Under regulation 25 of the 2007 Regulations, before deciding to undertake, or give consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which is to be carried out on or in any part of the waters or on or in any part of the seabed or subsoil comprising the offshore marine area, or on or in relation to an offshore marine installation and which is likely to have a significant effect on a European offshore marine site or a European site (either alone or in combination) and which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, the competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Under regulation 25(3)(a) of the 2007 Regulations, where the assessment relates to a European offshore marine site, the competent authority must consult the JNCC. Where the assessment relates to a European site (including a European marine site ), then the competent authority must consult Natural England, in accordance with regulation 25(3)(b) of the 2007 Regulations. 1.6. In determining this application, the Secretary of State will be acting as the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations and the 2007 Regulations. The Secretary of State is also a section 28G authority with specific duties under the 1981 Act in respect of SSSIs. 1.7. The designated sites relevant to this application are: 1.7.1. the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (which lies within 12 nautical miles); 1.7.2. the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank, and North Ridge cSAC (parts of which lie within and beyond 12 nautical miles); 1.7.3. the Humber Estuary SAC (which lies within 12 nautical miles); 1.7.4. the North Norfolk Coast SPA (which lies within 12 nautical miles); and 1.7.5. the Flambrough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA (which lies within 12 nautical miles). 1.7.6. the Wash SSSI. Section 40 NERC Act 1.8. Section 40(1) of the NERC Act places a duty on public authorities (which includes the Secretary of State, for the purposes of determining this application) with regard the conservation of biological diversity. This duty is as follows: ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.’ Recommended Marine Conservation Zone (“MCZ”) 1.9. The Secretary of State may, by order, create MCZs pursuant to section 116 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Silver Pit area has been recommended as an MCZ which will be subject to a public consultation process in due course. The Silver Pit recommended MCZ lies adjacent to the western edge of the proposed development site. Natural England and the JNCC are satisfied that the proposed development will have no impact on the Ross worm feature of the recommended MCZ. Background 1.10. Natural England’s and the JNCC’s advice is based on information submitted by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) in relation to the Triton Knoll offshore wind farm (the “project”). The bulk of the project will be located beyond 12 nautical miles. 1.11. Natural England and the JNCC believe that there is an urgent need to develop clean energy developments in order to mitigate climate change. We therefore support the Government’s commitment to offshore energy generation and its goal to ensure that 15% of our energy demand is met from renewable sources by 2020. We will continue to work proactively with developers to ensure that sustainable energy development can proceed in a manner that avoids unacceptable impacts on the natural environment. 1.12. These relevant representations contain a summary of what Natural England and the JNCC consider the main issues to be in relation to the DCO application (as well as the Deemed Marine Licence contained therein), and the impact of those issues. They contain an outline of the principal points which Natural England and the JNCC wish to make on the application at this stage and seek to identify the aspects of the application about which Natural England and the JNCC have concerns. Natural England and the JNCC may have further or additional points to make if further information becomes available in relation to the project. 1.13. For the purposes of the statutory consultation process specified under the Habitats Regulations (and 2007 Regulations), so far as these representations relate to European sites or European marine sites (i.e. the Wash and north Norfolk Coast SAC, the North Norfolk Coast SPA, the Flambrough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, the Humber estuary SAC and parts of the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge cSAC) the appropriate nature conservation body is Natural England. So far as these representations relate to a European offshore marine site (i.e. parts of the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge cSAC which lie beyond 12 nautical miles) the appropriate nature conservation body is the JNCC. 1.14. Natural England and the JNCC have been working closely with Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited to provide advice and guidance since 2008. Natural England and the JNCC have worked together to provide coordinated advice and have also worked with other fellow Defra agencies, such as the Marine Management Organisation. 1.15. Whilst Natural England and the JNCC have been working with Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited for a number of years, not all our pre-application advice has been taken into account or addressed in the submission documents. These representations set out the significant issues which remain outstanding. The overall position 1.16. Natural England and the JNCC are not satisfied on the basis of the information submitted that, for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations (and the 2007 Regulations), the project will not have a likely significant effect on the Flambrough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, North Norfolk Coast SPA and Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC, and, accordingly, advise that an appropriate assessment is necessary. 1.17. Natural England and the JNCC note that Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited have produced a shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment in which they have assessed the potential for an adverse effect on the North Norfolk Coast SPA, the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, the Humber Estuary SAC, the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC and the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge cSAC. Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited conclude in that shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment that, taking into account impact predictions, evidence from other sites, uncertainties and whether there is reasonable cause for concern, that the project, together with mitigation and monitoring as proposed, is not expected to have an adverse effect on the integrity of any of these sites, either alone or in combination with other projects. Natural England and the JNCC are not satisfied that sufficient information has been provided by Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited to support this 1.18. Natural England and the JNCC are satisfied that the project in the form currently proposed is not likely to have a significant effect on the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank, and North Ridge cSAC. 1.19. When examining, and before the determination of, this application, the Examining Authority will need to consider whether all the relevant requirements of the Habitats Regulations and the Habitats Directive are satisfied, including the requirements of regulation 62 of the Habitats Regulations that where there is a negative assessment of the implications for the European sites there are no alternative solutions and that the project must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. 1.20. Natural England and the JNCC are satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that, for the purposes of the 1981 Act, the project is not likely to damage the Wash SSSI. 1.21. The Examining Authority may wish to ensure that the matters set out in these relevant representations are addressed as part of the Examining Authority’s first set of questions to ensure the provision of information early in the examination process. Issues 1.22. Set out below is Natural England and the JNCC’s advice on the issues which have not been resolved satisfactorily as part of the pre-application process. These are matters relating to the impacts of the project that in Natural England and the JNCC’s view must be addressed properly by Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited and the Examining Authority as part of the examination process before consent can properly be granted. Ornithology 1.23. Natural England and the JNCC are concerned that there is uncertainty regarding various aspects of the information that has been provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in the Environmental Statement. Accordingly, it is not possible to safely conclude that this development acting in-combination with other developments in the region is not likely to have a significant effect on the following SPA species as a result of potential collision risk impacts: 1.23.1. Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), which are a named feature of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA; 1.23.2. Gannet (Morus bassana), which are the main component species of the seabird assemblage of the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA; and 1.23.3. Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), which are a named feature of the North Norfolk Coast SPA 1.24. These species are relatively long-lived bird species with relatively high survival and relatively low reproductive rates and are therefore vulnerable to increases to adult mortality. Natural England and the JNCC are concerned that these populations could be impacted by additional mortality due to collisions with offshore wind turbines. The potential significance of collision mortality as a result of the project, either alone or in combination has been addressed in the various reports provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited. However, there remain a number of uncertainties around the assessment of the significance of impact and further information is required in order to address these uncertainties. Marine Ecology 1.25. Potential disturbance of the harbour seal population of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC and the Wash SSSI: The harbour seal are a species which is listed under Annex II of the Habitats Directive and are a primary feature for the selection of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast as a SAC. The conservation objective for harbour seals within this SAC is to maintain or increase the population. Natural England and the JNCC advise that currently, there is insufficient information provided in the application documents regarding the population level impact of the project in-combination with other plans and projects in the area. Natural England and the JNCC therefore believe that there is likely to be a significant effect on harbour seals, which should be appropriately assessed, and are concerned that insufficient information has so far been provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in the Environmental Statement and shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment to be able safely to conclude that this development, acting in-combination with other developments in the region, will not have an adverse effect on the conservation objectives of the harbour seal population of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC. 1.26. Harbour seals are also a feature of the Wash SSSI. Therefore this information will also be required in order for the section 28G authorities to be able safely to conclude whether the proposed development is likely to damage this interest feature of the Wash SSSI. Proposed location of the land fall parts of the proposed wind farm 1.27. Currently there is little information about where the landfall part of this development will be located. In the 0701 Cable Statement document supplied with the application documents, Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited have only described their area of search for the cable route and landfall options, saying that it will be on the ‘Lincolnshire coast’ and identifying their current grid connection location offer at Bicker Fen. The Secretary of State, acting in its capacity as competent authority under the Habitats Regulations, has a duty to consider impacts on European sites in-combination with other plans or projects. As it is inevitable that an offshore wind farm will require some form of landfall development for its cables, it is necessary that the impacts of this landfall element should be considered in combination with the proposed development. To date no such information has been provided by Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm Limited in the application documents. Natural England is concerned about this and advises that the Examining Authority should require further information on the proposed landfall development for consideration as part of the examination and consenting process. Physical processes 1.28. Natural England is concerned that whilst sufficient information has been provided in the Environmental Statement to allow a conclusion of no likely significant effect to be drawn, there is limited mention of designated sites at the coast and the impact that changes may have on these. This is particularly important in relation to wave regime and sediment transport and the far field impacts these may have. Whilst Natural England accepts the modelled changes are small and the far field effects are therefore limited, the Environmental Statement does not appear to have assessed the wider interest features that may be affected. Some designated coastal sites can be very sensitive to small changes and these effects should be assessed, if only to be ruled out. Section 40 NERC Act 1.29. Natural England and the JNCC note that there are other species identified in the Environmental Statement which are not features of the designated sites. The Secretary of State will have to give regard to those species, in accordance with their duty under section 40 NERC Act, when determining this application. Statement of common ground 1.30. Natural England and the JNCC intends to continue discussions with Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited to seek to resolve these matters through the provision of further assessment and/or information by Triton Knoll Wind Farm Limited which can then lead to the agreement of matters in statements of common ground. Natural England and the JNCC May 2012 "
Parish Councils
North Somercotes Parish Council
"The biggest concern for the village of North Somercotes and surrounding areas is the potential impact of the Package 2 works (the onshore power cable routes and substation locations). These should be set out and discussed before any approval is given to the Package 1 works. The Parish counil consider it inappropriate and contrary to good planning practice to decouple the complete application in this way - the whole proposal should be looked at together in its entirety. The Parish Council believes that it is appropriate to request that a Section 106 Agreement with regard to demonstrating a benefit to the community - is applicable to this project, and is currently formulating its thoughts on what would be an apporpriate package of measures for a Section 106 agreement in this respect."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
"The RSPB supports the deployment of renewable energy projects, providing that adverse impacts on wildlife are avoided through appropriate siting and design. The main concerns of the RSPB in relation to the proposed Triton Knoll offshore wind farm relates to the potential collision risk posed to species that are designated features of a number of Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites, as designated under Article 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the EU Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (2009/147/EC), and listed under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands of international importance (1971), respectively, both alone and in-combination with other projects. For example, based on the information presented, we have concerns about in-combination collision risk to Sandwich terns and gannet of the North Norfolk Coast SPA and Ramsar site and the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, respectively. Whilst provision of relevant environmental information by the Applicant is welcome, we have concerns about the adequacy of this information and/or its analysis to inform an Appropriate Assessment. We are also concerned that the predicted significance of the in-combination collision risk to species such as Sandwich tern also depends to a large extent on the consenting decisions for a number of other offshore wind farm proposals in the Greater Wash. We note that the information submitted to the NID by the applicant discusses a possible scenario for mitigation of collision risk posed to Sandwich terns of the North Norfolk Coast SPA by the Race Bank, Docking Shoal and Dudgeon offshore wind farm proposals, including mitigation of the Triton Knoll proposal. The mitigation may significantly reduce cumulative collision impacts to Sandwich tern and other species. However, the consent decisions, and therefore the actual mitigation that may be applied at the other offshore wind farm proposal sites are not known at present. We are therefore concerned that there is a lack of reasonable certainty for the NID to conduct an Appropriate Assessment into the effect of the Triton Knoll proposal on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites at the present time. The Applicant has involved the RSPB in a pre-application discussion with respect to draft ornithological information and the RSPB has also provided initial written comments on this information to the Applicant. From our initial review of the submission documents we are unable to confirm that our concerns have been addressed. However, we will continue discussions with the Applicant with a view to resolving these, where possible, and to ensure that robust evidence is submitted to the NID. We may wish to submit and/or present further evidence if appropriate and appear at any hearings the NID may wish to convene on the matters of concern to us, should this be necessary. We reserve the right to add to and/or amend our position in light of any new information submitted by the Applicant. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Anna Gibb on behalf of Trinity House
"Dear Sirs Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Trinity House is an interested party to this application in accordance with section 102 of the Planning Act 2008, because it is a statutory party to the examination of all applications likely to affect navigation in tidal waters. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development would have on navigation within Trinity House’s area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order. Trinity House has made an initial assessment of the draft Development Consent Order. In relation to Schedule 1, Part 3, paragraph 9, Trinity House submits that the Order should not provide that Trinity House is to consult with the MCA when directing the aids to navigation to be exhibited. This provision is not normally included in orders such as these. Please direct correspondence regarding this application to me using the contact details below and to Stephen Vanstone at [email protected] Yours faithfully Anna Gibb Legal Advisor "
Parish Councils
Willoughby and District Parish Council
"Account should be taken of the visual impact both from the Lincolnshire Wolds (an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and the shoreline. The cumulative impact of the existing wind turbines at Mablethorpe, those already in existence off the coast and the proposed Triton Knoll development must also be taken into account. The Parish Council understands that this part of the application is only to do with the offshore site but wishes to stress that it would not support any onshore cabling to connect the site to the connection at Bicker Fen. "
Parish Councils
response has attachments
Ashby By Partney Parish Meeting
"I am registering on behalf of the residents of Ashby-by-Partney who may have an interest in this application now, or in the future. We understand this to be the first stage of a whole process, and feel this application is being done in parts (piecemeal) and not as a whole complete scheme including offshore and onshore development, so therefore not being totally transparent in their intentions for the greater scheme. We will be able to elaborate more about the area later but we can say the parish is on the very edge of an A.O.B., National Trust properties, and more importantly an area of 'war grave' with human remains still there."
Parish Councils
response has attachments
Candlesby Parish Meeting
"I am registering on behalf of the residents of Candlesby with Gunby who may have an interest in this application now, or in the future. We understand this is to be the first stage of the process, and feel this application is being done in parts, and not as a whole complete scheme including offshore and onshore developments, so therefore is not totally transparent of the applicants intentions for the greater scheme. This parish is in an A.O.B. on the Wolds in Lincolnshire - with N.T. properties, and local area of a 'war grave' with human remains still there."