Olivia Brown
"Scottish Power Renewables have not given sufficient consideration in formulating their proposals in respect of the following 1.Locating all supporting infrastructure offshore to prevent the destruction of the Suffolk countryside 2. Locating all infrastructure that cannot (for technical reasons not cost) be located offshore to brownfield sites e.g. Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft where both areas would benefit substantially from regeneration If the Planning Inspectorate does not rule that Scottish Power Renewables should fully research and resubmit their application on the basis of using offshore and brownfield sites then they and Government will be endorsing a legacy of destruction in Suffolk and elsewhere. legacy of destruction in Suffo"

David Horton
"The proposed site of the power station abuts the village of Friston where I live. It will destroy the character of the whole area and it cuts right across the ancient public right of way where we take our daily walk. The proposed site is on slightly elevated land and will be severely detrimental to the village’s existing flood defences. The site occupies good agricultural land. If Sizewell is really out of the question as an option for its placement, why not insist that Scottish Power examine the use of brownfield sites rather than virgin agricultural land? And why not re-visit the use of Bramford (Ipswich) as the preferred site for the substations, as was the original plan agreed between Scottish Power and National Grid back in 2008, and which is already being used by Scottish Power for their East Anglia One substation? The road network around Friston is totally unsuited to the inevitable heavy traffic associated with such a major building project. Considerable further work and expense would be required before construction could begin and the noise and traffic congestion would put an unbearable strain on village life. The village of Friston is a popular holiday destination, with many of the houses available for holiday rentals. The choice of Friston as the site for the substation would have a detrimental impact on the tourist trade which in turn would affect the money coming into the area, whereas the substations and their construction would bring no economic benefits to the residents of the village"

Michael Barnard
"Impact on visual and ecological issues"

Martin Cotter
"My property is a listed building and sighted a few hundred metres north of the proposed infrastructure locations. This area of Suffolk is still one of the few unspoilt idylls left in our industrialised lands and whilst I have a vested interest in objecting to the sighting of the proposed infrastructure I also feel that this definitely is not the right location for 35 acres of concrete and steel. It seems to me pure madness to wantonly destroy miles of countryside with needless cable corridors and substation sightings when there are perfectly sound and environmentally friendly ways to achieve the climate reduction goals our government has signed up to. The development of an offshore ring main with landfall and substations at brown field sites is a perfectly plausible solution enabling the required goals to be achieved without the destruction of our heritage assets. Be mindful as the examining body that this is just the first of many applications for grid connection that will come once the rest of the North Sea becomes available to the highest builder. How many more substations are we going to allow before we realise that what we have destroyed is not retrievable. Main Points. 1. This is not the correct location for industrial infrastructure on this scale. 2. Historically Friston has had flooding issues many time. This will only exasperate the situation. 3. Coastal locations and brownfield sites should be considered in the first instance. 4. National grid should be made to supply the infrastructure so Wind farms can get grid connection at costal land fall. 5. This project will cause unlimited environmental harm Kind Regards Martin Cotter. 02/12/2019"

Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB))
"I should like to make a representation on behalf of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership. The Partnership is made up of around 25 organisations who are committed to the purposes of the AONB designation, to conserve and enhance natural beauty. For the avoidance of any doubt, individual members of that Partnership are public bodies or statutory undertakers who have duties to conserve and enhance natural beauty and it is anticipated these members will provide separate representations reflecting their complete interests and responsibilities. The AONB Partnership response will focus on the following issues: 1) The Landscape and Visual Impact of the scheme on the nationally designated AONB, including its setting. 2) The impact of the scheme on the defined natural beauty elements of the AONB, including landscape quality, scenic quality, relative wildness, relative tranquillity, natural heritage features and cultural heritage. 3) The impact of the scheme on the defined special qualities of the nationally designated AONB, including health and wellbeing, community, economy and ecosystems goods and services. It is worth noting the defined natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB are represented in the document: 'Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: Natural Beauty and Special Qualities indicators at: http://www.suffolkcoastandheaths.org/assets/Planning/V1.8-Natural-Beauty-and-Special-Qualities-of-SCH-AONB.pdf 4) The impact of the scheme on the purposes of the nationally designated AONB, including its setting, to conserve and enhance natural beauty. 5) How the scheme and the developer has addressed its duty of regard to the purposes of the AONB. 6) The impact of the scheme on the ability of residents and visitors to enjoy the purposes of the AONB, its natural beauty and special qualities, for example public access and enjoyment of countryside. 7) The impact of the scheme on the local economy, in particular the tourism industry, that relies on the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB. 8) The quality of and appropriateness of measures to avoid, mitigate and compensate for impacts on the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB."

Robert Browne
"My reason for submitting this representation as an interested party is that I live within 20 meters of the proposed development area. I fully support the development of sustainable power and the development of East Anglia One North. However it would appear there is very little joined up thinking between the various enterprises involved in the development of North Sea wind energy. It is therefore my opinion that a Government body needs to take responsibility to ensure that there is far less duplication of the necessary infrastructure. This would result in preservation of our valuable countryside and a substantial cost saving."

Sarah Courage
"I strongly object to the proposed two huge substations at Friston as they will dwarf the small tranquil village and Grade II listed Church and totally disrupt and devastate the lives of the its residents. The proposals must be reassessed to avoid causing enormous and lasting damage to the environment, flora and fauna in this unspoilt area of East Suffolk. The local narrow roads and parts of the A12 are completely inadequate to cope with the impact of the hundreds of daily HGV movements. They would impact severely on local tourism and make it impossible for emergency vehicles to function let alone agricultural vehicles. Renewable energy should not desecrate precious countryside when a more sensible offshore solution could be found."

Emma Steadman
"My property backs directly onto the site proposed for the project cutting off footpaths I use every day with my dogs. My safety and that of numerous other vulnerable and elderly dog walkers in the village will be at risk during any construction process, plus I shall have to use my car every day just to get out and walk my dogs. The risk of flooding to the area created by water displacement caused by the proposed build will damage properties, roads and footpaths and cut off certain roads from use. The noise, disruption, dirt and increased traffic (and workers during construction) will adversely affect the peaceful quality of life which many (including myself) have sought out by moving to Friston, and will have a detrimental effect on mental wellbeing and stability. The safety and security of many very elderly villagers who live alone, will be compromised during construction due to the increase in large vehicles on the roads and the influx of site workers to our community. Our beautiful landscape and countryside will be destroyed, deterring visitors on whom we rely for the financial upkeep of our grade 2* listed church building which is within meters of the edge of the site. The same church, which is a valuable hub of community life, will struggle to stay open due to it's proximity and the likelihood that villagers will not wish to walk to this side of the village. The value of my property, which I am relying on as my future pension, will be seriously reduced, and I am unlikely ever to be able to sell it and therefore will be trapped with no ability to move away or realise my capital."

Norfolk Independent Fisherman Association
"We, the Norfolk Independent Fisherman Association, object to this application on the grounds that a number of our members will be financially at a loss and it will interrupt our fishing operations. We are all mainly static gear. There will also be extra running costs for our members and permanent loss and interruption of our fishing grounds."

Pat Dorcey
"I would like to register my interest as since Nov 2017 my life has been in turmoil. Firstly to stumble across a project of this magnitude when attending a parish council meeting on a simple planning issue is in itself showing that the company are not engaging with the public in the correct manner. Surely there should be engagement at the onset to allow the interested parties to become familiar with the impending development. I received a communication on the 9th Dec 2017 from Savills which content was alarming and in fact they were removed by SPR shortly after,again SPR were not showing due diligence to have allowed this to happen. All through up to now there have been short falls and I am going to be hugely impacted by this development should it take place.. The cable route that is also a haul road will be approx 16 metres from my property and used for the entire time of the build posing a huge health risk as the land is of a sandy medium and very dusty ,my husband and two of my neighbours suffer with severe (Redacted). The area is AONB and we are privileged to have red deer turtle doves nightingales skylarks all to be severely impacted by the disruption. The project is now set to be brought forward by three years announced only earlier this week!"

Whale and Dolphin Conservation
"The North Sea offers a variety of rich cetacean habitats. Whilst gaps still remain in our knowledge of the cetaceans which live year round or migrate through our waters, East Anglia ONE North offshore wind farm lies within the Southern North Sea Special Area of Conservation (SNS SAC) an area of importance for harbour porpoise. Due to its location in the SAC, it is likely that the construction of East Anglia ONE North will negatively impact the harbour porpoise population of the SAC, particularly in-combination. These impacts have the potential to be long-term. As an SAC the Southern North Sea is a strictly protected site, designated under the EC Habitats Directive, with a specific Conservation Objective of “To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the harbour porpoise or significant disturbance to the harbour porpoise, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to maintaining Favourable Conservation Status for the UK harbour porpoise.” (JNCC, 2017). WDC is particularly concerned about the potential for cetaceans to be disturbed and displaced, including by the noise introduced into their environment. Noise will be produced throughout the life of the development, including construction, operation and decommissioning, and from associated vessel traffic. East Anglia ONE North is likely to impact cetaceans, and the harbour porpoise population supported by the SNS SAC in ways ranging from collisions to habitat displacement due to the effects of noise and disturbance. Our concerns are particularly related to noise especially during the construction phase as this is the stage where there is the greatest potential to negatively impact cetaceans. Noise pollution has the potential to displace animals and populations, interfere with normal behaviour and, at very high intensities, be physically damaging. All cetaceans are offered ‘strict protection’ under the Habitats Directive. Research has shown that pile driving during construction causes behavioural changes in harbour porpoises which leave the area during construction and in majority instances did not later return to their usual numbers. The longest running study into the effects of windfarms on harbour porpoises shows that ten years later, the population has only recovered to 29% of the baseline level. Even where areas have been recolonised, it is not clear if these are the same animals returning or new animals moving into the area, or if the animals are using the area in the same way. Harbour porpoise feed almost continuously to meet energy needs and are therefore highly sensitive to disturbance. Loud noises, such as pile driving, can cause them to be displaced from potential important feeding grounds. Additionally harbour porpoise can lose 4% of their body weight in just 24 hours from starvation. Given the importance of the East Anglia ONE North area and the SNS SAC for harbour porpoise, most likely as prime foraging areas, displacement from the area could be very significant. The combined effects of these developments with other industries operating in the marine environment, such as shipping and oil and gas exploration, are also largely unknown. Yet it is important that cumulative and in-combination impacts be adequately considered and our understanding developed. WDC recommend for East Anglia ONE North that: • Foundations requiring piling are not used; • Further assessments are made on alternative foundations to fully understand the potential impacts on marine mammals, and prey species; • To apply effective noise-reducing measures where piles of any sort are driven."

Philip Lines
"I have consistently argued that it is not in anyone's best interest to locate the onshore elements of this scheme several miles inland. Not only will this cause a significant blight in a rural area of natural beauty, severely impair the lives of those living in and around the village of Friston, there is also the question of the damage an upheaval that will result from the necessity to lay cables from the shore to Friston across several miles of countryside. This might be acceptable if there was absolutely no feasible alternative. To make this choice when there is a perfectly good location at Sizewell that would group together power resources on the coast makes no sense either in terms of the negative impact of the Friston site or economic arguments."

Jan Packard
"Siting of proposed substation at Friston to accommodate EA2 and EA1N wind farms will have a devasting effect on people’s lives, and countryside in Suffolk Large areas of AONB will be destroyed and will have devastating impact on tourism, our business included. No alternative long term employment will replace this. Already dangerous and overcrowded country roads will become impossible with an increase of up to 1500 vehicles per day. We understand this is the first of 7 proposed schemes for the area. PLEASE Pause all energy projects off the east coast whilst a cohesive plan is devised in the form of an offshore ring main to bring energy ashore and minimise damage to our beautiful coastline. As Interested Parties in the proposed Scottish Power EA1N and EA2 projects, we are writing again to highlight our grave concerns for the future of Coastal Suffolk and to add our support to the representations being made by SASES. As residents of Knodishall, whose property and holiday accommodation business is situated contiguous to a section of the cable route/haul road and in close proximity to a proposed site compound, the siting of the Friston sub-station is going to have a devasting effect on our lives and business. Our guests, along with the majority of visitors to the Suffolk Coast, choose our properties for their tranquil location with unspoilt views, dark skies and ease of access. All of this will disappear with the above project and the siting of the haul road and compound within metres of our boundary. Access to our property, will at times be closed off whilst initially constructing the haul road and subsequently very difficult with the continual movement of construction traffic. The impact to routes leading to our property and the Suffolk Coast will be catastrophic. The addition of 100 HGV movements a day along the already overloaded A1094 Aldeburgh Road will be dangerous and off-putting to visitors. Relative ease of access to the Suffolk Coast is a contributing factor to the area being chosen as a destination. Given that EA1N and EA2 are not the only projects proposed for the area, in what seems to be a disjointed and inefficient energy plan, the cumulative effect on people’s lives, tourism and the environment is going to blight our beautiful Suffolk Coast for many years. The location and timing of these and inevitable subsequent projects needs to be carefully considered. The hardships inflicted on the environment and the inhabitants of Coastal Suffolk can be mitigated and current projects must be paused whilst other alternatives, such as offshore ringmains, are considered. Lives in Coastal Suffolk should not be destroyed for the sake of the nation."

Mark Haines
"I live 3 miles inland from Thorpeness/Sizewell and will be directly affected by the idea of bringing windfarm electricity a few miles inland before joining it to the grid. I don't think we have to wreck the East Anglia Coastal region for the sake of the nation. I understand that other European counties have made a 'ringmain' in the North Sea. Could that be quicker? cheaper? less destructive? less controversial? Hasn't the Secretary of State called for a review of the strategy? If so, please postpone any decision while this happens? I'm sure you will be under pressure to 'just get on with it' but please don't. We will be a long time regretting a quick decision, especially once interested parties present feasible offshore alternatives to you. Just because an application is submitted, does it have to be determined even though there are arguments outstanding that affect the Eastern UK PLEASE DO NOT DETERMINE THIS NOW - PLEASE WAIT WHILE ANDREA LEADSOM OR HER SUCCESSOR UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS As Interested Parties in the proposed Scottish Power EA1N and EA2 projects, we are writing again to highlight our grave concerns for the future of Coastal Suffolk and to add our support to the representations being made by SASES. As residents of Knodishall, whose property and holiday accommodation business is situated contiguous to a section of the cable route/haul road and in close proximity to a proposed site compound, the siting of the Friston sub-station is going to have a devasting effect on our lives and business. Our guests, along with the majority of visitors to the Suffolk Coast, choose our properties for their tranquil location with unspoilt views, dark skies and ease of access. All of this will disappear with the above project and the siting of the haul road and compound within metres of our boundary. Access to our property, will at times be closed off whilst initially constructing the haul road and subsequently very difficult with the continual movement of construction traffic. The impact to routes leading to our property and the Suffolk Coast will be catastrophic. The addition of 100 HGV movements a day along the already overloaded A1094 Aldeburgh Road will be dangerous and off-putting to visitors. Relative ease of access to the Suffolk Coast is a contributing factor to the area being chosen as a destination. Given that EA1N and EA2 are not the only projects proposed for the area, in what seems to be a disjointed and inefficient energy plan, the cumulative effect on people’s lives, tourism and the environment is going to blight our beautiful Suffolk Coast for many years. The location and timing of these and inevitable subsequent projects needs to be carefully considered. The hardships inflicted on the environment and the inhabitants of Coastal Suffolk can be mitigated and current projects must be paused whilst other alternatives, such as offshore ringmains, are considered. Lives in Coastal Suffolk should not be destroyed for the sake of the nation."

Rosie Norton
"My chief concern involving this application is the detrimental effect it will have on a beautiful part of Suffolk which is enjoyed by residents and visitors alike, This area is of major importance to wildlife, in particular to various types of birds, and reptiles sich as adders and lizards, which need all the protection we can give them. Adders specifically are reducing in numbers over the whole country, so this part of Suffolk should be given greater protection, and not have to endure years of disturbance and destruction of habitat. They need our protection. The amount of land that will be required to take these cables across land in a heritage area is unacceptable, and an offshore hub would be far more practical for these cables, due to the problems of a receding coastline and real threat of flooding. I would like to see this application refused cabling over land because this Heritage Coast needs to be preserved for future generations. The apllication for connections to the National Grid should be dealt with offshore."

Suffolk County Council
"Content to be sent by separate email due to the length of representation."

Aldringham-Cum-Thorpe Parish Council
"Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council fully supports the migration of green energy. However, due to suitability of the North Sea to produce wind energy it is vital that a full strategic review is undertaken(as requested in the letter of the 28th October 2019 to the Secretary of State for Business, energy and Industrial Strategy from three East Anglia MPs) of how this energy is brought ashore, with appropriate regard to the combined and lasting impacts of all known schemes on the coastal communities and environment that this energy is supposed to protect. Throughout the consultation process the Parish Council have consistently raised their overriding view that more large-scale industrial developments, such as wind farm substations, are inappropriate for this section of the Heritage Coast due to its naturally flat and wildlife rich habitat. This area already makes significant contribution to the nation's energy supply, hosting two nuclear power stations and two wind farm substations, and have already suffered many years of disruption. We are now facing the daunting prospect of many more years of disruption and damage from the following large-scale infrastructure projects - EA1N and EA2 Offshore Wind Farms, Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station, the National Grid Ventures Nautilus & Eurolink and possible extensions of the Greater Gabbard & Galloper Wind Farms. The cumulative impact of all these projects should be considered alongside EA1N and EA2 DCO Applications, SPECIFIC CONCERNS LANDSCAPE The extensive area of land required within the AONB, SSSI and Heritage Coast will change this beautiful landscape forever. Large scale developments in this location have the potential to significantly impact the fragile coastal margins, causing further cliff destabilisation, as well as removing many unique habitats which support numerous protected species. It is unclear how these impacts will be minimised throughout the construction. The Developer must be required as a minimum to restore the cable route to its state prior to the construction. If not practical, significant mitigation should be agreed. COMMUNITY The scale of these developments will have a significant impact on our ageing community and their wellbeing. The average age of the community is higher than the rest of the Country and therefore more vulnerable to disruptions. People move here to enjoy their retirement in peaceful surroundings. It is now proposed to position the cable corridor much closer to the residential titles than previously specified. It is unclear how construction in these areas will be managed to minimise the impacts on local residents. TOURISM This part of the coast has a very high number of visitors, making an essential contribution to maintaining a viable local economy. Disruption to footpaths, general access to the area, air quality, light, noise and dust pollution will significantly impact the local community and the attractiveness of the area as a holiday destination. It is unclear how the impact on the local economy will be suitably mitigated. TRAFFIC It is unclear how the cumulative impact of all proposed energy projects will be managed, particularly the damage to road surfaces, traffic flow on narrow roads and congestion at busy junctions. FLOODING Several areas of the Parish are already impacted by significant flooding. It is unclear how these proposals will impact the flood management strategies for the area."

Office for Nuclear Regulation
"ONR has a role as a statutory consultee for National Policy Statements (NPS) and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) likely to affect matters relevant to ONR’s purposes, as specified in Part 3 of the Energy Act 2013, under the following: • The Planning Act 2008 • The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 • The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) . • The Infrastructure Planning (Interested parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015 Additionally, ONR has a non-statutory development control role to consider the impact of proposed developments on local emergency planning arrangements for nuclear sites and the potential for developments to pose an external hazard to the sites. We therefore request that local planning authorities notify us of any application for planning permission within our consultation zones that meets our consultation criteria. ONR’s Land Use Planning policy, procedure and consultation criteria are published online at www.onr.org.uk/land-use-planning.htm. ONR considers that NSIPs that extend into our consultation zones are likely to affect matters relevant to ONR’s purposes. ONR should therefore be consulted on Development Consent Order (DCO) applications for such NSIPs. ONR is seeking assurance from Suffolk County Council Emergency Planners that the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing off-site emergency plan for Sizewell B nuclear licensed site, from the Sizewell B operator that the development does not pose a hazard to the nuclear licensed site and from ONR inspectors that the appropriate external hazards posed by the development have been adequately considered and mitigated against."

Harwich Harbour Fishermen's Association
"The Harwich Fisherman’s Association [Redacted] 11th December 2019 PROPOSED EAST ANGLIA ONE NORTH OFFSHORE WINDFARM OBJECTION As a member representing the 17 vessels of Harwich Fisherman's Association on the East Anglian Two Commercial Fisherman Working Group, I submit my associations concerns, comments and formal objection regarding the proposed application to install wind turbines and cables in the proposed areas. For some months we have engaged in discussions through the working group and we appreciate the efforts by the developers to have open and meaningful discussion with our members however, there are still to date matters that are of serious concern which will create some major issues for all the inshore fleet on the east coast if the project goes ahead. Our members only have previous experience on how past and ongoing wind farm projects have been managed and how they have compromised the commercial activities of fishermen within the Harwich and east coast area. Sometimes a disruption payment has cushioned the impact during construction but we wish to stress that this objection has nothing to do with money; we just do not want anymore wind farms, for the reason below, and WE HAVE OUR SHARE! We are convinced, that certain further areas will become un-fishable and they will remain so whilst the proposed wind farm is in operation and possibly longer. Our members fishing (all under 10mvessels) will be compromised in the proposed areas. In the past the developer has agreed to pre and post construction surveys but because of the uncertain stability of the sea bed on the east coast (continually shifting seabed) what may be satisfactory one day does not give the guarantee it will be safe to fish in the future. We have in all discussion stated that cables will not stay buried in certain sections, which is exactly what has occurred on the Gabbard and Gunfleet wind farms. Any exposed cable is a serious snagging hazard and could have serious consequences for the vessels safety and no skipper is willing to endanger his vessel and crew. The applicant will I am sure say they will follow best practice techniques but will not be able to give cast iron guarantees that cables will be buried and stay buried. The licence conditions will state the seabed should be restored however, again from our experience it will not happen in certain areas. Every cable crossing will have to be covered and each covering will create additional hazards! Over the recent years our fishing activities has been restricted over extremely large areas due to the provision of previous and ongoing sustainable renewable energy schemes and any additional projects on the east coast must be given serious consideration. These sites were regular fishing grounds used by our members but are now no longer available. The knock on effect is that all the fishing activities have been condensed into much smaller areas, with our members struggling to have viable areas to work. Any new additional wind farm will compound this issue, hence our objection. There are ongoing proposals on the east coast that will, if approved, compound the issues further, such as the Marine Conservation Zones, Harwich Haven Authority new Maintenance Dredge Disposal Site and numerous major cable installations out of the Thames. Two existing wind farms have already applied to the crown estate for expansion with planning application forthcoming. When will enough be enough! An additional effect to our members is that, because of the local inshore areas being restricted, longer journey times will be forced on our members, increasing the carbon footprint and running costs of all our vessels. This will also place additional challenges to our members. The present government has stated commitment to ensure fishing remains sustainable on the East Coast, continual reductions of accessible fishing ground for the coastal commercial fishing fleet brings this commitment into doubt. If the East Anglian Two proposal is granted approval, the local fishing fleet (our members) will suffer considerable changes to their existing fishing area but it will also have long term affect on the future generation who hopefully would have inherited a credible and sustainable fishing industry on the east coast, which now must be in question. The proposed wind farm is totally opposed by our association. Trevor Armstrong Honorary Secretary"

M C Jones
"Friston is totally unsuitable for this proposed huge development which will destroy a vast swath of very attractive peaceful countryside much enjoyed by locals and a large tourist industry. Friston village already suffers heavy flooding which will be aggravated by great areas of concrete. There are many footpaths across the proposed area. Hares are regularly sighted. The road access is totally inadequate. There will be intrusive noise from the transformers. I [Redacted] as do a number of others in the village. The Grade 2* village church is very close and exposed to the site. There are 3 Grade 2 listed thatched cottages next to the church. An offshore ring main would solve these problems including the further ones to come."

NATS LTD
"Dear Sir/Madam, Application by Scottish Power Renewables (UK) Limited for an Order granting Development Consent for the East Anglia ONE NORTH Windfarm I write in respect of the application referenced above, for the East Anglia ONE NORTH offshore windfarm. NATS has assessed the proposal and as identified by the Applicant in their application, anticipates an impact on its infrastructure. Depending on the exact height of the turbine tip, the potential is for half or all of the application site to be detected by NATS’s Cromer radar. It is anticipated that the radar detection of the turbines will lead to substantial “clutter” appearing on Air Traffic Controllers’ displays. Accordingly, the anticipated impact is deemed to be unacceptable to NATS’s operations and at this time, NATS objects to the application. Notwithstanding the objection however, NATS has been and remains positively engaged with SPR (UK) around the need for and identification of an acceptable mitigation scheme. While a solution has not been identified at this time, through its work with its stakeholders and the Applicant, NATS believes that a solution will be forthcoming in order to address the impact of the proposal and thus mitigate the effect of the turbines. NATS will continue to work on the identification of a suitable mitigation scheme, and once a tangible solution has been identified and agreed with the Applicant, it will submit a further representation. I trust this clarifies our position and is acceptable to the Inspector. Should there be any queries at any time, do not hesitate to contact us. Regards NATS Safeguarding Office"

Christine Gray
"I want to express my concerns about the potential damage to the rural environment in East Suffolk, an AONB. I also want to express my views on alternative options which may be more appropriate."

Southwold Town Council
"The reason for registering is to follow and support Natural England's concerns about the proposed developments. Southwold Town Council is supportive of the environmental advantages of renewable power but is concerned about the effect on the tranquility and wilderness of the AONB seascape."

Birgitta S Bostrom
"I intend to contest that any heavy vehicle comes from A 1094 at the Railway inn in Aldeburgh and down B1122. These roads are heavily populated, narrow and NOT suitable for haulage. As I have said before use the Sizewell railway that is the only sensible and environmentally friendly option."

Nick Scarr
"No decisions should be made on substation plans or approvals until there is clarity on Sizewell C's proposed development."

R T Rainger
"My objection is not with respect to Renewables, but primarily around the selection and suitability of Friston as the location for the on shore Sub-Station development for EA1N and EA2. The resultant development will set a president for further onshore development without due regard to strategic planning opportunities and negative environmental impact. There are also regional impacts from excessive HGV and LGV traffic on local roads, that are already under strain due to modern traffic volumes and sizes. These will be further aggravated by the other local developments such as Sizewell C. Traffic and transport will be a significant factor and on such small rural roads the impact to me as a resident of the A1094 will have a very detrimental impact on my quality of life and health due to the vibrations and noise that HGVs already cause when passing my home. The developer has been made aware of local flooding issues and these do not appear to have been suitably addressed in the DCO. Local action groups are calling for demonstration of a strategic approach to the selection of Friston as the location for such industrialisation. National Grid have chosen the Sizewell to Bramford pylon line as the most appropriate for all the new Energy Projects to join the national network to deliver UK energy needs. Yet there is little or no evidence from National Grid that this proposal is the best economic and environmental method. The There are further issues with respect to the environmental impact of the cable coming ashore through the Coralline Crag. This environmental impact is then extended through the entire on-shore cable route all the way through to Friston."

Aldeburgh Town Council
"ATC believes the proposal by SPR to utilise roads in Aldeburgh for HGV movements would have a serious impact on the lives of residents and visitors and would have a major detrimental effect on the town's economy. ATC will demand substantial mitigation measures if the current road proposals for Aldeburgh are adopted. ATC believes the current SPR proposals have failed to recognise the negative impact on the town's tourist trade. ATC believes the development would cause significant harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and damage the local environment for many years. ATC believes the SPR proposals do not pay sufficient regard to the cumulative impact of other National Strategic Infrastructure Projects planned for this area."

Carole Morley
"The proposed site is completely unsuitable because, It would tower over the village of Fristonand would be visible from most of the village including the village green. It would overshadow the medieval church and historic houses. It would increase the current flood problem for the village. The noise when running would affect all residents. The roads are not capable of handling the hgv's traffic either during construction or when running. It would be built on valuable and beautiful farm land. This site is not suitable for the following reasons:- This part of Suffolk is a maze of narrow lanes and roads, all subject to regular and serious flooding, congestion and accidents. The cliff formation of the coastline designated for the landfall of the cables is constantly eroding, the latest cliff fall was just last month. 2. 83 acres of good fertile land , primarily used for agriculture and leisure will be lost. 3. The height of the substation is unacceptable except in an authoritarian state. All this destruction for profit made by a foreign (Spanish) company. I don't think we would be allowed to do this on Spanish soil. 4. Close by is a nuclear power station with spare space already ruined - why not do that"

Beverly Strowger
"THAT I CAN STILL GET TO MY LIVESTOCK TO FEED AND WATER THEM ALONE THIS TRACK WITHOUT INVOLVING THE RSPCA. THAT IT WILL STILL BE SAFE FOR ALL THE HORSE RIDERS TO ACCESS THESE TRACKS WITHOUT SPOOKING THERE HORSES AND CAUSING MAJOR ACCIDENTS. THAT ALL WILDLIFE WILL NOT BE MURDERED. THAT LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE VANDALISED. THAT ALL TRACKS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND KEPT AS THEY ARE WHILE ALL THIS WORK IS ONGOING. ALL RUBBISH IS CLEAN UP SO NONE BLOW IN TO FIELDS WHERE LIVESTOCK ARE AND CAUSE ANY HARM. THAT THE AREA IS KEPT AS PEACEFUL AS IT IS NOW. TRACKS TO KEPT OPEN FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND VETS. ALSO THAT FIELDS ARE CHECKED THOROUGHLY FOR ANY WAR TIME AMMUNITION AS I HAVE FOUND TANKER BULLETS IN MY FIELD AND TO MAKE SURE ALL WATER SUPPLIES ARE CHECKED AS MY WATER COMES FROM A WELL."

Simon Flunder
"I am a resident of Southwold and I am concerned about the visual effect of the Wind farms on the seascape from the top of Gun Hill.Southwold and the immediate area has benefitted from a clear horizon and in the ANOB it has created an important tourist industry. I am concerned about the height of the proposed turbines and they are only 25 miles off the coast.The impact of the wind farms will have an adverse effect on the tranquility and wilderness of the magnificent natural views.I am also concerned about the effect of building the substations in Friston and the congestion of the traffic on the A12."

Corporation of Trinity House
"Dear Sir / Madam We refer to the above application for development consent in respect of East Anglia One North. 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 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 throughout the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [email protected] and to Mr Steve Vanstone at [email protected] Yours faithfully Russell Dunham Legal Advisor Corporation of Trinity House Tower Hill London EC3N 4DH"

Mary Gwynne
"Your proposal is to ravage Suffolk, which is already overloaded with energy installations. I would be very, very interested to know why Friston, in particular, a small, closely knit village, is about to bear yet another burden for energy consumption. There is an area very close to Sizewell, which is unused land, uncultivated, uninhabited to a very large degree, that has been overlooked in order to create utter chaos in this beautiful area of what is left of the Suffolk countryside. What is the particular interest in this extraordinary development, miles from the coast where the energy is generated? What on earth possessed anyone to think that our small roads could cope with any more traffic that it currently struggles to deal with. I strongly feel that no-one, locals or otherwise, will be travelling anywhere as the roads will simply be impassable, and the outcome of this development is too awful to contemplate. I would be delighted for someone to enlighten me as to why this proposal was ever made as it is completely ridiculous."

Ms L Leeder
"I object to the application, due to the detrimental impact the substation proposed for Friston and its related infrastructure will have on the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and adjacent countryside as a result of both the works required for its installation and the long term negative environmental impact such a substation will have on the locality. Also due to the serious negative impacts during construction and subsequently on the surrounding local community, businesses and tourism. I understand national planning policies and statements do not support destruction of, or significant harm to, irreplaceable countryside and wildlife habitat, nor serious negative impact on the local community and economy. In particular these would not support such harmful impacts when alternative brownfield sites are available (such as at Sizewell) which a development consent order would empower the applicants to acquire through compulsory purchase powers in the order."

Vivienne Saunders
"Individual interested party. I am oppose the SPR development at Thorpeness and Friston due to the destruction of Wildlife Habitat and the damage to the unstable cliffs at Thorpeness. The area is unsuitable for Industrialisation due to the existing road infrastructure, which are narrow lanes and mostly 'B' roads. The area has a thriving Tourist industry which will be destroyed by the disruption of the 7KM Cable route, and the building of a Giant and unsightly Substations in Friston and Thorpeness. The construction noise and the lights will distress the wildlife and residents. This will also deter tourists from coming to the area. The jobs which will be created, will be in Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Harwich. Therefore, the destruction caused by this development will not benefit Friston or Thorpeness, it will only be detrimental to the area. There must be a Brownfield site which should be used near Lowestoft or Great Yarmouth, or use existing cable routes at Bawdsey, which was agreed in 2014, when the planning permission was Granted."

William Averdieck
"I object to the planning application Destruction and damage to the AONB North of Thorpeness is unjustified when alternative landfall routes are available closer to Sizewell power station inadequate risk assessment or mitigating actions factored in for future sea level rise both in the direct area of cable landfall but on the coast in either direction (effecting sizewell, Thorpeness and Aldeburgh). Off shore storm protection measures should be taken to protect the area from erosion when sealevel has risen to 1m above current levels The secretary of state should intervene to ensure EDF is forced sell the applicant land close to Sizewell Power station so that it may be used for the proposed substation development (1/10 of land damage and disruption and no long lasting visual impact) rather than allow it to be used as a proposed visitors car park for Sizewell which is not of strategic importance"

Barry Smith
"I strongly disagree with the plans to build a substation on prime farmland in Friston based impact on people living in and near the village and cable route, severe impact on landscape, wildlife and change of land use, light pollution, loss of tourist related economy, severe increase in risk of flooding in the village, closure of a popular footpath, damage to ecology, transportation and haulage completely inappropriate along narrow village lanes and B roads, no commitment to even mention an attempt to restore the ecology following its destruction along the cable route."

Christopher Lewis
"I support the representations already made by SASES and by Friston Parish Council. The danger is that Britain’s reputation for being a leader in renewable offshore energy is about to be ruined by the lack of proper overall planning for onshore infrastructure. 1. Brown-field sites should be chosen if the infrastructure has to be onshore. At the same time major efforts should be made to develop ring-mains. 2. To put two vast sub-stations on agricultural land right alongside a beautiful rural village will have a devastating impact on the landscape and on the life of the village itself. 3. The loss of 83 acres of good agricultural land is exactly what this country (and county) should be avoiding. 4. This area’s main income is from tourism, an ‘industry’ which is very sensitive to changes in a countryside which already contains Sizewell. Sizewell has brown-field sites if the power has to come ashore here. It is very hard to discover how much discussion there has been between Scottish Power and EDF. 5. The area has to assume that this particular development will be followed by others. If this scheme is what amounts to the thin end of a wedge, then there is all the more reason for serious country-wide strategic thinking now, rather than piecemeal attempts to find vulnerable places which will then be easy game for more major power-related developments. 6. People are rightly increasingly aware of the inter-connectedness of numerous ecological factors which means that a project like this will have a lot of unintended consequences in an area known for its beauty and its wildlife. About 30 acres of what is planned for the site is wildlife habitat. With one of the greatest features of this area being RSPB Minsmere, the provision of areas for birds is a crucial priority. 7. It is significant that this issue is not seen as the affair of one small village, but rather of this whole area. Parish Councils across much of East Suffolk have come together to show their solidarity in seeing that the impact of this piecemeal approach involves them all. It is natural for Scottish Power to wish to make money and to put their infrastructure in a place which seems convenient to them, but they underestimate the number of people affected and their strength of feeling."

Donald Biggs
"Impact on Our Community and Legacy of Scottish Power Friston Project We need sustainable energy and windfarms provide a valuable contribution to our need for power and hopefully will for generations to come. It would also be good to protect and preserve our environment. Can it possibly make sense to destroy large parts of rural Suffolk by allowing uncontrolled development of onshore infrastructure by companies whose main aim is the making of profit not the welfare of residents, the preservation of the environment or the long term prosperity of the county. Central national planning of sustainable energy provision taking long term issues into consideration should be a major aim of national government given the authority to properly monitor and control the activities of all companies involved in the development of our energy resources. It must not be possible for Scottish Power or any other company to interpret regulation relating to the environment or to the welfare of people to suit their own short- term planning and profiteering. Issues relating to the impact of construction work and the probable escalation and expansion of further future developments once the dam has been breached need to be major factors in overall planning and not left to the whim of developers. If Scottish Power are allowed to proceed as they intend with developments like that proposed in Friston there will soon be no Suffolk Coastal as we know it or that anyone will want to visit. The area will become an industrial wasteland devoid of all that currently makes it so special, a national and indeed international asset. Summary of Our Personal Representations • No evidence of national planning • Little concern for construction impact ie unknown length of time, 64m swathe of cable corridor, constant traffic hold-ups on inadequate roads, constant noise, dust, light pollution. • Poor high impact design compared to other such schemes. • 30 plus acres of infrastructure initially with more to follow. We do not know how much. • Deliberately deceptive views of facility position in relation to Friston in Scottish Power presentations. • Misleading suggestions of locals being offered jobs. At the same time the destruction of the tourist industry. • No investigation of flooding, which is already a concern. • We have a right to the status quo of no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside our homes day or night. • Nobody believes the screening by planting of deciduous trees will be of any use until 20 years hence. What has become of Sizewell evacuation plan?"

Emma Smith
"I strongly disagree with the plans to build a substation on prime farmland in Friston based impact on people living in and near the village and cable route, severe impact on landscape, wildlife and change of land use, light pollution, loss of tourist related economy, severe increase in risk of flooding in the village, closure of a popular footpath, damage to ecology, transportation and haulage completely inappropriate along narrow village lanes and B roads, no commitment to even mention an attempt to restore the ecology following its destruction along the cable route."

Michael Trapp
"I wish to make comments as set out below with regard to the planning application:- 1. As a result of the recent general election and the delay of the scheme for North Norfolk the whole planning application should be delayed until such time as matters can be resolved in a coordinated way. There is far too much going on with regard to other proposed schemes and this must be coordinated with the National Grid. If done properly it will save money. 2. Due to the fragility of the cliffs at Thorpeness it is dangerous to consider too much activity offshore. The damage that can be caused has been acknowledged by EDF from when they built Sizewell B power station and the effect that offshore work had on the erosion of the cliffs. 3. The proposed route for HGVs is unacceptable due to the restrictions in Aldeburgh. 4. There is no provision for controlling the workforce that will be needed for the project. There are no park-and-ride ride schemes planned for this project. 5. The cables to be laid to connect to the substation will cause a permanent blight on certain areas as it will be impossible to plant new trees over the route of the cables. There are other issues that could be raised such as the effect on the wildlife in the area and the detrimental effect to the tourist industry which is vital, but I will leave that for others to go through in more detail."

Debbie Klussmann
"I am deeply concerned about current plans for renewable energy in our area on greenfield sites. I want brownfield sites only to be used."

Martin Steadman
"I wholly support the representations being made by both Fristin PC and SASES. I moved to Friston with my wife in September 2015. It was to be our final move as we wanted to retire to this part of rural Suffolk for its solitude, peacefulness and quiet nature. We have spent several hundred thousand pounds refurbishing our home, which incidentally borders the development area. I am most concerned about visual impact and noise intrusion in our daily life. We are keen walkers having two dogs and use foothpath 6 on an almost daily basis. This development will mean that we have to use our car every day to seek other walking areas. I believe that SPR are trying to force upon us a design of sub-station that could be very much better. The maximum height of the design currently proposed is 18m. I am aware that there are designs which are only 8m high. Why couldn’t this be proposed for Friston? As regards noise, I cannot see why we should have to accept a design which forces us to accept any increase in noise either within our homes or externally. This should be proven by measurement and not just by calculation. There is the issue of flooding to be considered and I don’t believe that SPR have fully addressed this in their submission. We are already subjected to regular flooding in Friston. I appreciate that drainage systems have been proposed but the engineering is yet to be done. Also, have SPR taken in to account the removal of the land drainage? I am concerned about the cumulative impact of this project when taken with that of the Sizewell C proposal, the Nautilus and Eurolink interconnector projects and the expansion of existing windfarms. Will the Inspectorate take all of these into consideration when looking at transport impact? Needless to say, all of this is weighing heavily on the people of our village, many of whom are ageing and vulnerable. We have all lost equity in our homes which are mostly unsaleable at the moment. These are uncertain times for all of us and there is an issue regarding mental health which SPR will not have considered!"

Nichola Winter
"The proposed development of a substation relating to this project on the edge of Friston is completely inappropriate in terms of scale, safety for the local community, environmental consideration, traffic issues and other detrimental implications for all who inhabit this area."

Chris John Linford
"Concerned about offshore impact of coastal view"

Jacob Abel
"The following points will only consider the onshore and coastal impacts. They are simplified and not put into specific categories, with the intention that the full developed points can be submitted at a later date. The construction of the substation and its operation will herald intolerable levels of noise and light pollution to humans and the natural environment. This is compared to the current Sizewell B Nuclear Power station. The Suffolk coast is an AONB so should not be developed on owing to the complexity and fragility of the ecosystem. Complete disrespect is shown to OAPs, Christianity, and the rural Suffolk village way of life. Mobility and noise will be an issue for OAPs whilst there will be disruption to services and consecrated grounds. Cable-laying will scar the landscape for decades, as mitigation proposed is not sustainable and is inefficient. The substations and associated infrastructure will scar any viewpoints and disrupt normal ecosystem activities. The cable route is too long and takes a ridiculous route, lengthening it far beyond what is efficient or cost-effective. Infrastructure exists around the Sizewell area and there will be minimum disruption due to a low population density; if anything is built it should be built here. This project may set a trend for unsustainable infrastructure in protected areas and in this specific region of Suffolk, due the perception it is acceptable for this sort of development; planned projects include Sizewell C, Eurolink and Galloper expansions with their associated onshore infrastructure. Altering the local hydrological cycle by creating impermeable surfaces leading to further degradation of local roads due to run-off, and an increased flood risk for the local towns and villages. Tourism (primary industry in Suffolk) and economic growth will be decimated. The AONB will not be worth visiting and could lose its status, Aldeburgh and Snape (to name two) rely primarily on tourist activity so will lose all sources of income. Drop in house prices leading to loss of money for local residents and fleeing of holiday-home owners in order to maximise house value; associated economic losses due to lack of spending by tourists. Scottish Power have advertised that there is no harm caused by renewable energy; this company must make it clear to consumers what destruction has been done to provide 'clean' energy. There must be provision for submission of more detailed and developed points by the interested parties at a later date in order to gain a better understanding of the impacts for the examination."

Jane Linford
"AONB impacts"

Margaret Fife
"I have been resident in Friston for 14 years and came here to lead a peaceful life enjoying the countryside. With the proposed EA1N project this will be a thing of the past. 1.The countryside will be changed for ever into an industrial site, no longer will we be able to walk freely along designated historical footpaths and the visual impact will be horrific. 2. Recently we have experienced flooding and with the intended "drainage pools" the risk of flooding is hugely increased due to the flow path, into the heart of the village. 3. From the windows of our 12th Century GradeII * listed Church the view will be of a mass of ugly ironmongery and totally unacceptable. Why is it that other wind farm substations (eg Rampion substation in West Sussex) have been constructed with much lower profiles to minimise the appearance? We have been informed that there will be high security lighting installed which will run day and night. The impact of this will be considerable and unacceptable. PLEASE take note of all these points when considering the Planning Application. Margaret Fife"

Mary Shipman
"Firstly we support the views expressed by Friston Parish Council together with Substation Action|Save East Suffolk. Our specific concerns are as follows:- 1. The cumulative impact of all the energy projects planned for the Suffolk Coast has not been properly taken into account. Insufficient weight is given to the impact of the construction of EA1N and EA2 in combination with Sizewell C in the same timeframe. The National Grid Ventures’ projects, Nautilus and Eurolink, are also planned to connect to the same NG substation proposed by SPR at Friston. Extensions to the Galloper and Greater Gabbard windfarms are also in the planning stage. The local area is not capable of assimilating all this development. 2. Scottish Power Renewables has undertaken not to sterilize the cable route for the future of these other energy projects. This will prevent re-instatement and mitigation in terms of landscaping and footpaths along the cable route and at the substations site. 3. The above cumulative impacts leave the residents of East Suffolk with an uncertain and disruptive future, impacting their quality of life and financial position for an unacceptably extensive period of time. 4. Residents of Friston will suffer permanent damage to their environment, which cannot be overcome by mitigation. The projected growth of the mitigation planting has been grossly overstated given the soil conditions and dry climate of East Suffolk. The visuals provided by SPR are misleading in this respect. 5. The village of Friston has an existing problem of flooding due to an inadequate surface water drainage system. SPR have acknowledged that their development will exacerbate this flood risk and resulting sediment, yet have failed to demonstrate that mitigation measures relating to their proposal to discharge into the Friston Watercourse are sufficient or feasible. Full details and calculations of these mitigation proposals must be addressed prior to consent being considered. 6. The proposed substation sites are encircled by several Listed Buildings, including the Grade II* Parish Church, which is in close proximity and whose setting will be irreversibly damaged. Mitigation planting also damages the agricultural setting of the nearby Listed farmhouses. 7. The footpath (FP6) running north from the village of Friston to Little Moor Farm is proposed to be permanently closed. This is a historic footpath which formed the Parish Boundary between Knodishall and Friston. The proposed permanent alternative route next to Grove Road is unacceptably long, noisy and unattractive. The 26 PRoWs along the cable route to be temporarily closed or diverted will severely reduce the attractiveness of the area to visitors and negatively affect the important tourist economy. 8. The proposal to use a baseline limit of 34 DB at just two locations is unacceptable. No person in Friston should be disturbed by noise from the substations either inside or outside their homes. SPR have not adopted a penalty for “tonality” and this should be imposed to reduce impact and disturbance on residents. 9. There has been no public consultation on the National Grid substation, which forms part of both the EA1N and EA2 substation applications, despite the NG substation being considered to be an NSIP in its own right. This has led to defective consultation and site selection. 10. The engineering design of the substations is poor and a lower impact design in terms of height and appearance is undoubtedly achievable. 11. The development results in a significant loss of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land. 12. There will be light pollution along the length of the cable route in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, SSRIs and other special sites. This will be intensified around construction compounds, where 24-hour lighting has been proposed. Permanent motion sensitive lighting has been proposed for the substations site, including car-parking areas and its impact on people and wildlife has not been properly assessed. 13. There will be damage to onshore ecology including the destruction of four badger setts and several bat roosting sites at the substation site and many years of disruption to wildlife along the cable route. 14. There will be unacceptable negative impacts on the tourist economy of East Suffolk and a negative effect on inward investment by those seeking to live in the area. This will in turn lead to a loss of jobs locally, whilst the onshore operation associated with the windfarms creates no permanent jobs. 15. There will be an unacceptable burden of additional traffic on the local rural road network, especially cumulatively with Sizewell C. The A12/A1094 junction is an accident blackspot and the proposed mitigation is insufficient. 16. The cliffs north of Thorpeness are totally unsuitable as a landfall site, being extremely fragile and a local beauty site."

Alan Bullard
"I wish to register my support of all representations made by SASES (Substation Action Save East Suffolk) and by Friston Parish Council, regarding these proposals. I live in the village of Friston, and I relish the beauty of its surrounding countryside, its peace and quiet, and its proximity to the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB. These proposals do not just entail the building of three substations on the site, but also the potential damage to the AONB by the 9km, 64 metre-wide (32m x 2) cabling from the landfall site at Thorpeness, which, despite the best efforts of the contractors, will leave a permanent scar on the landscape and will cause much disruption during the long period of construction. • Landscape: the substations site is next to the Grade 2* listed Friston Parish Church and near other listed buildings, and will cover 83 acres of Grade 2/3 agricultural land (not a ‘brownfield’ site). It is high enough (18m) to be seen from all over the village and the surrounding countryside. No amount of ‘mitigation’ could compensate this. (Some other substations, such as Rampion, East Sussex, are approximately half that height). • Habitat: the proposal will have a permanent effect on wildlife in the area, destroying badger-setts, hedgerows, and bat-roosts. • Transport and communications: during construction haul roads will be constructed and some will remain: traffic re-routing (for HGVs only) is planned, but several narrow roads will inevitably become unsafe ‘rat-runs’ for other vehicles. • Recreation: One popular footpath would be permanently diverted, and many others, including parts of the long-distance ‘Sandlings Walk’ will be completely changed in character. The unique character of the village, with beautiful footpaths radiating in all directions, would be destroyed. • Noise and light pollution, air quality, and increased flood risk; all these issues would have a great effect on the day-to-day life of residents. • Tourism: this is extremely important to the coastal and inland villages and towns here, and the changed landscape and traffic issues have the potential to destroy this. Additionally, in Friston itself a number of houses are holiday lets, providing employment to many local people. • Employment: After construction, the substation proposals will provide no permanent employment onshore. • The Process: Although SPR have kept the public informed about their proposals, the information can be misleading and lacking clarity; there has been no public consultation on the part of National Grid. I am completely in favour of wind-power and renewable energy, but would demand that the method by which the power is connected to the National Grid be re-considered, as this proposal will cause irreparable damage to the landscape and community. Finally, if this project succeeds, it will become an ‘open door’ for other projects such as Nautilus and Eurolink and could effectively ‘maroon’ our village by additional cabling on the south, and more substations. Please consider the cumulative effective of these proposals (together with those for Sizewell C) on the legacy they would leave for us, our children and grandchildren, and reject these substation plans. Thank you."

David Gordon
"First, the Energy Minister is to launch a review into the impact windfarms have onshore. Until this review is completed I would submit that it is premature and prejudicial for you to consider the SP application On the application itself, my concerns are those expressed during the so called public consultation process. These concerns have been expressed by many people and SP has recorded them in the community response part of their paperwork. But SP have completely ignored the concerns of the public 1. Destruction of AONB. Loss of very many trees and hedgerows and associated wildlife 2. Damage to the tourist trade, particularly in Thorpeness, and consequent loss of jobs 3. Permanent damage to the village of Friston. Resident’s houses unsaleable/fall in value 4. Landfall under a crumbling sandstone cliff does not seem sensible 5. Traffic issues. Local country roads unsuitable for construction traffic. Risk of death/injury to residents And there is the wider and very important point that there a number of similar applications in the pipeline and these need to be coordinated in order to minimise the damage and destruction"

Guy Philpotts
"very little information has come to my attention,other than that given to other towns/parishes. The first I knew about the latest submissions was when I attended a parish council meeting about a housing planning application & one of your representatives was there.I knew nothing about the noise survey done here,though caroline cottage,yards from my house was informed! On your latest plans courtyard cottage is mentioned. No such place at Ness House,where you appear to have it.How much other "information" is as inaccurate. The siting of the trenches in the sizewell area will have a devastating effect on the wild life,especially summer visitors such as turtle doves nightjars & nightingales,as well as resident woodlarks & skylarks & 4 legged animals.while fields may be returned to their original state fairly quickly.it will take decades to reinstate woodland & hedges.How can you be allowed to concrete over vast areas of what is supposed to be a protecte AONB?"

Jan Bullard
"I would like to register my support of all representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council concerning the SPR and National Grid planning proposals. In addition I would like to outline the impact that these proposals would have on my life, and the lives of all my family - * Character of Friston - because of the close proximity of the proposed substations to Friston, the whole character of our village would be destroyed - our footpaths, our views, our wildlife, our tranquility. No mitigation can restore this and we would have lost the core values of living here for ever. * Light pollution - the inevitable task and security lighting would be devastating to the beauty and clarity of our wonderful night skies and we would lose all sense of being in unspoilt countryside. Wildlife and plant life would all suffer under incessant light. * Noise pollution - this would have a huge impact and there would be no escape from it. This is our home, and SPR’s proposals would take away all the peace and joy of living in Friston * Heritage - these proposals would permanently destroy hundreds of years of naturally evolving and irreplaceable beautiful countryside. The Suffolk coastline, along with its unspoilt villages, is one of the most beautiful areas of the UK and until now has been wonderfully and carefully preserved. We have seven Grade 2 listed buildings in Friston including two Grade 2* buildings, and the views of these - particularly of our beautiful Norman church St Mary’s - would be utterly blighted. The hugely negative impact of these proposals on this area would be immeasurable, and the effect on tourism and jobs would be devastating. We would be leaving a shocking legacy of destruction, not just of the land but also of a way of life. Renewable energy is vital, and the North Sea is an abundant resource, but the proposed blighting and churning up of our irreplaceable landscape would have a catastrophic effect on the life of every person in this area as well as our precious wildlife. The exceptional quality of this village and this part of the country would be forever denied to future generations."

Louise Fincham
"We have lived at Clouting's Farm for 26 years. For the past 18 months our lives have been blighted by SPR's plans to transform the rolling fields between our house and the ancient village of Friston into an industrialised wasteland. The plans are preposterous as anyone who takes the trouble to look at the site agrees. We fully support and understand the need to develop clean energy and our objection is not to the offshore windfarms themselves, rather to the way that vast swathes of precious and protected countryside will be sacrificed in order to connect the energy produced to the National Grid network. Our fragmented utility industry means that individual utility companies are being encouraged to use different routes to connect to the grid. SPR have already dug a 30km long, 50m wide trench through the Suffolk countryside to connect offshore power to the grid at Bramford. Through mismanagement a decision was taken to downgrade this trench so that it apparently cannot not be used to transport the power generated by EA1N and EA2. When I asked a SPR representative why the trench, which has only recently been completed, could not be reopened to allow for extra cabling I was told that a tomato farm now stood on the land. It is unbelievable to think that SPR are about to concrete over 83 acres of land because they don't want to disturb a recently created tomato farm. I imagine the issue is more complicated but the response from the SPR representative is typical of the flippant way that SPR have treated residents in the Friston area. This is an ancient and historic piece of land. In his autobiography, Masters of None, published in 2009, Major Douglas Goddard, MBE described life on "the farm", Major Goddard had spent his childhood working at Clouting's Farm and every Sunday he walked from the farm to the Methodist Church in Knodishall. He walked along the ancient footpath (P6) that forms the boundary between Knodishall and Friston. SPR's plans destroy this footpath, it is to be permanently re-routed to run alongside the substation developments and then beside Grove road. This is in contrast to the current route that runs pleasantly straight from Clouting's Farm to Friston village. It is an ancient footpath used by dog walkers, ramblers and groups of youngsters doing Duke of Edinburgh hikes and such like. All of this will be lost. We support the objections being submitted by SASES and other groups. The plans have no support from local councils or our MP. The landfall at Thorpness will destroy an already fragile cliff. This part of the Suffolk coast is AONB land and these plans will split the AONB in half. The Friston site is ringed by Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings. The plans that SPR have submitted to the planning inspector have airbrushed out the village of Friston. The mitigation proposed is disingenuous, sapling trees cannot hide a 18m high structure. National Grid seem to be a shadowy entity unaccountable to no one and they seem to be unaware of the destructive impact SPR's plans will have on this area. Unlike the job creation in Lowestoft for the making of the wind turbines the substations will provide no long term jobs for our community, instead jobs will be lost as tourists are put off by the clogged roads, noise and light pollution and the creation of an industrial site the size of Wembley Stadium. SPR have not listened to our objections, the substations are poorly designed. In Rampion, W Sussex a substation was built to a "low impact" design meaning that nothing was more than 8m high. SPR pretended to make a concession by reducing the height of harmonic filters from 21m to 18m but this was achieved by removing a noise reducing cladding so instead of extra height we are offered extra noise. SPR have also denied that the substations produce any humming noise but the exact same design up and running in Bramford most certainly does produce a humming noise that can and has been recorded by anyone who cares to visit. The planning inspectorate must look at the cumulative affect of the many infrastructure projects being proposed for this part of East Suffolk. The plans for Sizewell C & D, National Grid interconnectors, Nautolist and Greater Gabbard are all concentrated in this small area of supposedly protected land. There must be more other solutions. The Bawdsey to Bramford cable route could surely be upgraded to take the new cables or landfall could be made further down the coast, perhaps connecting at Bradwell where the impact on people and property would be much reduced. Building an offshore ring main would solve the problem for both Suffolk and Norfolk. We cannot go on ruining our countryside by making bad and short term planning decisions. Local people feel insulted and ignored, we are not objecting to the generation of clean energy, we are objecting to an opaque decision made by National Grid to tell SPR to pick a piece of ANOB coastline to make landfall for their cables and then SPR's decision to cut inland 12km to connect to pylons on the edge of a medieval village in the middle of precious countryside. The RAG assessments carried out by SPR have been shown to be skewed to generate the desired result. No "red" designation was given to the fact that the site is surrounded by Grade II/II* listed buildings. The landscape will be permanently scared and our lives ruined. Please, please come and take a look at the site and I promise that if you do you will agree that there must be a better solution. As an SPR representative at the last public meeting held in Friston was overheard saying "I'm glad I don't live in Friston, this village will be destroyed by this", I couldn't put it better myself."

Anita Johnson
"As a resident, it is clear that the cumulative effects of numerous energy projects will be too great for our fragile countryside and sensitive ecological location. SP's projects and EDF's nuclear concrete sprawl will cause irreparable landscape and visual damage,completely changing the character of Friston and surrounds. More sympathetic engineeering solutions MUST be applied to the harmonic filters as has been proved possible at Rampton (8mtr against the proposed 18mtrs at Friston) and other buildings. Friston has continuous serious surface water flooding issues and no account of this situation appears to have been taken. There would be an enormous impact on quality of life here. The influx of HGV/support vehicles, cars and overall increased traffic will impact all we do in our daily lives - work/health/doctors,shopping,recreation. The noise and light pollution is a real concern as health hazards. The potential damage to the booming tourist industry in the whole area would be immense and likely to lead to job losses for associated small and other businesses."

Helen Cook
"We cannot have the coast, fields, woodlands and villages churned up for the cables and substation. Renewable energy, yes, but not to the detrement of destroying the wildlife, tourism, and beauty of the Suffolk coast. Surely with technology an off shore substation can be built that can be fed to one site in an area that does not affect "An Area of Natural Beauty". I'm afraid the noise and light pollution alone will frighten the bird life off and the major disruption and building will frighten off the tourists. Suffolk will become an industrialised county supplying energy to the rest of the UK! It saddens me that there is no cohesive approach by all the energy companies. The Government needs to direct this. It will end up being another failed HS2 initiative. Technology is evolving rapidly and before we know it, we'll have small nuclear boxes in every house. Please stop and consider what you are doing!"

Ian Cook
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. To site a substation so close to Friston, the listed church is only 250 yards away, is appalling. This quiet village will be destroyed forever if this venture goes ahead. The peace would be shattered by constant noise from the harmonic filters and the clear night sky we now enjoy would be gone by constant bright lighting of the substation. I love walking everyday on the many footpaths around the village and now some of these will be obliterated and others diverted around the many acres of concrete. I live in the middle of the village in Grove Road and there is always a constant worry of flooding after heavy rain. The surface water that runs off the fields and down Grove Road often causes flooding in the middle of the village and down to Low Road where two months ago several homes had water running through them. SPR has not considered surface flooding in their plans only flooding from rivers. The quality of living so close to this substation would be intolerable and then there are plans for The National Grid Ventures Interconnectors to build next to the SPR site for Nautilus and Eurolink as well as the expansion of Galloper and Greater Gabbard. Trying to sell a house now with this threat hanging over the village is nigh impossible. Recently several houses with 'Sold' signs in Friston have very quickly gone back on the market once the potential buyers have read their survey. If permission was granted in favour of SPR's substation there would years of hell for the residents of Friston and for the people living in the whole area. Traffic would be disastrous as new roads would have to be built. Grove Road and Mill Road leading into the village are all but single lanes with no pedestrian pavements. There would be years of bringing in the substation infrastructure and also the 300 workers SPR say will be arriving everyday. The local roads could not cope. Of course once in the area a lot of the HGVs will travel along the 8 Kilometres of 60 metre wide cable corridor which is planned to cut a swathe through the countryside from Thorpeness to Friston. This is ridiculous when they should have used their original plan to connect from Bawdsey to Bramford. There is no joined up thinking between all these companies so the building works could go on for years and years and SPR say that as well as working during the weekdays and Saturdays some of the time it will be 24 hours a day. This quite part of Suffolk will become an industrial estate. There will be no jobs once the building is built and tourism will suffer whilst the works are carried out. Who would want to combat the traffic and inconvenience to get to Snape Maltings or Aldeburgh when you could find some other part of the country to enjoy a holiday. So many jobs already in place will be lost as tourism slumps. This application from SPR must be rejected. Thank you. Ian Cook"

Juliet Ballamy
"Please do not let this happen to Thorpeness and the surrounding areas. Put a ring main out at sea."

Philip Campbell Goddard
"I have no idea why this cabling doesn't hit shore close to Sizewell. - Thorpeness Cliffs are unstable and eroding. - Also the 7 miles of trenching will be passing through environmentally sensitive areas. - Furthermore, the infrastructure of the local road network is totally unsuitable for the high traffic levels"

Rosamond Castle
"I fully support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. While totally in favour of renewable energy I do not believe that Friston is the right place for the SPR substations for the following reasons. It is a destruction of heritage and landscape in an attractive village where people come to find peace and rural tranquillity. The site is ringed by listed buildings. Footpaths will be lost as well as 83 acres of agricultural land, while 9km of countryside will be dug up for the laying of cables. This will permanently affect wildlife. There will be light pollution and constant noise that will damage the villagers’ quality of life, as well as the loss of equity that will result. SPR’s visualisations are misleading and mitigation plans are highly questionable - most of us will no longer be around by the time the trees have reached a useful height. SPR have not properly addressed the problem of flooding. Friston is already affected by surface water flooding and having acres of concrete is only going to make it worse. This is an area that relies on tourism but this project can only damage it. The traffic impact will be huge. The village roads are narrow, some are twisty, and none can support the increase in traffic that will result. But any road changes will ruin the character of the village. The site selection seems to have been determined by National Grid. Yet National Grid has never engaged in any dialogue with those affected by it."

David Trower
"The B.E.I.S. strategy for onshore installations for North Sea wind power in East Anglia. This is exactly what we are complaining about – there is no strategy! Nearly 10 years ago the Dutch agreed a strategy that would keep the necessary substations for offshore wind power away from land by investing in an Offshore Ring Main. In the UK there is no such Government strategy to protect our countryside. The successful bidders for an offshore wind farm licence in the UK simply agree a site for a substation with National Grid and ride roughshod over the local population. Their “consultations” have been a bad joke! There is a similar problem in Norfolk and George Freeman has been battling to get the BEIS to call a moratorium on current substation proposals and develop an offshore ring main as a matter of urgency. In Friston , a small village of around 150 houses, we are facing an immediate development covering 83 acres with buildings and structures between 18 and 25 meters high. There would almost certainly be further substations on the site for National Grid and extensive work on cabling and construction would last for up to 10 years or more. This would have a devastating effect on the local population, farmers and the tourist industry over a large area of Suffolk . None of this is taken into account by National Grid or the power companies. There are another six similar projects in Suffolk in the process of being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as well as further North Sea licences to be sold which will result in even more onshore substations being required. This is a classic case where we need top level technical people to force BEIS and National Grid to urgently design and build an offshore ring main and avoid the destruction of large parts of Suffolk and Norfolk. If the Dutch can do it so should the UK!. David Trower"

Mark Waine
"CUMULATIVE IMPACT • Sizewell C - DCO Application 2020? • National Grid Ventures Interconnectors • Nautilus - Public Consultations in 2020 • Eurolink - Plans to follow • Expansion of offshore windfarms • Galloper • Greater Gabbard 2 HUMAN IMPACT • Vulnerable and ageing population • Uncertainty • Loss of footpaths and visual enjoyment • Loss of equity and financial implications • Quality of life damaged by noise and light pollution • Damage to air quality • Severance of village due to traffic impacts LANDSCAPE • Severe landscape and visual harm that cannot be mitigated. • Severs a substantial area of tranquil, open and deeply rural countryside. • Changes the character of Friston. • Highly questionable assumptions of mitigation planting. HERITAGE • Site is ringed by listed buildings – five grade II, two grade II* • Impact assessments underestimate the impact significantly plus: • setting – ignores National Guidance • cumulative impact • Visualisations/viewpoints are misleading • Landscape mitigation does very little to mitigate heritage impact SITE SELECTION • Defective process particularly with regard to National Grid works LAND USE • Substantial loss (83 acres) of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land • Impact is understated LIGHT POLLUTION • During construction • 24 hour security lighting at construction consolidation sites • Task lighting during 24 hour construction periods…… • During operation • Security lighting possibly motion sensitive • Car park lighting possibly motion sensitive • For inspection/repair/maintenance • Impact understated SOCIO ECONOMIC – ONSHORE • No jobs from onshore development • Damage to tourism – DMO report not addressed – loss of jobs • No analysis of loss of “inward investment” – loss of jobs FLOOD RISK • The current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate. • SPR state clearly there is an increase in flood risk and sediment mobilisation due to the development. • But does not show that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient, feasible or achievable. • No assessment of the adequacy of the Friston Watercourse has been undertaken. • SPR take no proper account of surface water flooding. • SPR propose two new retention ponds on the substation site but ignore the existing field drainage system, which will be removed. • These matters of environmental impact must be addressed prior to consent. FOOTPATHS & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY • The footpath (FP6) running north from the village to Little Moor Farm will be permanently closed • This footpath is the historic parish boundary between Friston and Knodishall. • An alternative route is proposed to run alongside the edge of Grove Road, close to the substation site. This is a very long diversion and most unattractive to potential users, due to loss of tranquillity and landscape features. • 26 other Rights of Way along the cable route will be “temporally” closed or diverted for unspecified periods. ONSHORE ECOLOGY • Permanent removal of approx. 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the substation site. • This includes the permanent removal of four badger setts and several bat-roosting sites, together with hedgerows forming foraging routes. • There will be permanent effects on birds and wildlife due to light and noise pollution from the substations. • During the lengthy construction period all types of wildlife along the cable route will be disrupted and/or displaced. SUBSTATION DESIGN ISSUES • SPR have not listened to our requests to reduce the visual impact of their substations • Harmonic filters at 18m are the tallest items proposed, and were 21m until noise screening was removed by popular request (was this a good idea?) • Other wind farm substations have much lower profiles (e.g. Rampion substation in West Sussex has almost nothing above 8m - a ‘low impact design’) • Current SPR design principles only concerned with the visual appearance of building structures, not engineering elements. This is unacceptable. NOISE • 34dBLAeq5min reference level now proposed rather than 35dBLAeq15min, but currently applies only to SSR2 and SSR5 NEW, rather than all residential locations • Super-grid transformers and their cooling fans are noisy, but Harmonic Filters now identified as noisiest items (and tallest at 18m), and are now unscreened • SPR claim no ‘humming’ noise (‘Tonality’) but this will be disputed as it affects ‘Impact’ ratings • Without a ‘Tonality’ correction noise levels may be almost 3 x greater than at Bramford (+5dBA). • Impact of atmospheric effects is a further concern. • The community should demand no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside our buildings day or night, to be proven by measurement after construction, not just on paper TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT • Proposals include: • Changes to A12/A1094 junction (Friday Street) and A1094/B1069 junction Blackheath Corner • Pre-Construction access to the development and haul road at the junction of Church Road and Grove Road • Scottish Power will only monitor passage of Heavy Goods Vehicles • What routes will all other traffic take and the relative risks • A1094 to Aldeburgh • B1069 Blackheath Corner to Leiston • B1122 Aldeburgh to Leiston • Friston most at risk – B1121 Aldeburgh to Saxmundham Road; • Mill Road almost single track by-road no pedestrian pavement; • Grove Road is narrow, twisting and turning with no pedestrian pavement already a heavily used cut-through to Knodishall, Saxmundham and Leiston • Key Safety Issues • Traffic flows and speeds. • Drivers seek alternative routes and lanes become “rat-runs” • Impact on emergency vehicles access and timings. • Protection for walkers and cyclists. • Sizewell Evacuation Plan CABLE CORRIDOR ISSUES • Landfall at Thorpeness: fragility of the cliffs • A 9Km long cable route impacting numerous receptors including TPO (SCDC/87/00030) • The Aldeburgh Road “pinch point” cable crossing : no evidence that SPR has properly considered the feasibility of other crossing points such as further north near Thorpe Road • Destruction of large area of woodland both sides of the Aldeburgh Road contrary to SPR’s Cable Route Design Principle : to “minimise interaction with mature woodland“ • Ecology and ornithology surveys outside AONB are not complete • Cable corridor is sited unacceptably close to residential properties • Cable corridor sited much closer (too close) to some residential titles than previously specified • Concern that the construction noise assessment and impact on residential titles has been underestimated – no commitment to mitigate noise, dust etc • Landfall and haul road CCS’s : SPR did not consult on siting of the latter; light pollution issues • No commitment to restore woodland and no commitment to remove all haul roads and return land to as before • Assessment of and management of construction traffic impact (highway and haul roads) is also suspect • Flood risk at River Hundred crossing during construction not addressed • No cumulative assessment with other forthcoming projects and SPR’s plans not to "sterilize" the cable route for other projects to build cable corridors alongside EA1N/EA2” • Relevant representations – 27 January 2020 NEXT"

Reginald Herring
"I support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and want them considered as part of my representation. I strongly oppose the building of EA1N. My main reasons for this opposition are summarised: The scale of this site is out of all proportion to our village and its rural surroundings and will overwhelm its current charms and calm. I selected property in Friston for this rural setting which will be lost by the proposed construction of this industrial installation and its significant footprint. The noise and light from the construction and its ongoing working will negatively affect mine and neighbours life. My use of the area around the site will be disrupted by construction and future working, walkways abandoned, traffic use greatly increased particularly during the construction period which will extend over a number of years. Flood risk will be significantly increased, current anti- flood measures are proving inadequate so more construction can only dangerously worsen this risk. Negative impact on the value of my house. The negative impact on wildlife and bird life from the removal of long established habitats. The proposed mitigating measures are totally inadequate, and show a disregard for the rural environment and the physical scale of the site. The changes to narrow local roads for construction and ongoing maintenance will negatively impact on my access and movement around my neighbourhood. The Cable Corridor across a significant distance from the coast to Friston is unacceptable in terms of its impact on villages and the rural environment and calls into question the need to establish this site so far from the coast."

St Mary the Virgin Church, Friston
"I write both in a personal capacity and as Warden of St. Mary the Virgin Church in Friston. I have been appalled at the apparent lack of communication between various bodies which are, or should be, considering the likely consequences upon the village of Friston if the enormous industrial construction were to take place as planned by Scottish Power Renewables. I first heard about the proposal early in 2018 and at that time I believed, naively, that a transformer would involve some building, rather akin to a farm building, well away from the village and that no real harm would be done. How wrong I was. The proposals are a horror show, both in the construction and in the eventual operation of the proposed site, which we now see is going to cover a vast area of good farmland on the edge of the village. The overall effect of these plans will be catastrophic not only for the residents, but for those living in a much wider area of this unspoilt and beautiful part of Suffolk. I have been shown a photograph of the site, supposedly taken from the air, purporting to show the site after construction with the buildings superimposed. While I do not challenge the details, the boundary is cleverly cut so that there is no sign of the houses, village hall or the 12th century Grade II * listed church which are bang next door. I cannot believe this is an accident, but the impression given is that the site is in a large empty place. It is not. There are much more suitable alternatives, given that a transformer station of the planned kind is needed, but nobody seems interested in considering them, and I have been advised not to mention them. I would have thought that our politicians would get involved, but sadly I am disappointed. I have written with care and not at length, on three occasions to our MP, Dr Coffee, but I have yet to receive an acknowledgment. I have been much more impressed by our representatives at a local level, District and County Council, but who is going to listen to them when our own MP is disinterested? Yours sincerely Peter Fife [Redacted]"

Caroline Baldry
"My partner came to unspoilt Friston in 1992. I totally agree with him that these are monstrous and devastating proposals and that they are in total isolation from any regionally coherent strategy on the cumulative effects of Sizewell C Nuclear Power, Nautilus & Eurolink National Grid Interconnectors and the expansion of the Galloper and Greater Gabbard offshore windfarms. There is no strategy! The proposals are in the wrong place and with a proposed cable corridor that is as bizarre as it is destructive. That the SPR cables come onshore at the fragile, beautiful cliffs at Thorpeness is quite beyond belief. They turn north to Sizewell, and then follow the existing overhead power line close to Leiston, Aldringham and Knodishall and finish up in Friston with a 35-acre substation development and associated revisions to the overhead cables. Cable trenches require construction corridors of 50-60m and will detrimentally affect main roads, 26 Rights of Way and parts of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB as well as the Sandlings Walk. The distance? Over 10 kilometres! Years of visual, noise and light pollution will have hugely detrimental effects on the amenities of thousands of residents and road users. Ten kilometres of cable trenches - that’s starting at the Houses of Parliament and trenching all the way to Hampstead Heath. The 35-acre development site in Friston wraps itself between homes and their gardens. It is a greenfield site to be filled with concrete and tarmac and developed with huge, 18-metre-high constructions in a concrete and metal industrial compound. The 20-year construction period and the lifetime of operation will give light pollution at night, continuous noise pollution day and night, not least from the ‘harmonic filters’, and will severely compromise the already inadequate drainage infrastructure. This development will destroy the whole village of peaceful Friston. It will blight and devastate our lives forever – for the rest of our lives. There is scant consideration for the damage to the landscape, the environment and its ecology, including several of our very favourite dog walks, nor to the damage and stress this is having on Friston residents. The construction access proposals are unbelievable. The A1094 cannot presently cope with two passing lorries and cars must slow or stop on sections of this road. The massive increase in traffic and the introduction of HGV and Abnormal Load traffic on country roads would be disastrous. Tinkering with junctions and speed limits would have no effect and any other existing route would be unthinkable. This route would be traffic mismanagement on a grand scale. Could rational planning really believe this possible? Maybe only the National Grid does. If these destructive proposals become reality, it will be a travesty of real-world justice. If the Secretary of State allows it, then it will surely demonstrate that there is a presumption in favour of permanently ruining, at massive expense, the lives of many hundreds of people, their offspring and successors, for an otherwise laudable need to increase renewable energy."

Colin Roxby
"The proposed siting of the sub-station in Friston is completely unsuitable for the following reasons:- It will destroy over 80 acres of valuable, productive arable land. The loud humming noises (tonality) from the transformers, fans and harmonic filters will cause serious health problems for the residents. The constructions, 20 metres high on the very edge of the village will destroy the rural aspect from the homes, village green and Grade II* listed Church. Light, noise pollution and loss of habitat will damage wildlife and the tranquility of the village. The loss and relocation of footpaths will cause much inconvenience and danger to pedestrians. The access roads to the site are winding narrow single track roads, with no pedestrian space, very few passing places and extremely tight corners. (Accidents waiting to happen).This would make access by both construction and operational traffic extremely hazardous. The cable corridor will cause irreparable damage to an AONB. This construction will deter tourists leading to unemployment. The area is prone to flooding and in a nuclear evacuation area. The village will be blighted and houses will be unsaleable, resulting in a dead village of empty properties."

Mrs C A Morling
"Regarding the application for the construction of EA1N I notice from the Environmental Statement of the DCO application that flaws are apparent. Living at Barley Rise, originally named 1 and 2 Crown Farm Cottages,Sizewell, I would like to point out that this property has not been cited as one of the ne arest receptors for noise assessment. Our property is affected on all sides by various SPR proposals, . I am concerned that the proposed Haul Road,planned to be built in the field next to our property to the east and along with the cable route to the southof our house and used for the entire time of construction will have serious detrimental effects on our health and wellbeing, with light,vibrations, noise and dust from extremely sandy soil I am concerned aboutthe amount of heavy traffic coming along Lovers Lane to the junction at the northern end of Bridleway 28 which is access to our property. This will have serious safety issues. I am concerned that Bridleway 28 situated immediately next, to the west of our property, which is our access and for part,is our responsibility to maintain, will be used for 'pre-construction vehicles' thereby surrounding us with more disturbance. I am concerned that the proposed CCS will be sited fairly close to where we live, in fact in the field at the end of Bridleway 28. This will bring with it additional issues, noise from generators,lighting pollution,constant activity and security issuesin this quiet rural area. Finally I am concerned that Sizewell Gap Road is the only evacuation route in the event of an emergency at Sizewell Power Station. The result could be utter chaos. More than anything else I am concerned that this property along with us, its owners,seem to have been completely forgotten about and totally disregarded by SPR."

Paul Spendlove
"I came to unspoilt Friston in 1992. These are monstrous and devastating proposals. And they are in total isolation from any regionally coherent strategy on the cumulative effects of Sizewell C Nuclear Power, Nautilus & Eurolink National Grid Interconnectors and the expansion of the Galloper and Greater Gabbard offshore windfarms. There is no strategy! The proposals are in the wrong place and with a proposed cable corridor that is as bizarre as it is destructive. That the SPR cables come onshore at the fragile, beautiful cliffs at Thorpeness is quite beyond belief. They turn north to Sizewell, and then follow the existing overhead power line close to Leiston, Aldringham and Knodishall and finish up in Friston with a 35-acre substation development and associated revisions to the overhead cables. Cable trenches require construction corridors of 50-60m and will detrimentally affect main roads, 26 Rights of Way and parts of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB as well as the Sandlings Walk. The distance? Over 10 kilometres! Years of visual, noise and light pollution will have hugely detrimental effects on the amenities of thousands of residents and road users. Ten kilometres of cable trenches - that’s starting at the Houses of Parliament and trenching all the way to Hampstead Heath. The 35-acre development site in Friston wraps itself between homes and their gardens. It is a greenfield site to be filled with concrete and tarmac and developed with huge, 18-metre-high constructions in a concrete and metal industrial compound. The 20-year construction period and the lifetime of operation will give light pollution at night, continuous noise pollution day and night, not least from the ‘harmonic filters’, and will severely compromise the already inadequate drainage infrastructure. This development will destroy the whole village of peaceful Friston. It will blight and devastate our lives forever – for the rest of our lives. There is scant consideration for the damage to the landscape, the environment and its ecology, including several of my very favourite dog walks, nor to the damage and stress this is having on Friston residents. The construction access proposals are unbelievable. The A1094 cannot presently cope with two passing lorries and cars must slow or stop on sections of this road. The massive increase in traffic and the introduction of HGV and Abnormal Load traffic on country roads would be disastrous. Tinkering with junctions and speed limits would have no effect and any other existing route would be unthinkable. This route would be traffic mismanagement on a grand scale. Could rational planning really believe this possible? Maybe only the National Grid does. If these destructive proposals become reality, it will be a travesty of real-world justice. If the Secretary of State allows it, then it will surely demonstrate that there is a presumption in favour of permanently ruining, at massive expense, the lives of many hundreds of people, their offspring and successors, for an otherwise laudable need to increase renewable energy."

William Reeve
"I wholeheartedly support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. In addition; 1. The siting of these substations will remove over 30 acres of land from my farming operation for years to come, reducing my ability to farm by 25%. 2. There is an already serious flooding problem in Friston as around 600 acres of land drain through the village. A project like this will only make things worse and I do not see scope for Friston escaping serious flooding from this concrete jungle in the future. 3. My agricultural work to produce food for this country requires constant journeys on the narrow country roads around Friston, already made busy by the popular tourism generated by this beautiful area. Ten or more years of extra traffic generated by the construction process will make driving around Friston very difficult and dangerous with scope for serious - possibly fatal accidents. 4. Noise generated from the stations sited so close, will be a permanent blight on the peaceful background we have now. 5. We have two holiday cottages in the village - one so to the site it will be looking out on the cable corridor for the whole of the construction time. Income will suffer dramatically. 6. SPR have failed to act in good faith throughout the process so far. They failed to show the whole of the village of Friston next to the substation site on an aerial shot. Obviously afraid of how close they are to the village. At this late stage for the first time it appears my main access to the farms fields is to be used as a pre construction route. Knowing SPR this will probably be used throughout the ten year plus construction time line. Also given tis first site could be the tip of the iceberg with further cable routes being dug to bring further projects to Friston, the inconvenience of sharing access to my farm fields with SPR could go on forever. 7. Why this whole project is being considered is an absolute joke. Looking at a map a primary school pupil would say "Why not connect to the grid at Sizewell and not this ridiculous corridor to Friston". Yes, there may be wildlife protected around Sizewell but we have wildlife in Friston just as precious. 8.Further, a more adult approach to the whole energy from wind at sea being brought inland idea, needs a more countrywide solution. The idea of a ring main round the coast connecting wind farms and bringing them onshore to a few sensibly placed landfall sites seems far more sensibly than many cross land routes across rural East Anglia which will desecrate a beautiful part of the country forever. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE address this last issue now as once the go ahead is given to SPR at Friston the damage will be done and you have ruined East Anglia for ever. Friston does not deserve to be ignored by an ill thought through project by a company usjng planning rules which are failing the electrical industry."

Angela Mallinson
"I have been coming to Aldeburgh for 40 years initially drawn by the music of Benjamin Britten, the wild seas, beautiful skies and the Aldeburgh Festival. I now live here 30% of the time and am a Trustee of the Britten-Pears Foundation. I support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council as there are a number of issues that concern me greatly. Firstly, the impact on tourism, heritage and the local economy: we are incredibly fortunate in this part of East Suffolk to have a wealth of cultural and leisure activities on our doorstep. This draws large numbers of people to the area bringing income of over £670 million a year and is responsible for nearly 15% of all employment. The DMO report has not been adequately addressed by SPR but SPRs large-scale construction plans, close to an AONB, which will bring an increase in traffic, noise and light pollution, make access and local transportation more difficult and unpleasant, will have a detrimental effect on the area’s ability to attract visitors. Jobs will be lost and the local economy damaged, whilst onshore development brings no significant new employment to local people. Those of us that have been visiting for many years remember how shops would struggle in the quiet winter months and frequently disappear before the following summer. Preserving our cultural, leisure and heritage assets brings visitors and jobs, and we need to protect this. Secondly, whilst I support the government’s policy of creating new sources of green energy, I am concerned by the lack of an overall clear national strategy that defines how and where new energy projects should be delivered. The cumulative impact of six major energy projects being constructed in a small area of coastal Suffolk which carves up the countryside (not brownfield), damages the local wildlife and ecology suggests a confused and inconsistent policy. What kind of a National Energy and Climate Plan increases renewable energy by relying so on fossil fuels to construct and deliver it? The British public is not so naïve as to not see the inconsistency in such a policy. There is an ageing and vulnerable population in and around Aldeburgh which is currently extremely well served by the local facilities – health, wellbeing and leisure. In a country with an ageing population we need more communities like this and we should value and protect it."

Chris G Sneath MBE
"As resident of Friston and therefore a member of the local community, I wish to register once again that I am totally and utterly against Scottish Powers development proposals. Those that under this scheme for SPR do not live in this community, and therefore have no concern for those that live in this beautiful countryside. They could not care less and have adopted this attitude since this process began. My other cancers are: 1. The impact these proposals will have are damaging to the whole landscape, to wild life, peacefulness of the local community. 2. The SPR proposals have already had a detrimental effect on residents ability to see their properties and has devalued current prices. 3. The selection of this site 'beggars belief' when the Sizewell site could be used. To put up arguments about the effect on the reptile population is appalling. 4. The effect of noise and light pollution would be impossible for us to live next to. 5. No practical proposition has been put forward to deal with traffic/transport and the small size of Friston's road access. 6. The sheer size of the three sub-stations is unacceptable. These will become a blot on the this beautiful landscape. 7. Friston is ringed with listed buildings. Landscape planting does nothing to mitigate our heritage. 8. The village is already under flood risk. These proposals do nothing to prevent any ingress from the site. 9. These proposals do not provide jobs. The reverse will happen wit the effect on tourism. 10. No one cares anymore. The National Grid and SPR can just come along and do what they like. Despite numerous meetings and my attendance at such meetings nothing has been proposed as an alternative. The effect on Friston will mean that our beautiful village will never be the same. Shameful."

Elizabeth Sneath
"As resident of Friston and therefore a member of the local community, I wish to register once again that I am totally and utterly against Scottish Powers development proposals. Those that under this scheme for SPR do not live in this community, and therefore have no concern for those that live in this beautiful countryside. They could not care less and have adopted this attitude since this process began. My other cancers are: 1. The impact these proposals will have are damaging to the whole landscape, to wild life, peacefulness of the local community. 2. The SPR proposals have already had a detrimental effect on residents ability to see their properties and has devalued current prices. 3. The selection of this site 'beggars belief' when the Sizewell site could be used. To put up arguments about the effect on the reptile population is appalling. 4. The effect of noise and light pollution would be impossible for us to live next to. 5. No practical proposition has been put forward to deal with traffic/transport and the small size of Friston's road access. 6. The sheer size of the three sub-stations is unacceptable. These will become a blot on the this beautiful landscape. 7. Friston is ringed with listed buildings. Landscape planting does nothing to mitigate our heritage. 8. The village is already under flood risk. These proposals do nothing to prevent any ingress from the site. 9. These proposals do not provide jobs. The reverse will happen wit the effect on tourism. 10. No one cares anymore. The National Grid and SPR can just come along and do what they like. Despite numerous meetings and my attendance at such meetings nothing has been proposed as an alternative. The effect on Friston will mean that our beautiful village will never be the same. Shameful."

James White Drinks Ltd
"My company James White Drinks Ltd is a fruit and vegetable juice manufacturer located in Mid Suffolk. The multitude of major infra structure projects proposed for the area between Thopeness, Sizewell and Saxmundham require a co-ordinated approach to their planning not the project by project approach currently proposed. This failure to co-ordinate will be unnecessarily massively disruptive to the local community. Our primary concerns are that the local road infrastructure cannot cope with the huge additional number of vehicle journeys ( especially heavy lorries). This will disrupt our business operations but more importantly will deter tourists that are vital to the currently thriving local economy. The scale of works will also cause major disruption to the local employment situation drawing away people currently employed in the tourist industry resulting in a diversion of resources away from this thriving long term industry to these short term construction projects - which will largely rely on unskilled workers temporarily shipped in to the community (who can be a very disruptive influence). What is left once the projects are completed are very few additional jobs relating to this infra structure work and a badly damaged tourist economy which may never survive because of the damage done by the projects. The appeal to tourism of the area is the existence of so many thriving shops, restaurants, sports facilities ( sailing, golf, tennis) and the Snape Maltings and other cultural events. A major hiatus to the local roads and the loss of employment and investment in servicing tourists for several years will severely damage the local areas long term major economic activity. My company loses ( admittedly marginally) because we supply many of the local farm shop/ delis, pubs and restaurants. This damage could be avoided with a co-ordinated approach to all Windfarm projects and the consideration of a ring main linking them at sea before making landfall closer to where the energy is required and preferably on a brown field site rather than in the middle of a major tourist destination."

Dorothy Mary Walker
"Impact on an Area of Natural Beauty, the effect on tourism that is significant to the area's residents and workers, and the need for realistic planning for the future"

Mya Manakides
"13 January 2020 Dear Sirs/Madame, East Anglia One North As a Suffolk resident in the village of Friston, I would like to register as an interested party with regards to Scottish Power Renewable’s proposal for the onshore infrastructure project for East Anglia One North. Every aspect of the onshore proposal is potentially highly damaging to the area’s environment, economy and well-being. It makes land fall at a very sensitive bit of coastline; it ploughs through the countryside with the equivalent of a 6-lane motorway to reach farmland adjacent to a rural village; it proposes to construct a massive industrial complex on farmland adjacent to a residential area. • Inappropriate Function/zoning. The proposals would bring a massive energy hub development within 250 metres of the village of Friston on currently agricultural land which has been farmed for generations. This is not an industrial or brownfield site. • Context. The development will be within the setting of a number of listed buildings including the grade II* listed church. • Scale. The development is far too large to be so close to the village of Friston. Given the proximity it will have a visual impact on the village which cannot be mitigated by landscape design. • Flooding. Parts of the village of Friston are currently susceptible to flooding and the development will have an adverse impact on the drainage system of the village irrespective of the development’s proposals for a rainwater retention system. • Light Pollution. The scale of the development is similar in size to the foot print of the existing village and will bring unacceptable levels of light pollution in areas which are currently free from artificial light. • Noise. The proximity of the development to the village will bring unacceptable levels of background noise decremental to the wellbeing of the residents. • Foot Paths. The development will cut across historical rights of way which cannot be diverted onto countryside but onto roads. • Cumulative Effect & Expansion. There are a number of additional proposed future developments currently being considered for the site and area. The cumulative impact of these developments has not been considered or addressed. • Time Scale. Scottish Power’s proposals are being submitted as two separate DCO applications. Construction could be sequential. • Well-being. The area where the development is proposed has an aging population and their well-being is and will continue to be affected. • Transport. The construction of the sub-stations and the cable tunnelling will create an unacceptable degree of additional traffic to the existing road networks. • Location & The Consultation Process. The consultation process did not clarify why the site adjacent to Friston was the optimum location for the sub-stations. It has never been clear why similar sites also near the overhead power cables but not so close to the village could not be considered. Kind regards Mya Manakides [Redacted]"

Shauna Scales
"1. Damage to the cliffs at Thorpeness 2. Disturbing heathland habitat of birds (migrating and resident) 3. Increase in heavy/lorry traffic on small local roads 4. Increase in noise and air pollution 5. light pollution - loss of dark sky"

Southwold and Reydon Society
"Our Society represents nearly 400 residents of Southwold and Reydon. We are concerned at the short to medium term effects of construction on the locality and the long term effects upon the landscape and environment of the completed project."

Susan Jackson
"I fully support SASES and Friston Parish Council in their submissions. However, these are the issues that concern me the most. Whilst supporting renewable energy and off shore windfarms in principle, the on shore impact MUST be taken into consideration and very careful consideration should be given to the impact on peoples lives and health, wildlife and the environment. It cannot be renewable energy at any cost, it needs to be balanced and every effort made to place the on shore infrastructure on brown field sites in order to protect our delicate ecology and coastline. Cumulative impact • Too many energy projects in a very small area, with more to come in future. • No coordination or consideration for the impact of these on local communities. Human Impact • No benefits for the local community • Effect on quality of life due to noise and light pollution • Air quality caused by the traffic and construction • Impact of traffic on daily life • Health implications • Too close to human habitation • Destruction of peace and tranquillity in and around Friston village • Loss of open spaces and places to walk Landscape • Loss of footpaths • Visual harm • Harm to heritage buildings including the church Socio Economic • No jobs for the on shore development • Damage to tourism • Loss of jobs • Loss of income for holiday homes Flood Risk • Village currently floods when it rains • Water passes from the fields in the north –where proposed site to be placed through the village to the south • Current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate • All assessments done by SPR are desk top exercises Footpaths • All footpaths around Friston will be in sight of the substation. Those to North will be around the substation. • Not conducive to walking and loss of peace and tranquillity • Loss of green space Ecology • Permanent removal of habitation for wildlife including woodland and hedges • Permanent effect on wildlife due to light and noise pollution both long term and during construction to both substation sight and cable corridor Substation Design • Profile too high • The visual impact from the village is unacceptable Noise • There must be no discernable noise either inside or outside our homes, day or night Traffic • Safety of local community • Traffic flows and speeds • Rat runs • Impact on emergency vehicles – access and times • Protection for walkers and cyclists, there are no pavements or cyclepaths and many roads are single track • Sizewell evacuation plan Cable Corridor • Fragility of Thorpeness cliffs • Too close to residential properties • Noise • Dust pollution • Light Pollution • Haul roads – no consultation • Destruction of woodland • Cumulative assessment needed • Cable routes for other projects – impact • Too long- crosses too much AONB • Flood risk • Impacts on ecology and ornithology outside and in AONB • Management of construction traffic impact The substations are far too close to where people live and will not benefit those villagers in any way. They will remove most of the green space around the village and destroy the peace and tranquillity. The noise, light and dust pollution will have direct impact on villager’s health."

The Chadwicks
"In addition to the responses we made at earlier stages of the Consultations relating to this proposal we would make the following points. Despite some modifications and scaling down of some elements of the onshore cabling route and substations since the final public consultation, Scottish Power Renewables continue to ignore the views expressed by Suffolk County Council, East Suffolk District Council, 32 local Town and Parish Councils and the people who live in this beautiful part of the world. All of those bodies and communities have told SPR that Friston is not the place to build substations for connecting East Anglia Two and East Anglia One North to the National Grid. If landfall must be made between Thorpeness and Sizewell it would be much more sensible to site the substations at Sizewell, where other infrastructure already despoils the immediate vicinity. The proposed cable route unnecessarily ploughs through seven miles of our fragile and unique landscape. It will badly damage the area, destroying much of it very long term and permanently blight Friston and the surrounds. Although not a locally designated landscape our peaceful and beautiful countryside will be lost. The tranquil village and its setting disfigured forever. Narrowing the cable route where it crosses the B1122 in Aldringham at Gypsy Lane and Fitches Lane will still destroy many mature trees and damage and disturb the wildlife corridor of which this area is part. The setting of Listed Building Aldringham Court will still be adversely affected. Whilst the routing is being done it will make the lives of the people who live in Fitches Lane very unpleasant. This small part of east Suffolk is being bombarded with proposals relating to energy infrastructure. It is totally unrealistic to expect the residents and visitors to the area to contend with those potential developments. We hope the Planning Inspectorate will take an overall view of all the proposed energy infrastructure development in this part of east Suffolk and dismiss this application for development consent."

Andrew Harris
"Cable Corridor route - destruction of woodland/AONB and closeness to residential properties. Loss of access to amenity areas, footpaths/public rights of way. Additional traffic (heavy lorries, vans and cars used by construction workers) and the considerable impact the additional use of these local roads, particularly A1094, B1121, B1069, and B135, will have on the community. I believe there will be overwhelming harm to this area both environmentally and commercially for many years to come and alternative solutions should be investigated fully before any final decision is made. Cable corridor route will cause destruction of woodland/AONB as well as causing problems to local communities being close to a number of residential properties. There will be an adverse effect on the local economy of the area being largely reliant on Toursism and Day Visitors with an effective fall in the number of visitors and holiday makers reducing the income of local businesses. An increase in traffic on the A1094, B1121 and B1069 which are unsuitable for HGV construction traffic. There will also be an increase in the use of these roads by small vans and cars used by construction workers which will increase the congestion and difficulty for the local community to access the A12. Overall there will be a great deal of disruption to the area during construction and long term harm to the environment and economy of the area in the future The whole project needs to be reviewed to find an alternative solution."

Catherine Walker
"In supporting the representations made by SASES my particular concern is the impact of road traffic and the despoiling of a rural area. The roads in Suffolk Coastal area are not designed for heavy goods vehicles. The number of crashes on the bend of the A12 at Farnham demonstrate this. The impact of large lorries meeting each other on these narrow roads in horrific. In this area of Suffolk the quality of life is excellent for people of all ages, so that many people escaping the downsides of city life choose this area in which to settle. Why ruin an area, when there are already areas that are more industrialised that could be used - Sizewell, Ipswich, Lowestoft. I have seen the excavations further south to bring power in to a sub station north of Ipswich. I do not see why an additional route via Friston is required, when the two schemes could be linked."

Fiona Cramb
"We do not object to offshore wind farms. We object to the onshoring of such capacity which causes despoliation to the countryside. SPR will construct one of the largest substations in Europe in the heart of a tightly constrained medieval community. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. We adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. High House Farm: Our property is an Elizabethan (1550s) three story (tall) house and is one of 7 Grade 2 listed properties encircling the SPR/NG site. It was constructed within the curtilage of an older 13th century dwelling and is crossed with ancient paths to the Church. It is surrounded by very old moats and ponds. The property and environs harbour birds (owls/birds of prey), toads, stoats/ ferrets, occasional otters, muntjac/deer, etc. SPR/NG site: The site extends to the boundary of the House. Components of the NG works will be circa 30-50m from the fence. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of the property. The impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Green energy risks becoming dirty green energy. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken off will destroy the peace for much of our lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. Our view will be decimated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms we will lose the amenity of our home for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings (eg harmonic filters) will dominate our landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith. In any event it would take decades for planting to mature. We already hear humming and crackling from the pylons and the inevitable increase in noise will blight the peace. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution. The vibrant wildlife in our enclave will vanish. We will be cut off from the village and lose the tranquil views across to the church which we value. SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. The locality: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment (who will wish to live near Friston?). It will harm capital values of properties."

Leiston & District Labour Party
"Leiston & District Branch Labour Party supports sustainable and renewable energy, such as offshore wind farms where these can be developed without damage (either onshore or offshore) to the environment and the economy. However, Friston is an inappropriate location for the large scale industrial development that Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) is proposing. It would damage both the environment and local economy, particularly tourism. These are our main concerns: • The proposed location is being driven by the National Grid Company, who are not accountable or subject to consultation. Therefore, SPR staff at consultation have been unable to respond to the challenge that Friston is the wrong place for this development. • No consideration has been given the cumulative impact of other impending major onshore development proposals in the area (e.g. Sizewell C, other windfarms, National Grid Ventures’ interconnectors) despite these being common knowledge. Government Ministers have made it very clear that companies should be working together to minimise the environmental impact of onshore developments • In the absence of co-operative planning, much greater scrutiny of commercial proposals for elements of national infrastructure by all planning authorities is required. • SPR do not appear to have evaluated properly the viable alternative routes and methods of transporting energy to shore nor the appropriate location for landfall for the output from the whole of the network off the East Anglian coast, although we believe there are more appropriate brown field sites available. • The feasibility studies, impact assessments and remediation proposals prepared thus far are inadequate and flawed. • SPR have failed to consult adequately local communities principally affected. Residents of Snape, through which most construction traffic would pass, were not consulted directly until 18 days before the end of Phase 4 consultation period. • The local roads, already heavily used by large agricultural vehicles and heavy goods vehicles, are not suitable for the projected volume of construction traffic. There would be an increase in danger to the lives of residents and visitors. The traffic impacts will not be solely on the ’turning junctions’ on the A1094, as assumed. There will be major displacement effects on the B1069 and the associated minor road network in the Snape, Friston, Sternfield and Benhall areas and neighbouring residential communities which have not been considered. • The proposed substations would create no significant economic benefit locally. Most construction, supervisory, technical and management jobs will be filled from outside the area. The proposals would negatively impact employment in tourism, since visitors would be deterred by the degradation of landscape and the noise and traffic disruption. • The 6 mile cable route through the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, would destroy parts of the Sandlings footpath. The substations will be less than 50m from a County Wildlife Site, in an area that supports a range of protected or UK priority species. • For these reasons we object to the proposed location of the SPR substation developments EA1N at Friston, Suffolk and wish to register as an interested party."

Linda Pauline Grover
"As a resident of Friston I fully support the representations made by S.A.S.E.S and Friston Parish Council. I believe siting the substation so incredibly close to the village, within metres of housing and an ancient church will damage the quality of life of Friston residents, most of whom have moved to this area for its tranquility and natural setting. I cannot stress enough how this community is suffering from the uncertainty of what is going to happen here, not only with the plans of SPR but also with the cumulative impact of having Sizewell C, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper and Greater Gabbard knocking at our door. “Energy Coast?” more like “Energy Village” and shame on those who allow this to go ahead without thought to the consequences for residents and for the area as a whole which will undoubtedly lose its special appeal for visitors when huge areas are laid waste to concrete, metal and industrial buildings. I ask that you take consideration of the following: . Visual Harm which cannot be mitigated . Light pollution-24 hrs during construction and motion sensor lighting during operation instead of the clear skies at night which we have at present. . Noise pollution-harmonic filters will be unscreened. We demand no discernible noise from the substation, inside or out, day or night, it’s what we have now and should not be allowed to change. . Loss of equity- interest in property in Friston is down 40% and has a lower than average increase in house pricing . Major traffic implications-SPR have confirmed they will only be able to monitor HGV activity. Friston’s roads are country lanes, twisting and narrow with no pavements. These single track lanes will become rat runs, resident’s drives will have to be used for passing traffic causing damage to property. Walkers and cyclists will be put in danger from speeding vehicles. The local roads outside of Friston will become congested and there will be an impact on emergency vehicle access. . Flooding- drainage infrastructure is inadequate. SPR state clearly there is increased flood risk, Friston has already flooded 3 times since November 2019. No assessment of the Friston watercourse has been undertaken by SPR and no account taken of surface water flooding. .damage to tourism-absolutely massive - absolutely no doubt. . Lazy substation design-structures 18 metres high whereas Rampion substation is 8 metres high. SPR could put real effort into a low impact design. . Sizewell evacuation plan -SPR have not consulted with Sizewell over this !! . Historic footpaths -The area will lose historic footpaths for ever and 26 rights of way along the cable route will temporarily close. . Wildlife-30 acres of wildlife habitat will go to make way for the substation but the overall impact will be more like 80 acres taking into account hedgerows and woods. SPR has not carried out an impact to wildlife assessment outside of the AONB but bats, badgers and birds will be affected to name but a few. There isn’t an invisible line separating the AONB, animals and nature do cross over!! . No economic benefit- Less tourism and less home buying will impact on jobs, leading to more unemployment in the area. . Flawed processes -by SPR. The Bramford pipeline should have been used or other brown field sites considered. We are real people with real lives, not statistics. For every one of us who is writing to you there are another hundred who do not feel articulate or knowledgeable enough to write but who protest at the encroaching energy coast. Please remember the hundreds who live here when you decide on which legacy you will leave us with."

Luigi Beltrandi
"Dear Sirs Re: East Anglia 1 North DCO application I live at [Redacted] I would like to register my objection to the proposals submitted for approval to the inspectorate by Scottish Power Renewables. Friston is a residential village with primarily an aging population surrounded by farmland and farming infrastructure devoid of industrial / commercial areas or brownfield sites. The proposed site is just outside, nestled between two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty with no discernible difference between the quality of its landscape and that of the two AONB’s. The proposals would bring a massive industrial complex /energy hub development within 250 metres of the village of Friston on agricultural land that has been farmed for generations, irreversibly changing the character of the village. Perverse siting of the development. It is positioned on the village side of ancient woodland, consequently it will be devoid of any mature screening. The position of this ancient woodland forces its siting in proximity to Friston. The development will be within the setting of several listed buildings. Given the proximity and scale of the development it will have an overwhelming visual impact on the village which cannot be mitigated by landscape design. Parts of the village of Friston are currently susceptible to flooding the development will have an adverse impact on the drainage system of the village The scale of the development similar in size to that of the existing village will bring unacceptable levels of light pollution in areas which are currently free from artificial light. The proximity of the development to the village will bring unacceptable levels of background noise decremental to the wellbeing of the residents. Their wellbeing has is and will continue to be adversely affected. The development will cut across historical rights of way which cannot be diverted onto countryside but onto roads. Proposed future developments are currently being considered for interconnectors and the development of Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station. The cumulative impact of these developments has not been considered or addressed in the application. The space requirements for some of these future developments will turn further farmland on the plateau between Leiston and Saxmundham into an industrial area irreversibly altering its character. Scottish Power’s proposals are being submitted as two separate DCO applications with an uncertain programme consequently a sequential delivery will cause disruption for decades. National Grid are also greatly involved in the selection of this site. Advantageous financial must terms have been offered to for the grid connection in this location, without any consideration to the impact on landscape, Friston or residents. The site selection process was flawed at the very last minute an alternative site was proposed. The alternative was not properly analysed it was purely brought in to pay lip service to the objections being received. The massive cable route will pass through an area of outstanding natural beauty and across a fragile cliff and coats line creating a permanent scar across an ancient landscape. Luigi Beltrandi"

Natasha Green
"We do not object to offshore wind farms. We object to the onshoring of such capacity which causes despoliation to the countryside. SPR will construct one of the largest substations in Europe in the heart of a tightly constrained medieval community. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. We adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. High House Farm: Our property is an Elizabethan (1550s) three story (tall) house and is one of 7 Grade 2 listed properties encircling the SPR/NG site. It was constructed within the curtilage of an older 13th century dwelling and is crossed with ancient paths to the Church. It is surrounded by very old moats and ponds. The property and environs harbour birds (owls/birds of prey), toads, stoats/ ferrets, occasional otters, muntjac/deer, etc. SPR/NG site: The site extends to the boundary of the House. Components of the NG works will be circa 30-50m from the fence. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of the property. The impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Green energy risks becoming dirty green energy. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken off will destroy the peace for much of our lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. Our view will be decimated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms we will lose the amenity of our home for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings (eg harmonic filters) will dominate our landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith. In any event it would take decades for planting to mature. We already hear humming and crackling from the pylons and the inevitable increase in noise will blight the peace. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution. The vibrant wildlife in our enclave will vanish. We will be cut off from the village and lose the tranquil views across to the church which we value. SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. The locality: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment (who will wish to live near Friston?). It will harm capital values of properties."

Nicholas Green
"We do not object to offshore wind farms. We object to the onshoring of such capacity which causes despoliation to the countryside. SPR will construct one of the largest substations in Europe in the heart of a tightly constrained medieval community. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. We adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. High House Farm: Our property is an Elizabethan (1550s) three story (tall) house and is one of 7 Grade 2 listed properties encircling the SPR/NG site. It was constructed within the curtilage of an older 13th century dwelling and is crossed with ancient paths to the Church. It is surrounded by very old moats and ponds. The property and environs harbour birds (owls/birds of prey), toads, stoats/ ferrets, occasional otters, muntjac/deer, etc. SPR/NG site: The site extends to the boundary of the House. Components of the NG works will be circa 30-50m from the fence. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of the property. The impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Green energy risks becoming dirty green energy. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken off will destroy the peace for much of our lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. Our view will be decimated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms we will lose the amenity of our home for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings (eg harmonic filters) will dominate our landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith. In any event it would take decades for planting to mature. We already hear humming and crackling from the pylons and the inevitable increase in noise will blight the peace. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution. The vibrant wildlife in our enclave will vanish. We will be cut off from the village and lose the tranquil views across to the church which we value. SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. The locality: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment (who will wish to live near Friston?). It will harm capital values of properties."

Paul Adrian Carlaw
"1. SUMMARY My objections as a resident of Friston and the heritage coast for over 20 years I oppose the onshore elements and support SASES and Friston Parish Council: - • noisy and visually intrusive substation complex; • new National Grid connection hub; • Inappropriate site selection; • flawed impact assessment. over 30 acres - 18m high, in a rural community next to the flood prone historic village of Friston together with: • 9km of cable route through an AONB; • impossible to mitigate onshore aspects of the project. 2. CUMULATIVE IMPACT - SPR have not addressed the impact of EA1N with 5 other major energy projects in the same area, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper, Greater Gabbard expansion and Sizewell C. 3. SITE SELECTION - The National Grid substation will be used for several projects 4. FLOOD RISK • SPR has not adequately assessed flood risk impact to Friston. • Flood issues cannot remain unresolved. 5. LAND USE • There is a significant loss of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land, over 30 hectares. 6. ONSHORE ECOLOGY • The projects involve the loss of habitat for badgers, bats, owls, great crested newts, adders and other wildlife. 7. HERITAGE • impacts upon five Grade II and two Grade II* listed buildings. • visualisations do not include key views. • historic parish/hundred boundary over substation site. 8. NOISE • The Environmental Statement has many errors and omissions. • Noise levels unacceptable - rural environment with low night time noise level. • Working hours 6 days per week unacceptable destroying resident’s peaceful enjoyment. 9. TRAFFIC • A12 / A1094 junction is an accident blackspot - mitigation inadequate. • Impact to emergency vehicles. • only Heavy Goods Vehicles will be monitored. • pre-construction impacts on rural life in a village 100’s of years old. • roads are too narrow for construction. 10. HUMAN HEALTH • traffic and the noise, air, light pollution and disruption over 5/6 years even before the impact of other projects. • permanent loss of footpaths, tranquillity, landscape/heritage damage, noise and light pollution. • financial uncertainty. 11. LANDSCAPE • site selection impacts on landscape and visuals. • due to inappropriateness of location the substations would: • Sever the village which is open and rural. • Require an access road, 1.7km long and 8m wide; • Harm the setting of Friston Church (Grade II*); • Requires 9km long cable routes. Issues: - • planting cannot mitigate development • no visuals showing the scheme and Friston village together. • lack of detail e.g. the access road. • no viewpoints from the footpaths north of the site. 12. TOURISM, SOCIO ECONOMIC • Friston village holds fund raising events e.g. Open Gardens, Classics on the Green – tourists unlikely to visit if the village is destroyed by the onshore construction works and permanent industrialisation. • Financial compensation will never mitigate the impacts on Friston. 13. FOOTPATHS • the permanent closure of a well-used footpath leading north from the village of Friston. 14. SUBSTATION DESIGN • An independent designer to verify and consider a low impact design solution. • National Grid’s developments should be subject to the same design criteria as SPR. 15. LIGHT POLLUTION • There will be significant light pollution given the “dark skies” of a rural environment. • Construction 6 day working to 7pm and on occasion 7 day and 24 hour working. • No indication as to how frequently lighting will be needed for maintenance. 16. SAFETY • No risk assessment has been provided for the substations. • Gas Insulated switchgear is potentially harmful - potential leaks, no mitigation. • The safety and security of all residents unmitigated."

Seija Tattersall
"Landscape: Bringing a substation close to a rural village causes permanent visual damage. Landscape mitigation does very little, trees take many years to grow and will not hide the substation completely. The will be light pollution and some noise as well. Human impact: There are major financial implications to Friston inhabitants. for example an disabled couple in the village had to stop driving and need to move close to medical and other amenities. The value of their house which is facing proposed substation has dropped drastically and they can't afford to move."

Alan Gooderham
"Whilst fully supporting green energy initiatives, this SPR substation siting as currently proposed will dwarf our village and is just too close, extending right to the village boundary and thus much closer than previously established norms ( eg: Bramford ) As proposed the landscape and heritage impacts will permanently change both the character of the village and destroy deeply rural surround ; no mitigation can repair such. Further, the economy of our village and wider area is based on “ hikers and bikers” who come for the tranquility, countryside, footpaths and wildlife. And besides such permanent loss of tourism, los of these same features will halt the established flow of incoming residents, refreshing the community and critically under- pinning all local tradesmen. The village is a known flood risk ( as EA records will confirm). SPR proposals under this heading take no account of the wider flood risks, potential loss of existing field drainage or adequacy of our current, strained drainage ditch / infrastructure. Current substation design shows some structures at 18m. high - significantly taller than other sub stations; and perversely positions these high noise generators ( Harmonic filters) closest to the village boundary. In short, site selection process has been flawed ; the cumulative impacts have not been fully assessed and alternative sites have not been fully evaluated. It is hard to exaggerate the permanent impact of siting such a large- scale industrial complex right on our village boundary. Substation siting closer to the coast has obvious advantages to minimise cabling and position away from any community. It is essential that consideration is given to National Grid’s role here; as SPR’ development partner, they play a key role in determining site selection. And are instrumental in the wider context of other upcoming “ pipeline” infra-structure projects ( Sizewell C, Nautilus / Eurolink inter- connectors and other wind farm expansions ) - resulting in cumulative impacts and a scale of industrial development that must not be ignored. -"

Christine Munden
"I write to object to the proposed building of EA1N substation by SPR at Friston. I am in full support of the representations being made about this project by Friston Parish Council, Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) Groups. I accept that renewable energy is the way forward, but I do not agree that vast areas of our valuable countryside should be destroyed to achieve this. I live approximately ½ mile north of the proposed substation site, and I want to raise the following concerns of the construction at Friston: • Friston is a small rural village and the impact of this development so close to it will be devastating. In the village there are several grade 11 listed buildings as well as St Mary’s church which dates back to the 14th Century. • There will be a loss of over 80 acres of grade 2 & 3 prime agricultural land taken up by this proposal. • Friston suffers from flooding and drainage issues which I feel have not been addressed by SPR. • SPR propose to remove about 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the substation site causing untold damage to the birds and animals in the area. • The area at present is naturally very dark at night with no light pollution - the project will impact the area greatly during construction with 24 hr security lighting and during operation with security / car park lighting possibly being motion sensitive. • The Harmonic Filters that SPR show in the plans will be 18 metres high, causing damaging visual impact, which I think is unacceptable. The noise produced by them will impact greatly on local residents, SPR do not show that these will be screened at all and noise will carry a considerable distance. • Looking at the mitigation planting proposed by SPR I do question the assurances that they make re adequate screening of the site. It will take many many years for the trees / hedges to reach a suitable height to screen the buildings (see SPR Visualisation at 15 yrs), and of course during the winter months the trees will be bare! • I live on [Redacted], this road is a narrow twisting road with no pedestrian footpath, no lighting or speed restrictions. It is used as a cut through to the surrounding villages / towns and by farm vehicles and any increase in traffic will i.e.by access to the proposed site, greatly impact this area. • SPR have not as I understand been in contact with EDF regarding the Sizewell Evacuation plan relating any disruption caused by this project – whether this is in relation to road closures or increased HGV traffic. • I do feel that these proposed projects should be nationally coordinated."

David Secret
"We are not convinced that the least disruptive technology is being proposed We are concerned that the routing of HGVs is appropriate"

John Grover
"As a resident of Friston I fully support the representations made by S.A.S.E.S and Friston Parish Council. • Overall Effect on Friston. I believe siting the substation on the doorstep of the Village and within metres of housing and an ancient church will only damage the quality of life of residents of Friston, most of whom have moved to this area for its tranquillity and natural setting. I cannot over stress how this community is suffering from the uncertainty of what is going to happen here, not only with the plans of SPR but also with the cumulative impact of having Sizewell C, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper and Greater Gabbard knocking at our door. “Energy Coast?” more like “Energy Village” and shame on those who allow this to go ahead without thought to the consequences for residents and for the area as a whole which will undoubtedly lose its special appeal for visitors when huge areas are laid waste to concrete, metal and industrial buildings. I ask that you take consideration of the following. • The Village of Friston has an ageing and vulnerable population, who enjoy the local amenities, such as walking, cycling and the countryside. There will be very little increase in local employment, the very large majority of inhabitants of Friston have retired and that’s why we moved here. • There we be a loss of footpaths some temporary and some forever, others will be reinstated alongside the substation on a narrow country lane where the noise will be at the highest. • The intended landscaping by SPR will take more than 15 -20 years post planting to have any mitigation effect. • The site selection was basically flawed, driven by suspect economic requirements of SPR and the easy option of National Grid. • There will be a loss of 83 acres of valuable agricultural land, in a time when we should be considering our food production. • Friston and the local area will suffer substantial light and noise pollution both during and post construction, the assessment from SPR are either “desk based” or with very selective “on ground” sensors. • There will be an extremely adverse effect on tourism to the whole area, with increase traffic, loss of tranquillity, loss of footpaths. Post completion, who will want to come to Friston with a monolithic monstrosity of the SPR/National Grid substation just yards away from our Village. A high number of houses in Friston are holiday lets, there will be a substantial loss of income to owners and to the local area. • Friston and the area is ringed by listed and historic buildings, these cannot be taken as individual but as a collective, placing the Substations in the middle will affect the total setting, taking away countless years of heritage and history, which can never be replaced. • SPR have taken very little account of the views or feelings of Friston and the local area, they have set communities against each other with their proposed site selection. They have done extremely little in mitigation for light, noise or the visual impact. The only effort to reduce the visual impact is to lower the height from 21 mts to 18 mts and have taken away any noise screening. Other onshore substations, example Rampion West Sussex have a height of only 8 mts. • There are many more issues that make this site selection a bad one, however we are only allowed approximately 500 words, SPR are allowed to submit many thousands of pages, but please listen to the people who will be seriously affected, probably for the rest of their live."

Linda Bradbeer
"I have lived in this part of the world for many years and love the countryside and wildlife that comes with it. These plans are clearly going to devastate this important ecological environment and I believe alternative brownfield sites could be used, but at a higher cost with lower profits. This is surely more important given the state of our world today, we need to protect of special sites and all the species that they support."

Michael Marion
"This project will have a huge negative effect on the village of Friston & surrounding area. It will alter the landscape, wildlife, footpaths & disrupt the life of the local population, who are mostly elderly"

Norma Biggs
"I support representations that SASES are making on our behalf. Summary of Our Personal Representations • No evidence of national planning. • Little concern for construction impact ie unknown length of time, 64m swathe of cable corridor, constant traffic hold-ups on inadequate roads, constant noise, dust, light pollution. • Poor high impact design compared to other such schemes. • 30 plus acres of infrastructure initially with more to follow. We do not know how much. • Deliberately deceptive views of facility position in relation to Friston in Scottish Power presentations. • Misleading suggestions of locals being offered jobs. At the same time the destruction of the tourist industry. • No investigation of flooding, which is already a concern. • We have a right to the status quo of no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside our homes day or night. • Nobody believes the screening by planting of deciduous trees will be of any use until 20 years hence. • What has become of Sizewell evacuation plan? • Implications for tenant farmers and agriculture."

Sarah Munden
"I write to object to the proposed building of EA1N substation at Friston by SPR. I am in full support of the representations being made about this project by Friston Parish Council, Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) Groups. I accept that renewable energy is needed, but I do not agree that vast areas of our valuable countryside should be permanently destroyed to achieve this. I want to raise the following objections to the project:- • The proposed site is very close to the rural village of Friston which has several Grade 11 listed buildings one of which is extremely close to the site, which will completely change the character of the village and the surrounding countryside. • Recently in 2019 Friston suffered from flooding due mainly to field run off which I believe will be made worse by this project. SPR state clearly that there is a flood risk due to the development however they take no account of surface water flooding. • The permanent removal of circa 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the site will cause significant impact to the animals and birds which live in this area. • In these times of global warming the removal of mature trees and woodland from the site and along the cable route caused by the project, has not been taken into account in looking at the carbon imprint of the project. • The harmonic filters at the substation that SPR plan will be 18 metres high they will cause substantial visual impact, and SPR do not show that these filters will be screened at all, and I also believe that the noise from these filters will carry a long way and cause an impact on both the residents and wildlife in the area. • SPR claim there will be no “humming noise”, however there should be no discernible noise from the substation inside or outside of residential buildings – this should be proven by measurement • The mitigation planting by SPR around the substation site is questionable as can be seen from the visualisation examples where the substation can be clearly seen on some examples in 15 years’ time. This will be especially so during the winter periods when the trees will be bare. • The impact on tourism / local businesses where demand for holiday lets / B&B’s along with walkers / cyclists are likely to suffer as a result of the disruption and visual impact on the area."

Steven Munden
"I write to object to the proposed building of EA1N substation at Friston by SPR. I give my total support to the representations being made about this project by Friston Parish Council, Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) Groups. I accept that renewable energy is of great importance, but it should not be done in such a way that permanently destroys vast areas of our valuable countryside and ruins the outlook for many in the village of Friston and the surrounding area.. I object to the proposed development by Scottish Power on following grounds:- • The close proximity to the rural village of Friston which has several Grade 11 listed buildings one of which is extremely close to the substation site, and a 14th century church which will not be seen from a distance once the substation impairs the views, this will completely change the character of the village and the surrounding countryside. • Flooding occurs in the village and SPR state clearly that there is a higher flood risk due to the development however they take no proper account of surface water flooding. • The permanent removal of circa 30 acres of wildlife habitat and valuable farmland across the site will cause significant impact to the animals and birds which live in this area and farming yield. • The harmonic filters at the substation that SPR plan will be 18 metres high they will cause substantial visual impact, and SPR do not show that these filters will be screened at all. • Other substation designs have much lower profiles i.e. Rampion substation in West Sussex has almost nothing above 8m in height. • SPR claim there will be no “humming noise”, however I believe that there should be no discernible noise from the substation inside or outside of residential buildings. In addition I do not believe that SPR have taken atmospheric / weather conditions into account when determining noise levels and how far it will travel. • The mitigation planting by SPR around the substation site is highly questionable as can be seen from the visualisation examples where the substation can be clearly seen on some examples in 15 years’ time. Trees take a long time to establish and gain sufficient height to work. • The site area is in a natural dip in the land, which would facilitate a lower visual impact but I understand that SPR are planning to raise the level because of the flood risk therefore worsening the visual impact."

Tanya Ritchie
"As a local homeowner who intends to live in Suffolk for the rest of my life, I have huge concerns over the proposed building of new wind farm substations and infrastructure that will destroy beautiful landscape and create noise, traffic and damage to the local area- not only will this be of vast negative impact to the local tourist economy, but more importantly a permanent scar on the landscape and damage to wildlife."

Tony Munden
"I agree with and support all representations being made by Friston Parish Council, Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) Groups. Whilst I am in favour of, and completely understand the need for renewable energy I feel that the ad-hoc method of construction is totally unacceptable, with each development company building massive substations onshore. I believe that these projects should be nationally coordinated and as such a public enquiry should be held regarding this project. I live approximately ½ mile north of the proposed site and object to the proposed development by Scottish Power of East Anglia One North on the following grounds:- • Close proximity to the rural quiet village of Friston which includes several grade 11 listed buildings – one of which is one of the closest buildings to the site. The severe visual impact this will have on the surrounding countryside, even with the mitigation planting (15 year view) will still leave the site highly visible (per SPR visualisation) some of which are misleading as they do not show the close proximity to the village, and some viewpoints are shown on different scales. • Loss of circa 30 acres of valuable grade 2 and 3 agricultural land, trees and wildlife habitats • Noise pollution – from the transformers and in particular the Harmonic Filters which have been identified as the noisiest 18m high structures that are not screened which will disturb both residents and wildlife. • Light pollution both during the construction phase (24 hour security lighting) and during operation for security, car park, maintenance etc. Currently there are no lights in the area at all. • Loss of footpaths to walk particularly between Friston and Little Moor Farm, the alternative is to go alongside Grove Road which is very narrow and twisting in places, dangerous to walk along and also will pass the substation with its noise and visual impact. There are no pedestrian pavement nor grass verge to walk on. It is heavily used at present as a cut through to the various villages / towns and used by farm vehicles. • During construction SPR have made assurances about HGV vehicles only using approved routes but the workforce will be free to use roads such as Grove Road which is as mentioned above already heavily used by local traffic • The deterioration in property value / unable to sell with massive project in the area. Reluctance of people to move into the area, because of site and its impact. • There are no onshore jobs (post construction) for the area • Damage to tourism – potential loss of jobs • Increased Flood risk to Friston village • Cable Landfall at Thorpeness with the crumbling cliffs – where a person was killed about 2 years ago due to the fragility of the cliffs. • Loss of woodland along the cable route"

Alan Hatfield
"I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the stupidity of siting a new sub station for the North Sea East Anglia Two and One windfarms in or near Friston. The power generated by the windfarms will far exceed the power required by the homes and businesses near Friston and consequently it will be exported to where it is needed by the National Grid. One of the reasons for choosing Friston was because it had access to the National Grid nearby. However, wherever the power is used, the losses to get it there will be in excess of the benefits of choosing Friston as a site of connection. Let me give an example with the sub station in Friston, consider 1Kw of electricity generated in the North Sea at the new windfarm. This 1Kw will travel say 70km on the Submarine High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable proposed, then be converted to High Voltage Alternating Current at the Friston sub station. This conversion will cause about .7-.8% loss (3). Then the reduced power will travel 160 km on the above ground grid to where it will be used in London. For this example using the figures in National Grids document (1) Resistance is .064(2) Ohms for HVDC and 1.62(2) Ohm for the HVAC circuit, Total 1.68 Ohms. Now consider if the sub station was in the Thames estuary, The same 1 Kw of electricity will travel say 140 km via a new submarine HVDC cable to a new sub station in the Thames estuary. There will be no requirement to bury this cable in 64m wide trenches that pass through an AONB as the cable can be laid on the sea bed. Once at the substation the power can be converted with the same losses (.7%)(3) as in the Friston example and then travel 30km via HVAC overhead to be used in London. The loss figures for this example are Resistance for HVDC 1.28(2) Ohms and HVAC .3 (2) Ohms. Total Resistance 1.58 Ohms. From this example it can be seen that there is a significant saving in power losses and as importantly the destruction to the environment is substantially reduced. From National Grids own document (3) it can be seen that the submarine HVDC is preferred for an even longer route of 385 km. There is a growing need for a strategic plan to site a new UK connector sub station so that subsequent windfarms in the North Sea and International power connectors such as Viking, NueConnect and NEMO (5) can connect to The National Grid near where the power is needed and I would suggest that location should be in the Thames estuary."

Amanda Taylor
"Dear Examining Authority RE: East Anglia North One While in favour of renewable energy, in this instance I wish to object in the strongest terms to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: - There are far better alternative solutions available making use of brownfield sites and offshore hubs and ring mains. - I do not feel that there has been enough, if any, joined up thinking about the cumulative adverse impact on the local communities of up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. - I do not think that the fragility of the local coastline, the seasonal flooding, the ongoing erosion, the potential rise in sea level has been adequately considered - these alone make this an unsuitable area for landing cables and building substations. - I am worried about the effect on wildlife - this will sever the Suffolk Coast and Heathers AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor and destroying ancient woodland - I am deeply worried about the potential noise, light and air pollution - I am deeply worried about the impact on tourism and local businesses and thus our local economy which relies on the beauty of our unspoilt Heritage Coast. - I am worried about the closure of PRoWs. - I am deeply worried about what would happen in the event of a Nuclear incident - evacuation routes could be seriously hampered. - It just feels like ScottishPower has no real sense or understanding of this area at all. I could go on and on but I imagine I will not be the only person making these points as they are so obvious. Thank you for taking the time to read them Yours sincerely Amanda Taylor"

Annabel Chamberlain
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for many and varied reasons but primarily for the adverse impact it will have on our local communities because of the noise and volume of traffic over many years affecting tourism on which so many businesses in this area rely from people wishing to enjoy the simple pleasures of the Suffolk Coast and the overwhelming sense of peace and tranquillity it provides."

Brigitte D'Angelo Turnbull
"? Concern for cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years with no apparent overview or concern for local people or environment ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for huge substation up to 18m high and the size of Wembley stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. Flooding becoming increasingly worse with climate crisis ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland - councils are failing to implement guidance that permission should be refused for developments damaging ancient woodland unless there are "wholly exceptional reasons" ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost forever ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues. Air pollution from the HGV's ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) - I understand it is possible to have a ring main at sea that can take the power direct to brown field sites."

Carole Edwards
"Firstly I wholly support and concur with the representations made to you by the following: SASES; The PCC of St Mary the Virgin, Friston (of which I am also Churchwarden) and by our Rector Mark Lowther. The basis of my representation concerns a number of areas of the proposal which I believe are deeply flawed. I like others am not objecting to the need for windfarms - indeed if an onshore windfarm were proposed this would be infinitely more acceptable. As a resident of the village of Friston, it is my belief that the proposed development is far too close to the Village and will blight the lives of all residents for the following reasons: Proximity - the latest plans, received unacceptably late, suggest that the development will now incorporate Church Road and will thus impinge on the sanctuary that is St Mary the Virgin - potentially reducing access to the Church which is a focal point for a village which does not have any other amenities apart from a pub. The Church is at the centre of village life for people who don't attend the church as congregation - giving as it does an annual round of events raising money for the upkeep of the Church (a grade 2* listed building with 11th century elements. Our many tourist visitors during the year most frequently cite the peace and tranquility of the Church and its Churchyard. This will be completely lost along with the majority of touristic income to Friston if the development goes ahead. This development will completely overwhelm the village of Friston and render it virtually uninhabitable. People - Friston is a small village - the wellbeing of its residents has already been severely affected by the proposals that SPR have put forward. The level of stress is obvious in daily life. There is immense concern about the loss and rerouting of public footpaths - around the site - which will not be peaceful or enjoyable as it will not be possible to ignore the enormous size of the site either from the village or on the footpaths. Ancient footpaths connecting our village with others in the area will be lost for ever. In addition, the long timeframes involved mean that for some people the impact on their mental health will be permanent and severe. Transport - our roads are small and winding with little space for cars to pass. The most recent item from SPR seems to be to purchase surrounding land and presumably widen Church Road - I do not see how this can be accomplished without denying access to the Church and, perhaps more importantly, bringing the development unacceptably close to the Church. I also note that SPR proposes to send HGVs via Farnham Road down to Aldeburgh there to turn left and go up the Leiston Road to reach the site. Whilst this, in itself, appears to be madness - unless they intend to purchase sites on both sides of the road at the roundabout in order to widen the Farnham Road into the town - there is also the question of smaller commercial vehicles using, for example, Mill Road in Friston. HGVs are one thing but there will be a range of 'smaller' lorries trying to use this route - which is a single track with no official passing places once in the village itself. Flooding - Friston is already subject to increasing flooding due to climate change. The proposal to concrete over vast areas of agricultural land to build the substations will be disastrous for our village, potentially increasing the cost of home insurance – or rendering it unobtainable. Wildlife and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty - whilst Friston does not sit directly in the AONB - it is on its border - the landscape doesn't change at the border. The development by SPR will be clearly visible for many miles around and will be an eyesore affecting not only the flora and fauna of our countryside - permanently decimating some species; it will also not be effectively mitigated by the current proposals from SPR for planting - either during construction or for many years afterwards. With the sheer volume of uncoordinated energy development being imposed on East Anglia as a whole, it is clear that SPR have not consulted effectively with other suppliers - for example EDF - who intend to build another nuclear reactor at Sizewell. It is also not clear why SPR have chosen to develop a completely new route when there is more than adequate facilities already in place (with sufficient capacity) to connect at Bawdsey through to Bramford - nor why the proposed development has 18m high structures when it is clear that this is more than twice the size of similar developments by SPR in other parts of the country. The proposed developments just in our area of Suffolk (the SPR and EDF projects) will disrupt and damage lives for many years - given the lack of co-ordination or joint working by these two companies - this could last for around 10 years - with 'mitigation' inadequate though it may be taking another 15-20 years to have any impact at all. In short, I believe that SPR have not presented a compelling case for siting the substations at Friston - particularly now it is clear that the development will come directly into the Village itself."

Dr PA Hitch
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (AND EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons. I am supportive of offshore energy, BUT these plans for the onshore transmission infrastructure are brutal and would destroy our Heritage Coast and tourist economy. - and because there are better alternative solutions, brownfield sites and offshore hubs and ringmains"

Edward King
"The proposed development is not part of a strategic plan for the generation of renewable power for the UK. It does not take into account the huge environmental impact which its construction will entail and it is illogical to argue the environmental benefits of renewable energy sources when the putting in place of the infrastructure will cause such massive devastation. In addition, the social consequences of the proposed development will be significant; this part of Suffolk depends almost entirely on tourism for its income and the extended time period for the building of this project will have a catastrophic impact on the whole area, from which it is unlikely to recover. The location and the direction of the prevailing wind will mean that all the dust and contaminates will be deposited along the Suffolk Coast AONB, with a very negative effect on wildlife and plants, not to mention the thousands of people who inhabit the area."

Gail Bell
"As a regular visitor to Aldeburgh I am deeply upset about the potential plans which will impact upon the historic character of the place. One of the reasons I visit regularly is for the relaxation and comfortable pace of life - so important in today's society of being on the go all the time. I visit at many different times of the year and have always found it such a relaxing place - so far unspoilt by outside influences and have subsequently returned home revitalised by my visist. To hear that there may be some compulsory purchasing of land along Saxmundham Road/Leiston Road fills me with horror. There is no need to destroy the access to the heart of the town. Why spoil such a lovely place when alternative routes (with much less disruption) can be accessed. The whole landscape of such a lovely town would be ruined and Aldeburgh would lose valuable tourism and result in it becoming a ghost town."

Graham Peck
"Whilst not against offshore renewable energy the current plans to bring associated infrastructure so far inland is a major concern. The damage that will be inflicted on the environment, in a County that relies on tourism and agriculture, does not reflect an acceptable return on investment and I would urge the National Infrastructure Planners to consider less invasive and damaging alternatives and instead look towards creating an overarching planning strategy that works for all concerned."

Jan Lovell
"I object to all the disruption caused to the beautiful area we live in also to the country side being disfigured. I know you say you will return it back to what it was but it is never the same."

Jenny Kennedy
"This project is being sited so close to Friston Village that we can almost touch it. We will be living cheek to jowl with it. It cannot be right that such a huge industrial complex should be built near to a beautiful quiet village. CUMULATIVE IMPACT of all of the likely future projects; Sizewell C, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper, HUMAN IMPACT not just to wildlife but to those who will life literally on the edge of this project; nothing previously has been built so close to a functioning village. We can see this project from our Grade 2* listed Church. Its unprecedented and unnecessary to be so close to the village. LANDSCAPE - the visual harm cannot be mitigated and the proposed mitigation by way of trees will take many years to grow. HERITAGE – the site is ringed by listed buildings. 5 grade II and two grade II* SITE SELECTION – there has been defective process re National Grid works. LAND USE will be substantial LIGHT POLLUTION during construction and operation. I think this is grossly underestimated. SOCIO ECONOMIC – ONSHORE – this will not give permanent jobs to the local community. It will put off tourists both in the short and long term which will impact on tourism revenues and jobs. FLOOD RISK - I don’t accept that this is property investigated yet. Friston already has flooding and I don’t believe that proper assessment of the Friston Watercourse and drainage has been done. Sorting this out after the event could be disastrous for the village. NOISE - I don’t accept we will not hear this project. Bramford – of which this is a mirror image, is a long way from residential properties. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT - it will be inevitable that lorries and traffic will “short cut” through the heart of Friston CABLE CORRIDOR ISSUES are being glossed over. Huge amounts of cables literally being bulldozed through communal and country areas. Destruction of woodland. Unacceptable siting to residential properties."

Maryanne Nicholls
"I oppose this scheme on various levels.. I truly believe that an infrastructure project of this significance should not be done on the cheap.. and that an offshore ring main is the correct way forward. The A1094 simply isn't up to carrying the amount of construction traffic to build this project. It is already a dangerous road, lethal for cyclists, and in places there is not enough space for large lorries to pass one another. The road floods frequently - when there is heavy rain the water runs off the fields and collects in the dips making it impassable. It is an important tourist route - and the junction from the A12 onto the A1094 is already congested and dangerous. If it goes ahead, this project will totally alter the nature of this important cultural seaside town."

Mathilda Mallinson
"I would like to specify I am heavily in favour of the development of offshore renewable energy facilities. But the integrity of these is lost if local countryside is destroyed in the process. The onshore infrastructure proposed for these projects would undermine the environmental benefits of the product. The same product could be developed with methods that are more considerate of the local community and environment. Some main concerns: - Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years - Threat to local wildlife - Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland - Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area - Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Michael Laschet
"Concerns from Aldringham re damage to the local environment The major energy projects planned for the Suffolk coast will cause considerable damage to the environment in and around the parish of Aldringham cum Thorpe where we live. 50 metre wide corridors for trenches and haul roads will be driven across pasture and woodland from the crumbling cliffs at Thorpeness to the huge substation planned for the village of Friston via Aldringham. This is an AONB with SSSIs protected by law. Irreplaceable fragile habitat developed over thousands of years in some cases cannot be mitigated by the inadequate proposals of SPR. The cable route crosses the B1122 close to Aldringham Court residential retirement home and further on is extremely near to Bulls Hall contrary to the assurances we were originally given of keeping clear of domestic dwellings. These are just two examples. As the route is not “sterilised” other projects bound for connecting to the installations at Friston may revisit the route causing disruption for many years to come from construction in the neighbourhood. There is concern that SPR's analysis of potential noise and light pollution from 24 hour construction is under estimating the adverse effects on nearby habitat and homes. Local traffic may be seriously adversely affected on our narrow lanes several of which are single track. HGV movements will be monitored but the uncontrolled proliferation of service vans may well impede the flow of local domestic and commercial traffic from hold-ups and casual parking. The creation of an Energy Coast replacing the current Heritage Coast will be a most regrettable development. The valuable tourist trade may be lost as visitors will stay away if the beauty of the coast is compromised. 4000 local jobs will be at risk. Compensation for loss of equity in local homes and businesses is a big future issue. A Ring Main to take all the new sources of energy arriving from the windfarms and the Continent and routing them by sea to the Thames estuary would be an excellent long term measure. It would avoid the depredation of long stretches of the coast and countryside as the installations distributing the power will be erected closer to the capital. This is in my opinion the best way to set up and integrate the various renewable energy sources that are so clearly needed. A supreme act of vandalism would be avoided."

Michelle Kelly
"The villages of Friston, Knodishall Leiston, Aldringham and Thorpeness are all quiet welcoming little places that people retire to, bringing money into the area. This development is likely to drive people away, impoverishing the area. All these villages and those beyond within a 30 mile radius, all rely on tourism to survive. That will be killed stone dead by this development- again impoverishing the area. The Substations at Friston are too tall, take up too much space, the access roads will damage the countryside, bring noise, pollution and greater potential for cyclists and children to get hit, the amount of traffic will impact negatively on our area. The substations will damage out area. Once something like this is built it is here to stay- and the countryside cannot return to what it was. We are told that the widening of the roads, and the building of the power substations (and all the other delightful electrical stations) will bring jobs. However new villages are being built to house new workers- you are clearly bringing in people from the outside- the locals will not get the jobs as they are not qualified. You know this to be the case otherwise you would not be building new villages temporary housing sites for workers. Please do not misrepresent things. There may be unskilled jobs for locals, then when it is all finished they will be unemployed. the workers that will have been brought in will go after a number of years, and then income reliant on their spending power will no longer be there- the locals will have had their country side ruined, their income from tourism and retirees ruined and will be considerably worse off that they were before. This is not going to bring sustainable prosperity to our area, as it will drive tourism away it will impoverish it. Many of the areas in this part of Suffolk Coastal are Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I would like to see a professional report on the impact your develop will have to our local wildlife. Areas categorised as AONB should be protected, free of unwanted development, free of noise, free of polluting traffic. Even if there is no building directly on these areas, any development nearby, that produces noise and pollution will affect both flora and fauna- wildlife will suffer. I work in a number of local schools, I know that most locals get by through seasonal tourism and the wealth that retirees bring in from the outside. I also know the severe poverty of both wealth and aspiration that a solid proportion of children (and therefore their families) suffer. This development will tip many of our neighbours over the edge, and those who can will move away, taking their spending power with them. Your energy project is one of 7 projected for this area. Suffolk Coastal will lose is character, will no longer attract tourists, no longer thrive if these go ahead. We need wind power- but not at any price. Lets get every aspect of it right so that is doesn’t get a bad name."

Mrs Jill Donker Curtius
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. For my own part the projects will affect me in the following ways. 1. The peace and quiet and quality of village life in Friston will be forever damaged and changed by this substation project 2.Apart from the noise, increase of traffic, light pollution during the building of the substations the landscape will be permanently changed into an industrial wasteland forever. 3.This is an area of deeply rural countryside, footpaths will be lost or moved, or be surrounded by the substations. 4. Damage to tourism is inevitable. who will want to stay in Thorpeness, Friston or the surrounding areas when they know that traffic, noise, dust will join them on their holiday. How will Snape Maltings be affected? 5.Our lives are now full of uncertainty and worry for ourselves and the next generation. Financially our properties are blighted and will lose even more value if this project goes ahead. Will be compensated? 6.Our cottage and 5 acre field on [Redacted] is home to hares, owls, rabbits, mice and shrews and I’m sure many other birds and mammals. With 24 hour light pollution and destruction of acres of countryside from the cables and general building site disruption what will happen to their habitat? 7.Grove Road is a narrow country wide with no pedestrian pavement, the increase of fast moving and heavy traffic on this road will be dangerous for both people and wildlife. Not to mention, the added noise and pollution that will affect our daily lives. 8. The views around Friston, beautiful and rural and unchanged for centuries will be unsightly and industrial, no amount of tree planting will change that, certainly not in my lifetime or in the foreseeable future. The ancient village Church, Grade 2 Listed buildings Grade 2 star building, have these been considered? 9. I know we need more clean energy solutions, but this project by SPR has been bulldozed through our community. 10. In West Sussex the planing for the substation was told to be ‘low impact’ Why have SPR not considered this for our area? 11. Are Scottish Power intending to build EA1N EA2 at the same time or do they intend to build one and then the other causing years of noise and disruption? 12.The cumulative affect of this project is very worrying. Sizewell C is about to put in a DCO application, National Grid are installing interconnections at the Friston Site which leaves it open to further expansion in the future. 13. I am saddened and [Redacted] by the size of the proposed development and the lack of care shown by both National Grid and SPR and with the potential for more energy projects this quiet hugely popular area of Suffolk will be spoiled forever."

Pat Hogan
"The cliff area at Thorpeness is too fragile and important to be considered for landfall - the Coast is eroding quickly and the corraline crag is very important for stability, as well as for valuable crab and lobster potting. Should Thorpeness be deemed suitable, the intended route for cabling, and for lorries, to Friston should not be via Sizewell Road/Lovers Lane - this is a totally unnecessary intrusion to Sizewell residents and businesses - there is a much more direct route that would be much less intrusive.. There is an existing route for lorries to Thorpeness..the route to Thorpeness is not via Sizewell. The Sizewell road should not figure at all - it is the only road for entry and egress for an operational nuclear site (Sizewell B) and residents, visitors, and businesses. It is also the only road for the decommissioning nuclear site (Sizewell A) and for the proposed initial years of construction for Sizewell C. It is also the only road to Gabbard and Galloper works, both of which are already proposing extensions. It is the only road for access to any emergencies, whether caused by accident or intent. Health and Safety considerations surely must come into this. The cabling will present dust, noise, and light intrusion to an area of AONB not disturbed by industry, areas which are absolutely currently retaining a balance between the needs of industry/residents/tourism to the benefit of all. As stated this is an area that need not be involved at all. It has only become involved as a result of poor initial inquiries, and indeed poor decisions regarding changes to plans of EA1/EA3 (Bawdsey route etc.) - made in the interests of the Company, not in the interests of electricity delivery or the nation. It seems irresponsible to consider using Greenfield sites, important to people's quality of life, in this ad hoc way, when very good use could be made of brownfield sites, or of improved technology. This project does not even offer long-term employment opportunities, and quite possibly may put other businesses involved in visitors/tourism in jeopardy. Leisure time and mental health have rightly become high on the Agenda of Government, and good strategic infrastructure planning must also figure in this. In this area we are already providing sufficient energy to be called the energy coast - we do not need any more projects here, indeed cannot absorb any more without huge detriment to the hard-won balance we have."

Penelope Jill Thresh
"I was born and grew up in this beautiful area of Britain. Friston and Aldeburgh are an unspoilt pocket of East Anglia. Both Aldeburgh and Snape are known internationally for their music festivals and were part of Benjimin Britten's life. Several famous artists have also painted the area. I believe that the proposed policy would not only highly damage the local tourism economy but also be another step towards losing another part of the Suffolk famous landscapes. Another important factor is that the local communities will suffer a depreciation of their properties. Micro economics will suffer to benefit economic giants and will therefore be no longer feasable or lead to a bright future."

Phil Pearce
"Yes I am in favour of renewable energy for the UK, but only if it does not spoil the beauty of the local area."

Robert Brock
"I have serious concerns about whether the views of local residents have been properly considered in the consultation and preliminary processes in respect of the substation, interlocks and associated infrastructure. The proposed location of the substation at Friston ignores all of the alternative options, the enormous and permanent damage to the local environment and the costs to the already fragile local economy. To connect the offshore wind farm to the substation will also involve enormous and permanent damage to the local environment, possible flooding due to the damage to natural sea defences and wildlife will be displaced. I am not opposed to the principal of offshore wind farms and I recognise that the country needs to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but the route to bring the power ashore needs to be properly evaluated and non-sensitive sites used instead. Finally the traffic plan is ill-considered: The additional load on roads surrounding the site will be intolerable during the years of construction. The existing roads are not designed for such traffic and there is little evidence of due consideration given to the confluence of traffic serving other major infrastructure projects currently planned for this part of East Suffolk."

The Revd Mark Lowther
"When I was installed as Rector of the Alde Sandlings Benefice (the parishes of Friston, Knodishall, Aldringham and Aldeburgh) I was given the ‘cure (care) of souls’ of everyone living in those four parishes – it is my duty to care for them. I see the plans submitted by Scottish Power Renewables as a real threat to the wellbeing of the people in my care, particularly, of course, the residents of Friston. I am enormously aware of the stress and strain that the proposals have already put on the villagers – they are frightened and worried. New facts seem to be emerging about which they have not been consulted and if it had not been for the very hard work put in by members of the SASES Working Group there would have been important information unavailable to members of the public severely affected by the proposals. It is no exaggeration to say that some people’s lives will be ruined if the proposals go ahead. As the Parish Priest my principle concern is for the people of the parish and for its ancient (grade 2*-listed) church building. As we have now discovered that the parcel of land required by SPR comes within a few metres of the church building I am most concerned about how that building might continue to be able to serve its purpose. I can foresee real problems with access to the churchyard (particularly during the construction process) for those who wish to tend graves. I can imagine a burial service being interrupted by noise from the construction site. I can imagine huge difficulties caused to parishioners who are simply trying to come to their parish church to worship, to prepare for services or to spend quiet time in prayer. I can imagine couples not wanting to hold a wedding at the church because of the ugliness of its surroundings. Ultimately I can imagine all services in the church having to be held against the background noise of the substation. None of the proposed ‘mitigation’ can compensate for these things. Were the proposals by SPR to go ahead they would utterly change the character of Friston and its surroundings. The enormity of the infrastructure would be a permanent desecration of what is currently a tranquil village. The day-to-day lives of a large proportion of the local residents would be changed for the worse. The construction would cause unbelievable upheaval to the local environment and I fear for the health of those directly affected, not just in Friston but in other parts of the Alde Sandlings Benefice too. For example, the B1069 (Snape Road) in Knodishall has a number of houses that open directly onto the footpath. The lives of the residents of those houses – and of those many children who need to cross the road to access Coldfair Green Primary School, will be made dangerous and difficult by heavy construction traffic. I care deeply about the lives of those for whom I have the ‘cure of souls’ and this objection comes from the heart. I ask the planning authorities to reject the current proposals."

Adnams plc
"1. Adnams is a leading brewer, drinks and hospitality business in East Anglia. It owns and operates a major brewery and distillery in Southwold, Suffolk, a distribution centre and vehicle fleet that supports its own 44 pubs, inns and hotels and 13 retail stores. Adnams also serves over 1,000 free trade pubs and bars in East Anglia, 4,000 pubs nationally and exports to more than 22 countries around the world. It directly employs 550 people and has more than 1,700 suppliers and a turnover of over £78 million. 2. Adnams is very much associated with the Suffolk Heritage Coast and countryside, which is key to its international and national reputation and its attractiveness to residents and visitors. Adnams and Southwold are synonymous. 3. Adnams has a strong environmental and sustainability record having won two Queen’s Awards for Enterprise in Sustainable Development and 15 other sustainability awards. Adnams is considered to be a sustainable pioneer in the UK and supports renewable energy. However, Adnams is not supportive of development of onshore infrastructure in rural East Suffolk including the AONB without full consultation of all the stakeholders and the involvement of the community in local decision making. 4. Adnams is concerned that both the perception and reality of East Suffolk as a highly attractive visitor destination could be damaged by the onshore impacts of the Scottish Power projects (East Anglia One North and East Anglia Two) and the five other major energy projects which are planned for the area. Potential negative effects could impact turnover, profitability, jobs, supply chains as well as the environment and the high value visitor economy. 5. Part of Adnams’ concern relates to the impact upon the A12 which is the only major route to East Suffolk. The A12 is already heavily congested particularly in peak holiday periods. Overloading a rural road network will damage both the perception and reality of East Suffolk as a tranquil and attractive visitor destination. 6. Adnams has concerns about the socio-economic effects of the Scottish Power projects, and the other five major energy projects currently planned. Any issues should be robustly and cumulatively assessed and the findings of the Independent report commissioned by the Suffolk Destination Management Organisation are important to recognise. 7. Given the likelihood of significant damage to the Suffolk visitor economy and the absence of a robust and independent assessment of the potential damage, Adnams objects to the Scottish Power projects as they stand."

Aldeburgh Golf Club
"The club operates on both sides of the A1094 in a very special maritime heathland landscape and has a major commitment to conservation and the environment. In addition to being a fine golf course that hosts national and international events for England Golf and The R&A, the club won the national Environmental Golf Course of the Year Award in 2019 With a practice ground and a 9 holes River Course on one side of the A1094 and the clubhouse and an 18 holes Championship Course on the other side of the A1094 (Saxmundham Road) and with the Leiston Road running alongside our northern boundary, we are particularly concerned about the proposed vehicle movement running into and out of Aldeburgh on the Leiston and Saxmundham Roads. There is in particular a significant safety risk of the development using the Saxmundham Road (A1094) as members and visitors cross the Saxmundham Road on foot constantly through the day to gain access to and from the 9 holes River Course - many of those golfers are young children and elderly people as the 9 holes course suits them better and, unless the developers were required to provide an underpass, there is a significant risk that increased traffic (including heavy lorries) will lead to serious accidents for pedestrians In addition, as a business operating exclusively on the edge of Aldeburgh, the likely decline in visitors to the area would have a serious economic impact on the club and will threaten both the membership and visitor income required to maintain the club and its courses We have several more general concerns that will be shared with other interested parties - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath - Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? - Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents - Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? - Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline David Wybar"

Benhall & Sternfield Parish Council
"The proposals do not demonstrate that the least disruptive technology is being used with respect to the on-shore installations. It is important to ensure that the routing of HGVs is maintained on approved lorry routes.’"

Brian Davies
"I wish to object to this project for the following reasons. Possibility of new energy projects for years to come. Huge substations the size of football arenas. Substations dominating villages liable to flooding.light and noise pollution.Impact on tourism. Destroying a beautiful area. Local road network unable to cope. Old people’s retirement years destroyed"

Christine Ive
"Relevant Representations to the National Inspectorate Heritage Coast V Energy Coast I support the Relevant Repesentations of Friston Parish Council in conjunction with the SASES Action Group. My objections are to the ONSHORE element of these proposals which will totally destroy large areas of Rural Suffolk countryside irrevocably. Friston is at the heart of this countryside a village of less than 300 residents The site selection is unacceptable for a number of reasons as set out below. How Scotish Power Renewables (SPR) can claim they have had full consultation with residents is a misnomer. Our concerns have been treated with utter disdain. They failed to develop the Bawdsey to Bramford site as originally planned and consented.Had they done so that cable route could have carried all the power for EA1North and EA2 with capacity to spare. SPR have not considered the impact of these and other multiple projects, including that of National Grid and National Grid Ventures who appear to be unaccountable. We have yet to see a plan featuring the scheme and Friston Village together.Due to the flawed site selection process the substations will cause severe damage to the landscape, requiring a 5 mile long cable route the width of an 8 lane motorway from the coast at Thorpeness across open countryside and an AONB to Friston taking in its'wake destruction of trees, hedgerow and valuable farm land. The site is ringed by listed buildings, five Grade 11 and two Grade 11*one of which is he vilage church located immediately opposite the site. Locals and visitors come hee forr peace and quiet reflection and to visit the final resting place of loved ones. The churchyard is home to a Commonwealth War Grave and War Memorial. The Village Hall which is used for meetings/recreation and educational purposes is next door the Church. We have learned in the last few days,although not advised by SPR that revised plans have been submitted to PINS. These indicate further excroachment into the village,namely Church Lane/Church Road which is the only vehicle access to the Church and Village Hall. FLOODING - Friston is subject to flooding. On a number of occasions this year properties have been damaged considerably. The Rectory has been rendered uninhabitable. SPR state clearly there is an increase in flood risk but do not show that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient,feasible or even achievable. TOURISM - The effect on tourism in the area will be permanent. Whilst some recovery may be possible, who wants to visit an Industrial site for holidays and periods of recreation. We have many visitors from far and wide. Walkers, twitches, cyclists and arrtists. During the construction period they will seek alternatives and may never return. Similarly INWARD INVESTMENT will be damaged, indeed house sales are already affected.Local trades people,painters, plumbers, electricians, builders, and cleaners will experience a severe reduction in employment. Cafes, hotels and restaurants will also see a decline in their business. FOOTPATHS - 26 Public Rights of Way will be temporarily closed or diverted for unspecified amounts of time. The footpath running North from he village which is a favourite of dog walkers and ramblers, will be permanently closed. This footpath is the historic boundary between Friston and Knodishall and is thought, in part, to have formed part of a historic pilgrims way. An alternative route is proposed to run along the edge of Grove Road close to the substation site, not an attractive proposal and public safety comes into question. LIGHT POLLUTION -There will be significant light pollution given the dark skies of this deeply rural environment. Constructioin will involve 6 day working 7am -7pm and occasionally 7 day and 24 hour working. Security and car park lighting, which will be triggered by wildlife who inhabit the whole area will have an adverse effect on the properties close to the site. NOISE -A sensitive subject. Coupled with the problem of light noise emanating from the site, the effect on health and wellbeing must not be underestimated. The overriding community requirement is for residential and recreation facilities to be free from perceptible noise. Quiet enjoyment of our properties is essential and a priority. Given the hours of working and the proximity of the substations' site and cable route to the village, noise could be very intrusive. HUMAN HEALTH -SPR dismiss anxiety as a perception. Anxiety is very real to a person suffering from it. There are aleady cases of despair and acute anxiety as to what is going to become of us. We are an ageing population looking to enjoy our lives in peace and quiet which is the main reason most of us chose to live here. The traffic and the noise, air pollution and disruption to our daily lives with a potential construction period of 5/6 years even before the impact of other projects is immeasurable. Looking to sell our houses to fund care in the future is a very real financial headache. TRAFFIC - Road safety is already a major cause for concern. The A12/1094 junction is an accident blackspot but the proposed changes would be laughable if not so serious.Rumble strips and speed restrictions! The A1094 is narrow and twisty resulting in difficulty for two vehicles to pass. A further problem area is the A1094/B1069 junction at Blackheath Corner. We have long expressed our concerns as to the impact of increasing traffic along the A1094 particularly as regards emergency vehcles. There is a cottage hospital in Aldeburgh.Taking into account the average age of residents in this area, ambulances are called out daily from Ipswich some 30 miles away. There is a risk to journey times of these vehicles bearing in mind the increase in heavy vehicles using this road. Scottish Power will only monitor Heavy Goods Vehicles but what about the rest. The area is littered with narrow lanes not least Friston.Mill Road leads off the A1094 and runs through the village, is single track with no pedestrian pavement. This in turn leads to Grove Road which again is narrow. twisty and leads to the proposed site. Is it to become a "rat-run"? At the junction of Grove Road with the B1121 (Aldeburgh to Saxmundham Road) is a small children's play area. SAFETY - No safety plan is provided for the substations. Fire and explosion are not unknown at substations. There is no quantification of the risk. Nor has suficient attention been given to he safety of pedestrians/cyclists when going about their everyday activities."

Colin Chamberlain
"-The cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring at the same time is unacceptable as it will damage the tourism which is the basis of the local economy -the proposed Friston substation needs to be sited in open countryside the other side of the A12 - it will have a constant humming which is unacceptable next to an existing village -the traffic will be unacceptable on existing roads"

Elizabeth Kerridge on behalf of Desmond Kerridge
"RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons:- . cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years . unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables . use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium . substations, cable trenches and haul roads dangerously close to residential homes . threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath .destruction of ancient woodland local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents . light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost . noise pollution. Suffolk's famous peace and tranquility lost . air pollution from traffic and trenches . impact on tourism. Loss of natural beauty and congestion will deter tourists . permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) . in event of nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered"

Diane Stroud
"I like to declare: - my interest as a frequent visitor of Friston, and - my support for the representations of SASES and Friston Parish Council I strongly support wind power in principle, but not its implementation at overwhelming cost to the environment and society. More thought and planning would avoid these costs, through coordination of power projects and use of brownfield, coastal locations for necessary onshore infrastructure. My concerns relate to both the permanent impact of this project and to construction issues and I wish to object to Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: 1. The cumulative impact of Sizewell C, National Grid Ventures interconnections and the need for further connections due to the expansion of the Galloper and Gabbard wind farms - which are uncoordinated. 2. Inadequate review of the initial selection process by Scottish Power and the National Grid, resulting in the selection of a rural village several miles inland as a site for infrastructure for an off-shore power project. 3. Increased flood risk due to the position and scale of this project uphill from the village, where there are frequent problems. Proposed new drainage ponds will not mitigate the many acres of concrete and will not compensate for the loss of existing field drainage. 4. Pollution: noise and light pollution affecting the village, and impact on air quality. 5. Heritage: The clash and impact on local rural heritage, which includes numerous listed buildings, and loss of agricultural land usage. 6. Proximity to the population of the Village 7. Personal loss of use of footpaths. 8. Financial impacts: loss of equity to those who own property in the village, which would be substantially devalued. 9. Blight on the ancient rural and landscape of Friston and all along the proposed cable corridors from the coast, at great cost to both tourist and agricultural amen 10. Traffic impacts on Friston and other villages from maintenance and staffing of these sites, long after the construction period is over."

Elian Rosswag
"- Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. - Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Noise pollution - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost"

Elizabeth Kerridge
"RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons:- . impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years . unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness cliffs as site for landing cables . use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium . substations, cable trenches and haul roads dangerously close to residential homes . threat to wildlife and important Sandlings Heath . Destruction of ancient woodland . local road network unsuitable for high traffic levels. Increased traffic danger to cyclists and residents . light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost . noise pollution. Suffolk's peace and tranquility lost . air pollution from traffic and trenches . impact on tourism. Loss of natural beauty and congestion will deter tourists . permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) . in the event of a nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered"

Ellen Nall
"We live in Church Road, Snape, and understand that there will be a large increase in heavy goods traffic through our village during construction of the proposed site in Friston. We feel that Church Road is not in any way suitable for ANY increase in traffic . We also feel that the scale of the project is out of keeping with the rural landscape along this part of the coast, which relies heavily on the Tourist Trade to sustain the local economy."

Eva Loeffler
"As a resident of Aldeburgh the building of substations in an area which is a tourist attraction with years of historical ainterest and an area of outstanding beauty I wish to register my objection to this scheme which would ruin the whole area. Eva LoefflerOBE"

Fiona Jones
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) Many thanks, Fiona Jones"

Fred Burt
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and to the Suffolk Coastal AONBs causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area, leading to loss of trade, visitor income, and consequent social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Gordon Merfield
"I wish to register my objection to this as completely unnecessary damage to countryside, all the power could be brought ashore at Sizewell. It will cost a lot of money and damage small villages. (Redacted)"

Guy Baly
"Dear Planning Authority, I understand that it is Scottish Power Renewables' (SPR) hope to build two electrical substations in an area between Friston and Knodishall and moreover that even more may be built in the ensuing years following completion of this initial project. I strongly object to this planning application for the following reasons: The cumulative impact on local communities; The ruination of the beautiful countryside between Thorpeness and Friston; The proximity of the project and its massive impact on all the dwellings in the villages and the wild-life in an area of outstanding natural beauty; The impact of lorries and plant on local roads that are quite inadequate to cater for such traffic; I trust you will consider all of the above and give thought to alternative planning for these developments. Guy Baly"

Helen Jones
"I wish to object to the SRP planning application for the following reasons; -I believe the works planned will cause damage to our rare sandlings environment and break up the areas of coastal heath-land preventing movement and migration and disturbance to wildlife. -The increase of traffic the works will create will bring congestion to our roads and make cycling; a major pastime for locals and visitors, unsafe and unpleasant. -The substations are too close to the village of Friston an unspoiled Suffolk village impacting on quality of life during construction and beyond with noise, light and air pollution. - The whole area will be under severe pressure with other major power infrastructure works planned a Sizewell leading to over a decade of disruption to our community which is rural, tourism and agriculture based. - There will be impact on tourism due to congestion and loss of tranquil countryside with attendant loss of income across a wide range of hospitality, retail and farm shop businesses in the area. This will affect employment and earning opportunists for local people."

Iken Parish Council
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes of vast size - Noise pollution in an area of peace and tranquillity -impact on tourism the mainstay of the local economy"

James M Latham
"Mrs Latham and I are both in our 80s and frequently have to leave our house using the A1094. We are increasingly losing our sight line owing to HGVs eroding the grass verge and strongly oppose the proposed development on the grounds of safety. The erosion particularly increases when 2 HGV are passing in opposite directions. Already the concrete surround to the BT/Openreach telephone access manhole is being broken in part. The roadway will require serious work to widen it before increased HGV traffic is permitted."

John Richmond
"I am supportive in principle of wind energy and renewable energy in general. I am however objecting to the current proposals to develop this wind farm, along with its sister project, for the way it is built and the onland infrastructure required. the landfall, infrastructure and build of the wind farm all take place within the narrow Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. This is a fragile piece of coast subject to climate change as well as 7 NSIPs all planned for this area. Many habitats will be destroyed. These coastal heathlands are globally significant and contain species that risk being lost for ever. During this time the Suffolk coast path and England Coast path will be inaccessible. the cliffs at Thorpeness are crumbling and fragile. The village is a popular tourist point in the AONB but is poorly accessed by two B roads unsuitable for HGV traffic. Building a port defies belief. From this point you can see boats emerging from Felixstowe and Harwich. Both local deep ports. Felixstowe is the end point of the A14 and a freight rail link. The wind farm components should sail from there. The HGVs will pass along the largely single carriageway A12 through four nearby villages already choking from NO2 and with only the last two facing chance of bypass, then only following the start of Sizewell C. The government has recently said it will not provide funding for a bypass round all four villages. The residents here are already suffering and being ignored. Not good enough The A1094 to Aldeburgh tales traffic into the west of residential Aldeburgh and is the main road in to this town that is already too busy with tourist traffic. I live near this road (Redacted) which will get worse with increased pollution levels. The road is not wide enough for hgvs and they will have to navigate a tight roundabout when in Aldeburgh. This applies to the B1353 to Leiston before it turns at Aldringham to Thorpeness. Plans to build the substations in Friston are totally unacceptable. This destroys the village and affects the inhabitants lives are affected forever. The Glover report into National Lanscapes found that not only do AONBs need protection against this ongoing urbanisation but so do their adjacent areas. This applies at Friston The cable trench linking Friston to Thorpeness cuts a 65m wide swathe through the AONB and will leave a permanent scar on the landscape as has happened at Bawdsey onwards where we see how this will look. It’s route dissects the AONB and disrupts Aldringham and Knodishall affecting residents and farmers. The power will be taken by yet another set of pylons alongside sizewell Bs. A third may come with Sizewell C. More scars on the land. It’s evident better solutions are possible but SPR are not listening. An overall strategy is needed as this is not a unique situation. This project needs pausing while the government seeks a better solution for the AONB."

Josef Wondrak
"From: [Redacted] Subject: Objection to Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 onshore Project development - We totally support the representations from SASES and Friston Parish Council Living on Grove Road the following points are of serious concern: - Siting of 3 substations and expansion plans for Nautilus and Eurolink etc - Has any cumulative impact been addressed when the site is 250metres from houses, 350metres from listed church and 500metres from many residents! - NOISE of construction (years) and when in operation. Again plans indicate rather then minimizing noise pollution, it is the opposite! Harmonic filters are not screened The tonality from possibly 5/7 large buildings will effect our lives Sound banks / barriers including bank tree planting should be included in design One Building is a GIS Hall, which contains gas which during operation any time of day can trip and make a very loud bang, like thunder clap - TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT: regarding GROVE ROAD No thought given to the preconstruction track within the village HGV construction traffic crossing it at village edge Daily coping of 350+ workers, all other delivery vehicles to site and back Being single track, passing places on residents drives, with no street lighting and no pavements for walkers, cyclists etc. It is also a flood relief road. This is why there is such concern over the site location - FLOODING: Friston has recently been several times been under threat of flooding before any development Grove Road is becoming a river on a regular basis and the water is running of the fields allocated for the 94metres wide haul road and would make flooding far worse. Nothing has been mentioned about flood risk from that area. It may be temporary, but still years. - HAUL ROAD: Is for HGV construction traffic, and too close to residents and the position is unacceptable. Noise mitigation needed during construction period (years) Sound barriers / earth mounds should be placed south of the haul road to protect noise pollution to residents. The cable route will destroy the whole area including AONB land, and hertige coast is lost forever. - HUMAN IMPACT: Not taken into account the vulnerable ageing population. Loss of beautiful scenery with lack of banked planting Constant noise of traffic / building equipment Vibration through major earth movement Traffic jams / gridlock around local area Light pollution at construction and after completion Sizewell C construction has not been assessed accurately - SPR have ignored the existence of Friston, even omitting it from maps if possible. Rather than any compromise to alleviate the copious worries residents have, they are moving the development sites closer and into the village itself. - We have moved to Friston, because it is a lovely quite village and wanted to enjoy the country side and not living in an industrial area - You cannot allow SPR to get away with the blatant ignoring of FRISTON"

Lee Barnes
"Dear Examining Authority I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons. - The affect on local communities in regards to up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively of 15 years will be disastrous! - To have the substations based in this area of unspoilt countryside let alone Friston! - The substations will be dangerously close and dominating small villages suseptable to flooding - The Cable route will scar 11km of this beautiful landscape of which a lot of it is running through an area of outstanding natural beauty. this will also cause detrimental affect on the wildlife corridor. - Cable trenches and Haul roads are unacceptably close to residential homes - The threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings heath. - Destruction of ancient woodlands! Of which would be home to millions of creatures big and small, destroying centuries of biodiversity - The roads are unsuitable for the high traffic number and HGVs that the roads are not used to. the amount of traffic on roads will be so much higher causing danger to residents and cyclists. Emergency services will be slower, endangering lives! - Suffolks famous dark skies lost! - Tranquility will be lost forever due to noise pollution - The tourism in this part of Suffolk is so important for the local economy. This work will cause less visitors. Equally amounting to loss of trade to local businesses. I live along the River Hundred. I am extremely concerned that the flood risk will be severely affected due to the cable route running through it. We have never had flooding reach our premises. It is so important to either place the substations in brown field sites or a ring main. Surely all future substations could then link into one ring main reducing the destruction that current plans will cause. Lastly I am 100% in support of green energy and wind farms, but the way in which this has been planned and how Friston has been chosen is inconceivable. Friston is affected the most but it will destroy all villages along the cable route. The substation needs to have a ring main out to sea."

Martin Gregory
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. The EAN1 project will change the whole character of Friston village in terms of visual harm, light and noise pollution. The substation will also devalue property prices and impact tourism and the local economy. I also have significant concerns for the local environment and the impact on local wildlife. I am supportive of renewable energy, but a complete re-think of the renewable energy strategy for this area and collaborative working between energy companies needs to take place."

Michael Jones
"The proposed site is completely unsuitable for this huge development being very close to a very attractive and peaceful village within beautiful and productive landscape. The grade 2* church is one of the closest buildings to the proposed area, with 3 grade 2 thatched cottages adjacent to it. There is a windmill and millers houses in the center with the potential to be developed into a significant tourist attraction. The considerable distance from the coast means large trenches being excavated close to several other villages. This major disruption will continue for years. The rural small roads are totally unsuitable for access by heavy industrial traffic. Noise will be a continual factor. I wear hearing aids (as do several other villagers) which will be badly affected. Flooding of Friston is already a problem which will be made worse by the concreting of a large area. The quality of life for the population of Friston (many are elderly) will be destroyed. The village has a considerable number of holiday properties. Tourism, which is a major constituent of local prosperity will be destroyed. Property prices will be decimated causing considerable hardship and problems selling. There are many more projects " in the wings" Suffolk's appeal will be destroyed. There is already technology in existence to allow offshore connections to be made. These would preserve the charming Suffolk countryside and major tourist industry. Other countries adjacent to the North sea are already using them."

Miles Hunt
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I support the use of renewable energy but am strongly opposed to the proposed schemes above for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Mirriam Jan MacKenzie
"i write to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for a wide variety of reasons that I outline below. Firstly we are a group of communities that have experienced up to seven energy projects over the last 12 to 15 years. This is a large amount and has impacted the area to a great extent. I am also concerned about the amount of unspoilt countryside that will be destroyed for the establishment of substation complexes at Friston, together with the destruction of ancient woodland, the threat to local wildlife and the severing of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB which will cause problems for migrating species and sever the wildlife corridor. Further, the 11km of cable trenches will destroy environmentally sensitive areas and the Thorpeness Cliffs - fragile and vulnerable as they are - will surely be destroyed with the cables being landed at this point. The small village close to the proposed substations is already in danger of flooding and the substation at such close proximity will increase the risk. The cable trenches and haul roads sites are dangerously close to residential homes. The whole proposed road network will, indeed, increase traffic considerably, endangering cyclist and residents, cause inevitable delays to emergency services and severely hamper emergency evacuation in the event of a nuclear incident. There must be concerns about light pollution caused by the infrastructure, destroying Suffolk's famous dark skies, and further concerns about air pollution from increased traffic and trench building in the local light and sandy soil. The peace and tranquillity of the area will also be destroyed. Tourism would be greatly affected - the DMO report states that traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from visiting the area. Business would subsequently be adversely affected and jobs may be at risk. There are also concerns about the permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs. I am an ardent supporter of renewable energy and would support it it many circumstances. But in this case - as I have indicated above - the costs to the local people, the area and the wildlife are far too high. Jan MacKenzie"

Mr Graham French
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12-14 years. Use of unspoilt countryside for a huge substation at a time we should be giving environmental impacts a priority during the current climate emergency. Once ruined it can. never be reversed. It is unacceptable for 11km of cable trenches to destroy environmentally sensitive areas. Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. Severing the beautiful and unique Suffolk coast and heaths AONB causing problems for migrating birds and severing the wildlife corridor Destruction of Ancient woodlands In the event of a Nuclear incident evacuation routes would be hampered Permanent closure of public footpaths. Human beings have destroyed this planet for themselves and the millions of other species that we share it with. Wind farms are necessary but the infrastructure proposed for this project is mindless destruction."

Mr Robert Dilley
"TO WHOM CONCERNED, I WISH TO VOICE MY CONCERN ABOUT THE PROPOSED WINDFARM INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH WILL EFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREA OF OUTSTANDING BEAUTY IN WHICH ME AND MY FAMILY LIVE. LIVING IN THIS AREA YOU CAN SEE DAILY THE WILDLIFE THAT LIVES IN THE AREA .I DO NOT THINK THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OR MAKE THE THE FINAL DECISIONS REALIZE THE EFFECT. IT SEEMS THAT WHATEVER THE LOCAL COMMUNITY DOES OR SAY IT WON`T CHANGE THE RESULT.I WALK REGULARLY IN THE PROPOSED AREA. I FEEL VERY SORRY FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE FRISTON AREA . I THINK THE LOCAL TOURISM WILL ALSO BE AFFECTED CAUSING MORE UNHAPPINESS. I HOPE THIS WILL HAVE SOME HELP IN YOUR DECISION. I FEEL REALLY SAD BY THIS AS WE SEEM TO BE SPOILING A GREAT AREA OF OUR COUNTRY. ROBERT DILLEY"

Mrs A Ware
"Dear Examining Authority Re: East Anglia North One I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: - Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - 11Km of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas - Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath - Destruction of ancient woodland - Light, noise and air pollution from traffic and workings - Increased traffic on country roads - Permanent and temporary closure of PRoW's"

Ms Mirriam Jan MacKenzie on behalf of Ms Shawna MacKenzie
"I want to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for these reasons: - Use of large amount of unspoilt countryside at Friston - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs due to the fact that they are fragile for the site for landing cables - Threat to wildlife - Destruction of ancient woodland - Substations dangerously close to a small village liable to flooding - Noise pollution - Suffolk is famous for its peace and tranquility - Air pollution due to traffic and digging trenches in sandy soil - Temporary and permanent closure of PRoWs - Adverse impact of businesses Shawna Mackenzie"

Paul Stroud
"Firstly, I would like to declare: 1, my interest as a long-standing resident of Friston, and 2, my support for the representations of SASES and Friston Parish Council In summary, I strongly support wind power in principle, but not its implementation at overwhelming cost to the environment and society, when more thought and planning would avoid these costs through coordination of power projects and use of brownfield, coastal locations for necessary onshore infrastructure. My concerns relate more to the permanent impact of this project rather than to construction issues. More specifically: 1, The cumulative impact of Sizewell C, National Grid Ventures interconnections and the need for further connections due to the expansion of the Galloper and Gabbard wind farms - which are uncoordinated, 2, Blight on the ancient rural and landscape of Friston and all along the proposed cable corridors from the coast, at untold cost to both tourist and agricultural amenity, 3, Personal loss of use of footpaths and of visual enjoyment of the village I love, 4, Increased flood risk due to the position and scale of this project uphill from the village, when we already have frequent problems. The so-called mitigation of the many acres of concrete by new drainage ponds does not even compensate for the loss of existing field drainage. 5, Pollution: noise and light pollution changing the character of the village, plus questionable impact on air quality. 6, Heritage: The clash with and impact on local rural heritage, which includes numerous listed buildings around the village, and loss of agricultural land usage, 7, Proximity: The proposals and plans presented all play down the sheer proximity to the village population, which is in contrast to other power projects, much further from population. 8, Financial impacts: especially loss of equity to those who own property in the village, which would be substantially devalued. 9, Traffic impacts on Friston and other villages from maintenance and staffing of these sites, long after the construction period is finished. These can only be mitigated by permanently tarmac king even more countryside. 10,Inadequate review of the initial selection process by Scottish Power and the National Grid, resulting in the selection of a rural village several miles inland as a site for infrastructure for an off-shore power project! Thank you for considering the above. Yours faithfully, Paul Stroud"

Robert Farquharson
"I object to this application primarily on environmental grounds in the context of an Area of Outstanding Beauty."

Roger Ellwood Turner
"To the examining Authority I wish to object to the planning application made by Scottish Power Renewables. My main objections are. 1. The serious damage that will be done to such beautiful countryside by the large tracks that will be made and the enormous sub station. All this across prime agricultural land, with the prospect of construction lasting several years. 2 The damaging effect on wildlife habitat with the noise,excavation and general pollution caused by macherinery. 3 The serious effect it will have on the local population by the close. Proximity of the works. 4. The carrying out the works causing local road and transport problems. There are many other negatives to this project well documented by others. I have been a Suffolk resident for many years, with involvement in Agriculture."

Rosemary Kersey
"I fully endorse the views of Friston Parish Council and SASES in their objection to this project. The loss of amenity land where the onshore works will be 400metres from, and will destroy the character of the village of Friston. The footpaths are well used, including by visitors as a lovely circular walk which will be permanently lost. People will have to drive elsewhere for the use of other amenity land therefore negatively impacting these other areas. The character of the village is quiet, rural and tranquil. The onshore substations will visually harm the village and surrounding areas, and destroy the character, setting and peaceful nature of this area. The substantial loss of land will result in a huge loss to wildlife including badger setts, bat roosting sites, barn owls and farmland birds such as skylarks. There are also very rare lesser-horseshoe bats identified. The mitigation planting is inadequate and questionable. The onshore site has not been assessed properly for flooding which will impact the village of Friston greatly, given that the watercourse is unsuitable and village suffers from flooding already. Surface water runoff will increase but the removal of field drainage systems including an existing drainage pit has been ignored and EA1N will be built on top of this drainage pit. These onshore substations are not the best design, where other wind farm developments are low profile to reduce the visual impacts. There is no light or noise pollution in the village of Friston, these developments will permanently disrupt the lives of people and wildlife here. The roads in this area are not big enough to cope with the increase in traffic, lots being single tracks around the village of Friston, substation and cable route."

Ruth Poole
"I would argue the proposed location of the substation will irrevocably damage the over all economy of the area due to; ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Sally Walton
"I am deeply concerned about the impact on the locality of the number of energy projects occurring simultaneously over 12 to 15 years. The substations proposed are dangerously close to a small village and will complete dominate it. The cable trenches will destroy an environmentally sensitive area. The local network of roads is unsuitable for the volume and scale of traffic required. Huge damage will be done to the wildlife in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and ancient woodland will be destroyed. All of this will affect the economy of the area which depends on tourism."

Sarah Parnham
"I object on the grounds that this development will negatively impact the area around Aldeburgh causing disruption, noise pollution and damage to the environment"

Sophie Whayman
"It will destroy the landscape, woodlands and footpaths throughout our villages, the threat to our wildlife would be sever. It could have an impact on flooding the River Hundred, my garden backs onto this and would be disastrous if it got anywhere near our house."

Tom Henrick
"Traffic increase Environmental Damage to Lcal wildlife"

Wendy Wondrak
"From: [Redacted] Subject: Objection to Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 onshore Project development - We totally support the representations from SASES and Friston Parish Council Living on Grove Road the following points are of serious concern: - Siting of 3 substations and expansion plans for Nautilus and Eurolink etc - Has any cumulative impact been addressed when the site is 250metres from houses, 350metres from listed church and 500metres from many residents! - NOISE of construction (years) and when in operation. Again plans indicate rather then minimizing noise pollution, it is the opposite! Harmonic filters are not screened The tonality from possibly 5/7 large buildings will effect our lives Sound banks / barriers including bank tree planting should be included in design One Building is a GIS Hall, which contains gas which during operation any time of day can trip and make a very loud bang, like thunder clap - TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT: regarding GROVE ROAD No thought given to the preconstruction track within the village HGV construction traffic crossing it at village edge Daily coping of 350+ workers, all other delivery vehicles to site and back Being single track, passing places on residents drives, with no street lighting and no pavements for walkers, cyclists etc. It is also a flood relief road. This is why there is such concern over the site location - FLOODING: Friston has recently been several times been under threat of flooding before any development Grove Road is becoming a river on a regular basis and the water is running of the fields allocated for the 94metres wide haul road and would make flooding far worse. Nothing has been mentioned about flood risk from that area. It may be temporary, but still years. - HAUL ROAD: Is for HGV construction traffic, and too close to residents and the position is unacceptable. Noise mitigation needed during construction period (years) Sound barriers / earth mounds should be placed south of the haul road to protect noise pollution to residents. The cable route will destroy the whole area including AONB land, and hertige coast is lost forever. - HUMAN IMPACT: Not taken into account the vulnerable ageing population. Loss of beautiful scenery with lack of banked planting Constant noise of traffic / building equipment Vibration through major earth movement Traffic jams / gridlock around local area Light pollution at construction and after completion Sizewell C construction has not been assessed accurately - SPR have ignored the existence of Friston, even omitting it from maps if possible. Rather than any compromise to alleviate the copious worries residents have, they are moving the development sites closer and into the village itself. - We have moved to Friston, because it is a lovely quite village and wanted to enjoy the country side and not living in an industrial area - You cannot allow SPR to get away with the blatant ignoring of FRISTON"

William Gault
"We are very concerned about the massive disruption that this project will cause to our local community, not only in terms of road traffic, but noise, and completely upturning the lives and living standard of those people with houses within view and ear shot of the sub station, this is catastrophic for them. Why this project can not be sited next too or near the Sizewell power stations site, where some infrastructure (roads) are already in place to coordinate a project like this, and where to disruption to the local community would have much less impact, having the sea on one side, and anyway the already disruption caused by the power stations, I simply can not understand!"

Alister Clare Malim
"I am objecting to Scottish Power Renewables planning application for East Anglia One North. I was brought up in this unspoilt area of Suffolk - my parents lived here for over 50 years. I know it well. -The Sandlings are an important ecological area. The impact will be terrible on wildlife and flora, and will destroy landscapes. -Local routes are totally unsuitable for added (especially heavy) traffic) The road from The A12 to Aldeburgh (the preferred route) the A1094 has many pinch points along it and 2 old bridges. Residents living in Snape find it difficult already to turn onto this road. The queues can stretch back to the centre of the village about .7 of a mile. -It will be bad for tourism and business with the loss of jobs."

Ashton Hunt
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) With regards Ashton Hunt"

Brodie Bibby
"I believe people are not aware of the all the key issues these proposed works will bring: The trenches to bring the cabling to Friston will be driven 8 miles across beautiful ANOB countryside from the lovely village of Thorpeness. These trenches will be as wide as the M25. Initially SPR led the communities to believe that this construction would be a one off but it now appears that the second trench is likely to follow on after the first so we could be looking at possibly 8 years of mammoth construction. The cliffs at Thorpeness are incredibly fragile and very likely to collapse under the power driving and drilling, potentially leading to the flooding of Thorpeness. The ancient woodlands at Aldringham are to be felled. In addition SPR have finally admitted that there is a strong possibility that Friston will be even more liable to flooding in the future as they cover the 50 acre site with concrete, the site actually sits at a higher level than the village and so the water will inevitably flow into the heart of the village The constructions are within meters of the village church and houses. The closest such construction to human habitation in the UK. 18 metres high, meaning that they will tower above the church and be visible and heard from a great distance, the Sailor's path for instance. SPR's and importantly National Grid's plans ignore the fact that the roads in the area are narrow and already quite tortuous. They ignore that the emergency services from Ipswich will be unlikely to arrive in time to save lives or the care workers who are vital for many of the elderly members of the communities in this area cannot possibly do their rounds in the allocated times. They ignore that tourism to Aldeburgh, Thorpeness, Snape, and the surrounding villages will be seriously impacted for many, many years to come. They ignore the impact of a combination of Sizewell C and SPR projects on the infrastructure of one of the most unspoilt areas of England."

Christine Laschet
"Dear Examining Authority Re: East Anglia North One Currently 7 energy projects of which Scottish Renewables are 2, are proposed to be built over the next 12- 15 years in Suffolk Coastal . It will have a huge, cumulative effect on all local communities which will persist for many years. There is no exploration of an alternative to an onshore cabling and siting– such as an offshore substation or ring main around East Anglia which could connect to brown field sites which do not entail damaging sensitive landscapes and be nearer to the cities which need power . My objections are: • The area provides rare and important habitats for birds, reptiles, flora and fauna, especially on the important Sandlings Heath. It has taken hundreds of years to evolve and cannot be replicated artificially. Some local footpaths and woods will be lost. • Noise and land destruction will continue for years, perhaps up to 24 hours per day in some areas. Air quality will deteriorate. The famous luminosity of the natural light, compared to the south of France will be forfeited. • There is already increased flooding here because of building and the coast is in danger of being eroded by sea because of climate change . • A holistic approach is needed to ensure minimum damage to the country side and its residents. Each project will duplicate ground works. The huge trenches for the cables are to be put in very near existing housing and there appears to be no attempt to minimise the disruption by combining efforts with another energy project; the same area will be constantly be dug up and re-laid , over many years. • Tourism in which about 4,000 people are currently employed will be destroyed, The quiet tranquillity and natural habitat for which the area is famous will no longer exist. The local people will see a significant decrease in their house prices because of the chaos of so much development and this is already happening. The impact for local businesses re loss of trade and lack of visitors will also affect detrimentally the local economy and lead to social and economic decline as employment is lost and not replaced. • The 11 km of cable trenches, will destroy the environmentally sensitive areas but also bring chaos to our small and busy roads. Small local roads do not provide the infrastructure needed for more HGV’s and the additional high traffic levels of smaller vehicles the development will bring. Greater danger for school children travelling to school, pedestrians, residents, cyclists and visitors. • The shore for bringing the cables on to land is eroding and unstable. The siting of the large, concrete , high substations at Friston will totally spoil the village and all the areas nearby .The substations do not bring employment ;skilled employment may be needed whilst being constructed , but there will be virtually no need to employ anyone once completed. END C D Laschet (Redacted)"

Danielle Swanson
"This new renaming of Suffolk as the “Energy Coast” is an underhand attempt by the Govt to sneak through various unpopular schemes for building Sizewell C and D and the Friston Substation and Scottish Powers plans for giant offshore wind turbines ,all of which under the guise of providing Green Energy are going to destroy hundreds of acres of important wildlife habitat, will destroy beyond recognition a huge section of our Heritage Coast ,wipe out the habitat at RSPB Minsmere for thousands of migratory species , potentially destroy the tourist industry which depends on our sites of special natural beauty to attract visitors, wipe out the nascent and increasingly lucrative film location appeal of Suffolk and in the light of a potential Nuclear disaster such as the one at Chernobyl or Fukushima or Three Mile Island render 2000 square kilometres in and around Suffolk uninhabitable for several thousand years. This is not some negative futuristic dystopian nightmare but a real and possible outcome if we build more dangerous water pressure Nuclear reactors which are of exactly the same design as those I’ve mentioned in the previous disasters. it’s a dangerous outmoded design which will provide power for London NOT Suffolk . The substation at Friston would bury viable arable farmland that we will need to feed our own population after we leave the EU under acres of concrete and as there is already a substation at Bradwell on Sea in Essex the cables could easily be routed under the sea to the existing substation with minimal disruption and disfigurement to a site of great natural beauty on the famous approach to Aldeburgh. Please reconsider this damaging policy, this is not the way forward for an advanced economy when the majority of European countries and the World’s super powers are moving away from Nuclear technology in favour of less environmentally destructive renewables. Apart from anything else it currently costs £100 to produce a megawatt of electricity from nuclear power whereas it costs £39 to produce the same megawatt from Renewables.... surely it is clear which way the future lies? lets leave Suffolk a better, greener county for our children, not a blighted landscape buried in concrete and nuclear domes !!"

David Cowee
"Dear Examining Authority, I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk's light and sandy soil which blows and runs away causing visibility hazard and health issues. Impact on tourism DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income and jobs leading to social and economic decline"

David Steen
"I am writing to you with regards Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) planning application EA1N- PINS DCO application with regards the Friston Substation and register as an interested party. I wish to object to this application on the following grounds. The building of the SPR substation and National Grid inter connector is a major construction project that should not be placed in the middle of an unspoilt rural location. The reasons being. The planned site is far too close to Friston, a small thriving village with great historical interest. (Three Lord Mayors of London) are buried in the church yard. In effect it will blight the village . The local footpaths will be destroyed and local wildlife such as Badgers and Bats will be displaced. SPR has shown little concern for any of these issues. Noise pollution. There will be a constant loud hum from the the site that will blight all the surrounding areas. Light Pollution. There will be constant 24/7 lighting of the site which will cause major harm to both humans and nocturnal wildlife such as owls and bats. Destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. Flooding. SPR has shown very little concern over the risk of flooding to the village and surrounding areas. The impact that this will have on the village is enormous. The potential for home owners in the village not being able to get flood insurance or to have to pay much higher premiums has not been addressed. Traffic and Transport. The whole road network around the site and along the pipeline route from Thorpness to Friston is rural and unspoilt and is a major part of the charm of the area along the Suffolk coast. It is totally inadequate for this this size of construction project and the vast increase in traffic movements that will be required to service this construction. This traffic increase will blight the area for miles around and will severely damage the main industry and employment in this beautiful area which is based on tourism. SPR have tacitly shown that they are aware of this by the amount of “Road improvements” that they accept will be needed. SPR has shown a complete lack of concern with how the increase traffic will affect the area or come up with any proposals as to how they will effectively police their contractors/employees, making sure they stick to the correct routes and not use local villages and back roads as “rat runs” or what sanctions would be imposed on contractors who do not follow their instructions. Landfall and Cable Trench. The choice of landfall for the cables at Thorpeness is flawed. Again the destruction of footpaths, ancient woodlands and wildlife along the route is unacceptable. The timescale for building the cable trench for the project does not fall into the category of temporary. Site Design. No attempt has been made to reduce the impact of the site by using more up to date technologies."

Donald Oates
"Unacceptable to have 7 energy projects here in 12-15 years Friston sub station site entirely unsuited to a rural location Cable trenches are like motorway construction-appalling damage to the countryside see Bawdsey Quay Disturbance to local residents Threat to wildlife Destruction of woodlands Roads unsuited to this volume of HGV traffic HGV danger to other road users eg cyclists, pedestrians etc etc Light pollution and noise pollution Negative impact on tourism Closure of rights of way"

Elizabeth Everett
"The mature trees opposite my bungalow will be killed by the cable work planned to go right through the wood. The wood is home to many species of birds including jays, long tailed tits etc, plus deer & squirrels. Even if the trees are replaced they will take years to mature. I will never see that in my life time. This is the most beautiful place to live. The idea that my dog will continually bark as she always lets me know when there is someone in the lane or near by is very distressing for both her and me. I am all for renewable energy but there is a right place for everything and through the beautiful Suffolk countryside is not one of them. There is land available at Sizewell - use it!"

Flick and Son Surveyors and Estate Agents
"? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths"

Graham Bagnall
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower renewables planning application for the for the following reasons. The impact on the lives and livelihood of residents and business in the areas of Thorpeness,Friston,Aldringham will be disastrous Bringing hazards of huge volumes of traffic, resulting in air pollution and health issues. The removal and destruction of natural bird habitat as far as RSPB Minsmere. Aldeburgh with its famous music and art heritage will slip into decline as travel to these areas on already congested road will make unworthy of a visit. The 11 kilometres of cable to be laid will destroy people’s lives and wild habitat for a generation. UK residents will have their right to pursue a peaceful life snatched away for commercial reasons."

Jane Reiss Watson
"EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Janey Blanchflower
"I wish to object to both projects owing to their impact on the wildlife, AONB & Suffolk Sandlings Special Landscape Area, the ensuing light, noise and air pollution. The impact of the traffic during and after the construction period will swamp the existing road structure, have a negative impact on our important tourist industry and the movements of local residents such as myself. This project should not be treated as a purely economic exercise; the loss of irreplaceable landscape and permanent damage to the historic landscape cannot be offset by money and there are better brownfield sites on the East Anglian coastline e.g. Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth where there is high unemployment and economic despression and where there would be far less impact on the natural environment. There is also the option of other types of connections. The long term implications of this project have been ignored and the application site ill-conceived for the above reasons. Information has been incomplete and there has been insufficient liaison between EDF & SPR to assess cumulative impacts."

Margaret Dewey
"My objection to this scheme, (and any other of a similar nature), is that it demonstrates a total lack of strategic planning for the future energy needs of the United Kingdom. It is incomprehensible that such schemes should be proposed individually for a country as geographically small as the U.K. Has no-one in either the power industry, nor the Government even thought of looking at the country as a whole and taking into account not only where the energy is coming from, but also where it is needed, as well as how to do the least harmin linking the two."

Mark Watson
"It does no appear that the traffic re-routing during the construction has been designed to protect the area. How do you intend to stop traffic continually using Friston as a cut through to avoid construction traffic? Why has the decision been taken to have the access road to the site where it is currently planned?"

Mrs P Weston
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish council, and am very worried about the affect the project will have on the village of Friston and the surrounding area. My husband and I have lived in Essex for over 50 years , and raised a family and still farm there. After 20 years of spending time in Suffolk we decided that Friston is the most desirable place (we could easily re locate ) and after residing there for only 2 years are outraged that desecrating this rural community should be allowed to happen – these are some of my reasons: Friston Village supports an ageing population particularly vulnerable to disruption caused by the construction work, and later by the on going presence of such a dominant feature.This peace and tranquility has endured for centuries and should be preserved for generations to come. The Wider Area -ringed by listed buildings-5 grade11 , 2 grade 11*, re-routing of several ( often used) footpaths. The flood risk (already a problem). Desecration of wildlife on 83 acres of grade 2 and 3 agricultural land. All of the above render Friston unsuitable to provide accomodation for visitors enjoying nearby Aldeburgh and will therefore impact tourism and employment in the area. Communications In the last 2 years we have observed a considerable increase in traffic/congestion in the area. If this is bringing tourism/employment and reflects progression- it cannot be a bad thing, but surely the area cannot sustain the increase in traffic/pollution necessitated by this proposal. Cable Corridor Issues I am primarily concerned that this proposal will result in a further loss of habitat, agricultural land, and accentuate all of my above concerns to many more people living in such a large area. This impact, resources, and energy used in creating a cable corridor 9km. long are considerable. In conclusion I wish to say that whereas I have some understanding of the need for 'renewable energy', and do not consider myself to be a 'nimby', I think Friston is an impossibly bad choice of site."

Nick Cook
"Whilst I support green energy and wind power I object to the destruction of our heritage coast line. I firmly believe there are better locations for the proposed substations without ripping up AONB, destroying villages, wildlife habitat, the tourist industry, shops, restaurants and small businesses. It will cause an everlasting destruction of one of our country’s most natural and original coastal areas and communities. It is utterly abhorrent to even think that Scottish Power would not opt for an alternative. In the race for profits they have chosen to bully local communities and rough ride over the opinions and feelings of local residents, causing severe mental anguish to hundreds of people. All independent experts in the fields of landscape, heritage, noise and flooding have all concluded that Scottish Power’s preliminary Environmental Information Report was very poor unimpressive and potentially misleading. Both local councils have supported the evidence provided and rejected Scottish Powers plans. The entire population of Suffolk oppose their plans."

Olivia Dawson
"My family live in the town of Aldburgh and I am very concerned about the heavy traffic that the above proposition will bring to the town. It is a small seaside town with a huge tourist industry and hence lots of tourists wandering around. I think it is unfair to the people of the town to introduce all of these industrial vehicle into the town and ruin their tourist industry. It is also dangerous for all of the pedestrians spending their days walking around Aldeburgh. Another example of where it is dangerous to pedestrians is the Aldeburgh golf course where pedestrians have to frequently cross the main road. I therefore object to the prep position above."

PJR Watson
"? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths"

Sheridan Steen
"Firstly I support the development of renewable energy resources and accept the role that offshore wind plays. But I object to Scottish Power Renewables’ (SPR’s) proposed onshore infrastructure associated with East Anglia One North (EA1-N) and East Anglia Two (EA2) windfarms. With a minimum onshore construction period of between 4 to 8 yrs for SPR’s and National Grid’s associated works, Friston and surrounding communities and wildlife will suffer severe, unacceptable disruption. The complex is unacceptable in a rural, non-industrial setting, adjacent to a small village whose population is mainly of pensionable age. With listed buildings, including Friston Church and Friston windmill, reputedly the tallest post mill in the UK. Noise pollution: its anticipated that there will be an audible and constant “hum” from the substations. We demand that there is no discernible noise from the substations. Lighting of the site to be permanent, 24/7, initial consultation suggested that this would be unnecessary after the construction period. The permanent effect on neighbouring residential occupiers and fauna, particularly bats and owls, has not been addressed. SPR has failed to adequately demonstrate appropriate flood mitigation for surface water run-off from the substation sites. Existing watercourses already quickly reach capacity, as seen in 2019/20 - it is unclear how SPR propose to successfully manage this situation. SPR has stated that screening of the substation site by tree planting will be largely effective within 15 years. Highly unlikely, I question SPR’s assumptions on growth rates especially under expected climatic changes. I strongly suggest the mitigation planting will be largely ineffective for many more years. Who will manage/take responsibility for the care of these trees while they become established? I suspect that the impact of the loss of approx 83 acres of versatile agricultural land is underestimated in SPR’s Environmental Impact Assessment. I object to the felling of the ancient woodland at Aldringham. The environment within the AONB through which the cable corridor will pass from its landfall to the Friston substations is by definition both special and fragile. I believe that SPR’s measures to mitigate impacts on the AONB are inadequate. Particularly fragile is the environment around the landfall site at Thorpeness. The cumulative impacts on East Suffolk’s roads have been inadequately addressed. SPR are seeking Compulsory Purchase Orders to widen “pinch points” on main access roads, this will not address the problem that the roads are not designed to take the volume of HGV traffic that will be generated. In the event that Sizewell C is being constructed concurrently, the impacts on the A12 from HGV/LGV/ private car movements associated with the works will be unacceptable. There is likely to be “rat-running” by LGVs/private cars trying to avoid congestion on the A1094. Emergency vehicle (blue-light) access to Friston/Aldeburgh/Leiston and communities will be seriously impacted. On all roads there is limited (if any) footpaths, pedestrians/cyclists will be in acute danger. With the loss of tourism, jobs/income will be lost permanently as tourists choose to avoid visiting and staying in Aldeburgh/Thorpeness/Snape."

Susan Thompson
"Re: East Anglia North Offshore windfarm Planning inspectorate Ref EN010077. I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application as this project is just too huge for the fragile area which it will completely ruin. Green energy is meant to protect the environment not wreck it and the department of enviroment’s lack of strategy should not allow this area to be subject to 11 km of cable trenches which will wreck the local economy which relies heavily on tourism. The chaos on all the local roads will be a danger to all the communities, blocking off villages from emergency services, particularly important considering the presence of the Nuclear Power Station at Sizewell."

C J Bushell on behalf of A Bushell
"The proposed development will be a disaster for the local area in general and Aldeburgh town viitors and residents in particular. The construction phase will have a devastating effect due to the disproportionate volume of heavy construction traffic on all the small country and town roads that will be used. The adverse effects will be due to noise, safety of other road users including pedestrians, cyclists and holiday makers. The facilities that attract holiday makers, artists, nature and wild life lovers, older people who have come for their retirement years and all the residents will be ruined for at least the next ten years. The permant installations will be disproportionately large for a small agricultural and holiday area. A new location with an industrial heritage should be found which will benefit the area and not destroy it."

A G Meadows
"Dear Examining Authority. RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH TWO(and EAST ANGLIA ONE). I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for many reasons including the damage the laying of 11Km of cables and the construction of sub stations will do to environmentally sensitive areas including the distruction of ancient woodland. Surely the unspoilt countryside of Friston is not the place for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium."

Alan Cardy
"I note the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and support and personally agree with all the issues raised in their submission. I live just 300 metres from the proposed sub-station site and less than 200 metres from the proposed haul-way I am extremely concerned by the proposals set out in Scottish Power’s Development Consent Order application. My main areas of concern are as follows:- • The negative visual impact in respect of both the permanent and temporary loss of century’s old rural views. The cable route will remain a scar along its length for many years after the completion of the EAN1 & EA2 cable installation especially as there is no commitment to remove the haul-way at the end of the works and there is an acknowledgement in the order that further projects are being lined up to utilise the National Grid facility at Friston. • The temporary and permanent destruction of habitat to the high quality agricultural and natural landscape including that of the AONB. • The negative impact on the cultural heritage of this part of East Suffolk. Friston has a number of Listed Buildings within sight of the proposed sub-station. • Noise – The permanent and temporary impact of the proposals including tonality. The figures that form part of the application appear to be somewhat arbitrary and questionable.. • Lighting I am disturbed by the potential implications for dark skies and the effect on local fauna. • The disruption to the whole area during the construction and pre-construction stages with increased traffic movements of both heavy commercial vehicles and unregulated private vehicles associated with the construction, the construction activity itself, the closure of rights of way, etc. • Economic Impacts a) The permanent on-shore infrastructure, the temporary construction works, the disruption to traffic and the destruction of natural and built heritage will have a significant detrimental effect on tourism. b) The proposals will result in the loss of prime agricultural land at Friston and along the cable route will lead to economic loss. c) There will be virtually no jobs for residents of East Suffolk except possibly a few in Lowestoft in respect of the off-shore infrastructure. d) The loss of value in residential properties in the vicinity of the development. • The fragility of the coast at the landfall site. • The design and scale of the substations along with the National Grid Facility along with the unfathomable decision to locate it immediately adjacent to so many residential properties is a matter of grave concern especially. • The acknowledgement that the cable route is not to be sterilised for further cables to be laid confirms National Grid’s intention to develop the hub at Friston. The cumulative effect of these plus the probability of Sizewell C going ahead demands that the implication of these other developments be considered as part of this application to develop. • I am also concerned that the so called consultation process prior to the submission of the application has been little more than a sham and flawed tick box exercise."

Andrew Mills
"Fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs, dominating small village liable to flooding, Noise pollution, and Light pollution... Suffolks light sandy soil blowing away and causing visibility and health hazards... Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths... Huge loss to businesses with decline in tourism."

Anne Middleton-Smith
"I own a house in Thorpeness and have known the area for over 40 years. This area is a magnificent area of outstanding natural beauty and huge diversity in wild flowers, birds and wildlife. There is uninterrupted peace and beautiful landscape. I believe that the proposals will hugely interrupt and spoil all of the above."

Anthony Agar
"This is on of up to 7 known energy projects over 12 to 15 years and I am concerned about the snowball effect Thorpeness Cliffs are sensitive and totally unsuitable for this amount of disruption A substation complexof this size is totally inappropriate for this rural setting and its community and I am concerned about this impact on many levels - e.g. flood risk, impact on environment of traffic, light pollution, noise, congestion, risk of accidents for walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc. Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Destruction of ancient woodland The Local road network is completely unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. We are already experiencing a lot of increased traffic and problems associated. Suffolk is quick to shut down if there is a small problem now Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies are an important aspect of life here - to residents and visitors alike Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost, as per light Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered. Impact on tourism is a major concern. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area. Tourism is a strategically vital driver of our economy. I am concerned about loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) - these are very important part of sustaining our county and enabling it to offer a quality of life which people rightly expect here."

Anthony Boyne
"Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for such large structures. 11km of cables trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas. Threat to wildlife and the important sandlings Heath. Destruction of ancient woodland. Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. Light and noise pollution. Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables."

B Harris
"Dear Sirs I wish to object to the ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: 1. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for large substation complexes. 2. Cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas and threatening wildlife. 3. Local road network is unsuitable for high traffic levels and more HGVs 4. Impact on on roads and the inevitable delays for emergency services endangering lives. 5. Cumulative impact on local communities with many energy projects occurring consecutively over 12-15 years. 6. Impact on tourism in the local areas."

Belinda Agar
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

C Gale
"I WISH TO OBJECT TO THIS SCOTTISH POWER RENEWABLES PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) The devastating effect on wildlife including that which relies on the Sandlings Heath and our ancient woodlands. This project would split an area of outstanding natural beauty that several species currently rely on as a wildlife corridor for mate location and migration purposes. (2) The haul roads and cable trenches will be too close to residential homes. (Local road network is unsuitable for increased traffic levels, particularly when many of the vehicles will be large, and as someone who has relied heavily on ambulances I worry about delays in emergency vehicles reaching our largely elderly community). (3) Increased air pollution which can be hazardous to health. (Noise and light pollution are also issues). (4) The impact on tourism, which provides many local jobs, particularly for our young people. Once people stop coming to a particular holiday area they rarely return. (Economic decline would be the result.) (5) Impact on day to day life due to the difficulty in using local roads and the closure of footpaths and cycle paths. (6) One rural area can not cope with the negative effects of multiple energy projects within the next decade. I have many more concerns, but these are my main worries at this time."

C J Bushell
"The proposed development is too large for a small town and rural holiday and retirement area. The roads are too small and will be unsafe for the normal road users during the construction phase. The permanent installations will be disproportionately large for a small agricultural and holiday area. A new location with an industrial heritage must be found which will benefit the area and not destroy it."

Candida Woolley
"The proposed Area for construction are tiny villages quite unsuitable for a huge substation, which will dwarf them There are insufficient shops from all the workers on the building site The roads are too narrow for the construction traffic. The famous tranquillity and charm of the area will deter tourists who are traditional along the coast since Victorian Times , put off by the heavy traffic , on which local businesses depend The local wildlife will be adversely affected. Are there not brownfield sites which could be used for the substation?"

Carola Spence
"Cummulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects over 12 to 15 years. Use of unspoilt countryside at small village of Friston for substation complexes size of Wembley Stadium. Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs Adverse impact on local tourism. Adverse impact on local businesses. Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. Increased traffic on roads, a danger to walkers, cyclists and residents. Permanent and temporary closure of footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths Drastic change of local environment for population who have lived in the area, many for a lifetime"

Celia M Bell
"RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for substations dangerously close and dominating a small village. The following reasons are relevant but by no means including all aspects of the issues raised by the proposal: • Cumulative impact on local communities: With up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years the cumulative impact on local communities and the local economy along the Suffolk Coastal district and several miles inland will be significant. o SPR Renewables as objecting to here o Sizewell C o National Grid Ventures Interconnectors • Nautilus o Eurolink o Expansion of offshore windfarms • Galloper • Greater Gabbard • Human Impact: The human impact of the SPR proposals with the cumulative impact on local communities would be significant Visual impact and loss of environmental resource: o There will be a loss of important footpaths, in particular around Friston. These footpaths are regularly used and enjoyed by villagers and visitors and lead trade to the local pubs and other businesses. To lose these will be to lose a significant local resource. The footpath (FP6) running north from the village to Little Moor Farm will be permanently closed. This footpath is the historic parish boundary between Friston and Knodishall and, whilst alternative routes are proposed, these in no way replace the existing paths and will certainly not be attractive to walk on due to the presence of the proposed sub-stations. o The impact of the substations visually from the village and surrounding properties will be significant. What have been unspoilt views of woodland and open farmland will be rudely interrupted by the substations which are threatening to be as high as the houses of Parliament and as large as Wembley Stadium. Our historic church in Friston, at which 3 Lord Mayors of London are buried, will be overshadowed by the huge development. Mental and Physical Health impact: o The uncertainty resulting from the SPR proposals has had a significant impact on the wellbeing of people in our local communities, in particular residents of Friston and surrounding area. The impact on mental health of residents is worrying; the uncertainty, the detrimental financial impact and concern for future noise and light pollution is destroying lives. o There has been a loss of equity for home owners in Friston and the local area affected by the proposals. There is clear evidence of a significant fall in value of properties. There is also evidence of being unable to sell properties as the result of the proposals. This has locked families and elderly people into difficult situations – having to stay in a house when jobs move, not being able to downsize etc. o There is huge concern over damage to quality of life through noise and light pollution, both during the building phase and when operational. The substation is planned to be too close to domestic residences in Friston and breach guidelines. • Flood Risk: The current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate. SPR state clearly there is an increase in flood risk and sediment mobilisation due to the development but fails to show that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient, feasible or achievable. No assessment of the adequacy of the Friston Watercourse has been undertaken and SPR take no proper account of surface water flooding. SPR propose two new retention ponds on the substation site but ignore the existing field drainage system, which will be removed. • Impact on Wildlife and ecosystems: Not only will there be destruction of ancient woodland in order to build the substations and drive the cable corridor the long distance from the coast, but the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB will be disrupted, causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. The apparently lunatic plan to drive 11km of cable trenches inland from the coast will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. A ring main at sea or placing the substation next to Sizewell would mitigate all of these effects. • Economic Impact: There are reports from governmental organisations pointing to the impact on tourism of the SPR proposals. Traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area resulting in an impact on businesses through loss of trade and a loss of jobs leading to social and economic decline. The SPR proposals will not bring any long-term employment to the area. Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) will compound the impact on tourism."

Clare Gittins
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application in the strongest possible terms, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close to and completely dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs - detrimental to local economy ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives for a population which already lives 40 minutes from the nearest hospital ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Clare Richardson
"I wish to object to this Scottish power Renewables planning application because of: - the hugely adverse impact it will have on local communities with as many as 7 projects lasting up to 15 years. - the impact it will have on the wildlife and environment in this very special area. - the impact it will have on the local economy- tourism is a key component of this and these projects will deter tourists and hence impact on local businesses whose livelihood comes from the tourist industry. I cannot understand why a project designed to have a beneficial effect on our country and our environment such as offshore wind energy can be allowed to have such a devastating effect on the very environment it is designed to save. A better solution such as offshore hubs and brownfield sites must be found."

David Mackie
"The justified need for offshore wind energy is no reason for allowing proposals for sub stations that have not been thought through. The plans suffer from most of the shortcomings identified by Substation Action. As a former judge of the Planning Court I know that objections are not improved by repetition so I avoid further detail."

David Weston
"Whilst I recognise the need for low carbon energy, I do not believe that the current proposals submitted by Scottish Power Renewables are consistent with a reasoned development of the East Suffolk Coastal Area, economically or enviromentally. I think that they will result in a major degradation of residential and visitor amenities. In expressing my concern over these proposals, I fully support the representations of SASES and the Friston Parish Council. The construction process will inevitably be lengthy, noisy and disruptive to local residents and visitors with significant increases in traffic movement, much of it heavy. I would agree that there are conflicting arguments for some of these factors but overall, I think the further inland any development is situated ,the greater collateral damage will be. I believe that it is essential that any consideration of this proposal be conducted in combination with other existing and pending power supply and transmission industry applications; and that the combined impact that these proposals will have on this fragile enviroment and its communities ,be fully assessed. The area has regenerated in the last ten years as a popular holiday destination, appreciated by thousands of visitors for it's tranquility and beauty. Long term, the power industry does not create many jobs, but it's presence, if not carefully controlled may well lead to a massive loss of amenity value for the area which will impact shops, hotels, restaurants, housing and local employment. Mitigation proposals as outlined by SPR are inadequate and unlikely to be achievable. In particular, growth rates for shelter belts appear to be over optimistic for this locality. Friston, already has a localised flooding and drainage issues which .because of its topography , are not easily solvable. A 30 acre concrete site is likely to exacerbate this. I make the point that once field capacity is reached (generally mid November) storage capacity fills up naturally so any further rainfall can result in flooding. Our local rivers demonstrate this admirably. In conclusion, my view is that these proposals should not be allowed to proceed without more detailed consideration and that it is essential that individual power company interests are only allowed to progress as part of a coordinated power supply scheme which minimizes damage to this beautiful area."

Derek Brough
"This project is being sited so close to Friston Village that we can almost touch it. We will be living cheek to jowl with it. It cannot be right that such a huge industrial complex should be built near to a beautiful quiet village. CUMULATIVE IMPACT of all of the likely future projects; Sizewell C, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper, HUMAN IMPACT not just to wildlife but to those who will life literally on the edge of this project; nothing previously has been built so close to a functioning village. We can see this project from our Grade 2* listed Church. Its unprecedented and unnecessary to be so close to the village. LANDSCAPE - the visual harm cannot be mitigated and the proposed mitigation by way of trees will take many years to grow. HERITAGE – the site is ringed by listed buildings. 5 grade II and two grade II* SITE SELECTION – there has been defective process re National Grid works. LAND USE will be substantial LIGHT POLLUTION during construction and operation. I think this is grossly underestimated. SOCIO ECONOMIC – ONSHORE – this will not give permanent jobs to the local community. It will put off tourists both in the short and long term which will impact on tourism revenues and jobs. FLOOD RISK - I don’t accept that this is property investigated yet. Friston already has flooding and I don’t believe that proper assessment of the Friston Watercourse and drainage has been done. Sorting this out after the event could be disastrous for the village. NOISE - I don’t accept we will not hear this project. Bramford – of which this is a mirror image, is a long way from residential properties. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT - it will be inevitable that lorries and traffic will “short cut” through the heart of Friston CABLE CORRIDOR ISSUES are being glossed over. Huge amounts of cables literally being bulldozed through communal and country areas. Destruction of woodland. Unacceptable siting to residential properties."

Edward Gold
"We object strongly to the planning application of Scottish Power Renewables for the following reasons: - The effect of up to 7 energy projects going ahead together would result in up to 12 years of major construction work on our heritage coast in the AONB. This is clearly unacceptable. - The proposed development will do immense damage to the local economy, in particular, tourism. The construction traffic levels, the many kilometres of cable trenches, and sheer size and extent of the construction sites will undoubtedly deter visitors coming and as the area is heavily dependent upon tourism, this will lead to social and economic decline. - We object to the proposals to put the substations at Friston and as residents of Aldeburgh object most strenuously to the proposed transport routes for the construction traffic associated with the projects. - The plan to route HGVs used in the construction of the landfall site from the A12 down the A1094 to Aldeburgh and up the B1122 to the B1353 and to Thorpeness makes no sense. HGVs coming into Aldeburgh down the Saxmundham Road and then turning at the Tesco roundabout to take the Leiston Road will cause a significant safety risk at the Aldeburgh Golf Club where Members and visitors cross the A1094 Saxmundham Road on foot constantly through the day to gain access to and from the 9 holes River Course. Many of those golfers are young children and elderly people as the 9 holes course suits them better and, unless the developers were required to provide an underpass, there is a significant risk that increased HGV and other traffic will lead to serious accidents for pedestrians. Moreover, the roundabout at the junction with the B 1122 Leiston Road is already a pinch point, always congested and used by schoolchildren on their way to and from Aldeburgh primary school, residents going to the two supermarkets and the pub as well as those using the Jubilee Path. This area is already the most heavily-used pedestrian and vehicle access route in the town. - The proposed landfall site at Thorpeness is wholly unsuitable. Landfall should not be made on this stretch of the Suffolk coast as there will be damage done to many features of the area that make it so important for it to be preserved. The cliffs at Thorpeness are extremely fragile. Ideally the substations should be sited on brownfield sites well away from villages and well screened. - The proposal will involve the digging of cable trenches and the use of roads that are too close to residential development. - Ancient woodlands will be lost. - The Sandlings and their associated wildlife will be put at risk. - Noise, light and, inevitably air pollution from the traffic will all be increased – forever!"

Frances Cardy
"I note the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and support and personally agree with all the issues raised in their submission. I live just 300 metres from the proposed sub-station site and less than 200 metres from the proposed haul-way I am extremely concerned by the proposals. My main areas of concern are as follows:- • The negative visual impact in respect of both the permanent and temporary loss of century’s old rural views. The cable route will remain a scar along its length for many years after the completion of the EA1N & EA2 cable installation especially as there is no commitment to remove the haul-way at the end of the works and there is an acknowledgement in the order that further projects are being lined up to utilise the National Grid facility at Friston. • The negative impact on the cultural heritage of this part of East Suffolk Noise – The permanent and temporary impact of the proposals. The figures that form part of the application appear to be somewhat arbitrary and questionable. • The disruption to the whole area especially during the construction and pre-construction stages with increased traffic movements of both heavy commercial vehicles and the construction activity itself. • Economic Impacts:- a) The permanent on-shore infrastructure, the temporary construction works, the disruption to traffic and the destruction of natural and built heritage will have a significant detrimental effect on tourism. b) The proposals will result in the loss of prime agricultural land at Friston and along the cable route will lead to economic loss. c) There will be virtually no jobs for local residents. d) The loss of value in residential properties in the vicinity of the development. The net economic impact is and will be wholly negative. • The design and scale of the substations along with the National Grid Facility and the unfathomable decision to locate it immediately adjacent to so many residential properties is a matter of grave concern. • The acknowledgement that the cable route is not to be sterilised for further cables to be laid confirms National Grid’s intention to develop the hub at Friston. The cumulative effect of these plus the probability of Sizewell C going ahead demands that the implication of these other developments be considered as part of this application to develop. • I am also concerned that the consultation process prior to the submission of the application has been little more than a sham and flawed tick box exercise. • Personal Impact –(Redacted) we realised that it would probably be a prudent decision to move to a location and property which would meet our future needs. Before putting matters in hand we were confronted by Scottish Power’s proposals for EA2 and EAN1. So we cannot sell and the valuations we have obtained are now less than the value we paid for it some 15 years ago. (Redacted) so the property is now totally unsuitable for our needs."

Frances Margaret Mary Robey
"As a former resident of, and frequent visitor to this area, I object strenuously to the construction of this substation. Other less devastating options have not been explored, notably brown site or off shore. The risk and reality is that if this is passed, it will open the way for a deluge of similar operations across the countryside. The beauty of the Suffolk heritage Coast will be drastically undermined by this proposal and an inevitable impact on the rural economy will follow. It will deter visitors, compromise the enjoyment of residents and, whilst I am ardently in favour of clean energy a less invasive solution should be fully explored first."

Georgia Gaydon
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power renewables planning application, for the following reasons: - detrimental impact on the local community - fragility of Thorpeness cliffs for landing cables - destruction of ancient woodland - Noise pollution. - Decrease in tourism affecting local business. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area."

Harry Barclay
"Cumulative effect of up to 7 energy projects is too much on communities and the local environment. Fragility of eroding Thorpeness cliff is a danger to public and homes. One fatality about 2 years ago. Spread of industrial energy development inland to rural Friston. Cable trenches and haul routes destroying habitats and too close to residential areas. Construction activity would intrude into tourist activities and reduce visitor numbers to coast attractions. Permanent closure of countryside rights of way including closure of footpath crossings on the local rail lines. A link main needs to collect all the energy from wind farms and run undersea from the Suffolk and Norfolk coast to lead to the Thames estuary for landfall well away from homes."

Helen Payne
"1. I am in favour of wind power. I am in favour of offshore wind farms. I am against the on-shoring of capacity which destroys unspoilt countryside when better solutions exist using brownfield sites and off-shore hubs. Green energy risks becoming dirty green energy. 2. No other substation has ever been built so close to a village community. Friston dates from the Middle Ages and cutting it up and inserting this monolith will destroy a rural way of life which has existed since then. To wilfully destroy a medieval inheritance is unprecedented and demands investigation. The proposal will particularly impact children, elderly and vulnerable residents. Tranquil countryside is known to be good for mental and physical health. 3. The construction phase would bring dust, noise, light pollution, increased traffic. The construction period will take a long time, and these deleterious effects will only heighten in the event of consecutive developments. 4. Post-construction, the inevitable increase in noise will blight the peace. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution. The vast scale of the sub-station will dominate the landscape. Mitigation through a limited planting programme is futile and will take years. The peace and beauty of the surrounding countryside will be lost. The area is criss-crossed by ancient footpaths which are a joy to discover and re-discover. 5. There will be a long-lasting negative impact on biodiversity. This part of Suffolk is the habitat for many species of small mammals and birds many of which are threatened species as well as rare wildflowers. The area is surrounded by moats and ponds. These provide habitats for newts, toads, hare, hedgehogs, ferrets, occasional otters, muntjac, deer, owls, buzzards and other birds of prey, many of these species are in danger of decline. 6. The proposal will cause economic harm to East Suffolk: Friston is a jewel in the East Suffolk countryside. It is a charming rural idyll, and yet conveniently situated for the thousands of tourists who visit East Suffolk annually, with the coast nearby and Saxmundham’s supermarkets and train station up the road. The substation will bring no wealth to the area but will blight tourism. It will deter inward investment and harm capital values of properties: many of these are listed and unlisted heritage assets, some dating from the 16th century. The environment they are in will be diminished, their value will drop and with it the incentive to properly guard and maintain them will be lost. Realistically, people will not spend money cherishing a house which is spoilt by a sub-station which destroys the countryside and village around it. 7. Finally, I adopt all the submissions made by Substation Action|Save East Suffolk and Friston Parish Council."

Henrietta Villiers
"There are 7 proposed projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years that will have a cumulative detrimental impact on local communities. Use of unspoilt and fragile countryside - the landing site at Thorpeness cliffs and the area around Friston is not suitable Threat to wildlife Destruction of ancient woodland Pollution by high traffic levels Noise and light pollution Increased traffic creating danger to normal road users Impact on tourism leading to loss of trade, endangering local jobs and leading to economic decline The closing off of access to nature"

Ian Henderson
"At a personal level, I am a resident of Aldeburgh living on a road which will be negatively affected during the construction period. However, there are numerous other reasons why I believe this is a poorly conceived solution to bringing power ashore from the offshore wind farms. There will be a cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. The proposed landing sites for cables is unsatisfactory because of the fragile nature of the Thorpeness cliffs. The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for the substation is tragic and the affect it will have on the village is detrimental. Furthermore, the requirement to lay underground cables from Thorpeness to Friston is unnecessary if a closer site was chosen and hugely disruptive in the construction period. There is an obvious threat to wildlife in the Sandlings Heath. There will also be some destruction of ancient woodland. Of particular concern to me due to the proposed route for construction traffic is the local road network which is totally unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs especially the proposal to route traffic through the roundabout in Aldeburgh. This will produce danger, chaos, noise and air pollution. Aldeburgh is a popular tourist resort with an internationally renowned golf course whose tranquillity and attraction will be negatively affected during the construction phase. There will be a detrimental impact on the economy of Aldeburgh and area as a holiday resort. There could also be some permanent and certainly temporary closure of footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths. In summary, a better way to bring the power shore from offshore wind farms must be found that does not have such a recklessly profound impact on an outstandingly beautiful part of England. Ian Henderson"

Jan Gooding
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council - As a regular visitor to Friston Village - please acknowledge my objection to this application. It is shocking that a Green Energy project has shown such disregard to the local people and the impact on such an area of exceptional beauty. Profit has been prioritised over people and the natural world. The issues are substantial both during construction and thereafter as a permanent blight. Noise pollution During construction: 24/7 generators to power lighting. Industrial equipment during the working day (6 days a week). When substation turned on: 34dBLAeq5min reference level now proposed rather than 35dBLLAeq15min but currently only applies to residential homes marked as SSR2 and SSr5 - rather than all residential locations. Super-grid transformers and their cooling fans are noisy but Harmonic Filters now identified as the noisiest items (also tallest at 18m) which are now unscreened! SPR claim no ‘humming’ noise (Tonality) – this is nonsense, go and stand near Galloper at Sizewell to hear the hum. Impact of atmospheric effects is also a concern (elephants communicating at dawn/dusk). There should be no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside our homes in Friston day or night – this should be proven by measurement prior to construction, not just a calculation on paper. Light pollution During construction: 24/7 industrial security lighting for site (plus all other construction consolidation sites). During operation: security lighting possibly motion sensitive Pollution – generators will be belching out fumes 24/7 Fumes from industrial equipment during working day Flood risk Current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate. SPR state clearly there is an increase in flood risk and sediment mobilization due to their development – but does not show that their proposed mitigation measures are sufficient, feasible or achievable. No assessment of the adequacy of the Friston Watercourse has been undertaken. SPR take no proper account of surface water flooding. SPR propose two new retention ponds on the substation site but ignore the existing field drainage system (which will be removed). These matters of environmental impact must be addressed prior to consent. Onshore ecology Permanent removal of approximately 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the substation site is unacceptable. There will be permanent effects on birds and wildlife due to light and noise pollution from the substations. Cable route: During the lengthy construction period all types of wildlife along the cable route will be disrupted and/or displaced. Permanent loss of ancient woodland. Landfall at Thorpeness – cliffs already fragile Route far too close to residential housing. Construction noise assessment and impact on residents grossly underestimated. There is no commitment to restore woodland or to remove the haul roads and return land to as before. Substation design issues There is no low impact design for this site – it is all about the ‘bottom line’ there is no requirement to consider the inhabitants of the surrounding area (both human and wildlife) The technology exists to make this building smaller/less intrusive and for it to be quiet – this would cost money that SPR are not willing to spend. Traffic/Roads Inadequate and delusional proposals made."

Jane Dyer
"Dear Examining Authority. RE. EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: 1. The cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years 2. The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for the Substation complex, at it's size I support the use of offshore windfarms but strongly feel that Scottish Power should invest in the technology to take the substations offshore too. There is enough disturbance of the countryside with the cable trenches without adding to this with onshore Substations."

Jane MacFarlane
"I do not object to wind farms, as they generate the electricity needed. What I object to are the, mainly foreign, companies who appear to have looked at a map of East Anglia and planned the most convenient, i.e. cheapest, way to distribute the elctricity generated. In doing this, the fact that the map represents a living environment for people, ancient flora, fauna, birds and businesses, seems to have been treated as an inconvenience. When offshore substations can be used, why decimate unspoilt countryside with an initial building complex of approximately 97,200 square metres in size, with more to come, 11kms of cable trenches, destroying a fragile ecosystem. The transport infrastructure is already on overload, especially at peak periods, so the hundreds of extra vehicles would cause havoc, especially to the emergency services. Million as of business pounds generated by tourism in this area,will be threatened by not only traffic congestion but, who wants to holiday in the proposed Suffolk Coastal Energy Building site during the next 12- 15 years! In East Anglia, land is gradually being encroached by the sea, and with global warming, we should be aware that what is built may eventually be under water. We are a small island with finite countryside, once destroyed, it will not return, robbing future generations."

Jayne Bridge
"I don’t feel that this is the correct position for the wind farm because 1 country lanes not wide enough for HGV vehicles 2 Loose our countryside 3 loose all the wild life and wild plants and flowers 4 country walks and bike rides 5 what preparations have you made for major accidents 6 what preparations for if Sizewell has a major incident 7 people will have there properties devalued due to major construction 8 loss of Holiday makers that come and stay in this village 9 constant humming noise from wind farm 10 very bright lights and security lights. We will loose the night skies and looking at the stars I feel this is the wrong place and location considering we have Sizewell just up the road"

Jennifer Milloy
"To the Examination Panel, Herewith are our objections to Scottish Power's DCO for EA1N and EA2: - This is an industrial sized complex being placed inappropriately in a quiet rural setting. - The roads in the area are narrow and totally unsuitable for the heavy lorries and machinery needed for a project of this size. - The 'so called' camouflage of trees will not be of a size to disguise the site for many years leaving an ugly industrial site clearly visible. - The site has been chosen to suit a multi national company with no thought for the damage this will do to the lives of the local residents. - There is land available close to Sizewell which is already an industrial site, it is not a site of great beauty although in the area designated as such. - The light sandy soils in the area will be wind blown during construction causing potential harm to the health of the local population, including a local school. - As usual the requirements of big business are being put before the needs of thousands of local people. Regards Martin and Jennifer Milloy"

Jeremy Gittins
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Joey Gaydon
"Terrible disruption to this are of outstanding beauty.. fragile cliffs at aThorpness unsuitable for landing cables. Substations at Friston.. What are you thinking! ... Along with Temporary closures of bridleways footpaths the list goes on..."

John White
"I Support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and I would also like my concerns taken into account. The quality of life for many years will be damaged by noise, high volume of traffic and light pollution. Mill Road is bound to become a rat run. The road is single track in places and there is no footpath although housing is on both sides of the road. The beautiful landscape will be destroyed, country footpaths will be lost. Wild life will be destroyed and the flood risk will be increased. Tourism will be drastically effected and the value of property will be slashed leaving many people vulnerable. Already people can’t sell due to the effect of this monstrosity. The visual design is too large for the area and I strongly object to the construction being built in the area."

Jonathan Thomson
"For the attention of the Examining Authority, RE: East Anglia North One, I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: 1. The cumulative impact on local communities in this area of up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over 12-15 years; 2. The unsuitablility and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as the site for landing cables; 3. The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for a very large sub-station complex; 4. Threats to flora and fauna in Sandlings Heath and elsewhere in this AONB; 5. Destruction of ancient woodland; 6. Our local road network is not capable of or built for the high traffic levels that will be required, including the need for even more HGVs; 7. Light pollution; 8. Noise pollution; Air pollution, if only from the increased traffic; 9. Increased traffic congestion, endangering local pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, and also creating potential for delays to emergency services; 10. Impact on tourism, which in turn would create a negative impact on local businesses and employment; 11. Permanent and temporary closure of footpaths, bridlepaths and cycle paths; 12. Emergency evacuation routes from Sizewell would be severely and negatively impacted. For these reasons I object to this planning application. It is not that I object to the development of renewable energy, but they must not be allowed to destry an ancient and irreplaceable environment."

Karen Flower
"I live in Friston and object to the devastation to communities and the environment that the building and siting of the huge permanent substations by SPR will cause. I support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. I work full time and am based mainly from home in Friston. The substations will have a significantly detrimental impact to the heritage of the village and surrounding area. No mitigation by SPR with their suggestion to plant native plants and trees, will ever replace the loss of more than 80 acres of quiet open countryside and disguise substations 18 metres at their highest. Flooding is of real concern following significant flooding in the village in 2019 which without intervention by resident almost entered homes and the village pub following heavy rain running off the fields. SPR know that there is an increase in flood risk due to their planned onshore development. However, the is no demonstration that their proposed mitigation measures are enough or even achievable. I walk daily around the village and it is a pleasure to use the footpaths and public rights of way. Under plans walking the historic path between Friston and Knodishall will not be possible as the footpath will be permanently closed. Residents close to the siting of the substation will likely experience noise after construction. Changes in the weather result in traffic on the A1094 being in Friston some days and not others. Pigs in the fields can be heard some days and not others. There should be no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside local houses and this would need to be measured. Quiet country lanes surround the village and the character will be destroyed with new traffic routes installed during construction. SPR and National Grid claims to have consulted with a range of stakeholders. However, suggestions by SASES and others to ‘digg’ substations into the landscape have been ignored. Throughout the process there has been a total lack of strategic, long term planning by central government, local government and the energy sector to address the cumulative impact of seven other energy projects in Suffolk. There will be no benefit locally, no jobs, and woodland permanently removed by an offshore windfarm that requires 9km of destructive cable corridor to bring power onshore."

Karen Hudson
"I wish to object to the ScottishPower renewables planning application for the following reasons. Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12-15 year timeframe. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes completely out of scale with countryside Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and HGVs Light and noise pollution losing Suffolk’s famous dark skies, peace and tranquility Impact on tourism"

Kate Thomson
"I would like to Object Due to The effect the infrastructure needed ie of the laying of the cabling and Hub on the sensitive landscape Ie increasing traffic disturbing woodland and wildlife"

Kim Monfared
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: I am very concerned about the threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings heath. Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. Light pollution. With the loss of Suffolk’s beautiful dark skies. Increased traffic on the already busy roads, posing a threat to pedestrians, residents and cyclists. 11km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas."

Margaret Knight
"1. Objection I object to the onshore elements of the proposal as a resident of Friston although I am not opposed to green energy I am opposed to the onshore industrialisation as proposed to be sited immediately next to my village. This will destroy a beautiful village that has remained unspoiled for 100’s of years on the beautiful Heritage Coast. If the application as its stands is approved, footpaths used by local people, myself included, and by tourists will be closed creating an industrial landscape and devastation for the village and surrounding Heritage Coast. a. noisy and visually intrusive substation complex; b. new National Grid connection hub; c. Inappropriate site selection; d. flawed impact assessment. over 30 acres - 18m high, in a rural community next to the flood prone historic village of Friston together with: a. impossible to mitigate onshore aspects of the project. 2. CUMULATIVE IMPACT - SPR have not addressed the impact of EA1N with 5 other major energy projects in the same area, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper, Greater Gabbard expansion and Sizewell C. 3. SITE SELECTION - The National Grid substation will be used for several projects 4. FLOOD RISK a. SPR has not adequately assessed flood risk impact to Friston. b. Flood issues cannot remain unresolved. 5. LAND USE a. There is a significant loss of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land, over 30 hectares. 6. HERITAGE a. impacts upon five Grade II and two Grade II* listed buildings. b. visualisations do not include key views. c. historic parish/hundred boundary over substation site. 7. NOISE a. The Environmental Statement has many errors and omissions. b. Noise levels unacceptable - rural environment with low night time noise level. c. Working hours 6 days per week unacceptable destroying resident’s peaceful enjoyment. 8. TRAFFIC a. A12 / A1094 junction is an accident blackspot - mitigation inadequate. b. Impact to emergency vehicles. c. only Heavy Goods Vehicles will be monitored. d. pre-construction impacts on rural life in a village 100’s of years old. e. roads are too narrow for construction. 9. HUMAN HEALTH a. traffic and the noise, air, light pollution and disruption over 5/6 years even before the impact of other projects. b. permanent loss of footpaths, tranquillity, landscape/heritage damage, noise and light pollution. c. financial uncertainty. 10. LANDSCAPE i. site selection impacts on landscape and visuals. ii. due to inappropriateness of location the substations would: a. Sever the village which is open and rural. b. Require an access road, 1.7km long and 8m wide; c. Harm the setting of Friston Church (Grade II*); d. Requires 9km long cable routes. Issues: - a. planting cannot mitigate development b. no visuals showing the scheme and Friston village together. c. lack of detail e.g. the access road. d. no viewpoints from the footpaths north of the site. 11. TOURISM, SOCIO ECONOMIC a. Friston village holds fund raising events e.g. Open Gardens, Classics on the Green – tourists unlikely to visit if the village is destroyed by the onshore construction works and permanent industrialisation. b. Financial compensation will never mitigate the impacts on Friston. 12. FOOTPATHS a. the permanent closure of a well-used footpath leading north from the village of Friston. 13. SUBSTATION DESIGN a. An independent designer to verify and consider a low impact design solution. b. National Grid’s developments should be subject to the same design criteria as SPR. 14. LIGHT POLLUTION a. There will be significant light pollution given the “dark skies” of a rural environment. b. Construction 6 day working to 7pm and on occasion 7 day and 24 hour working. c. No indication as to how frequently lighting will be needed for maintenance. 15. SAFETY a. No risk assessment has been provided for the substations. b. Gas Insulated switchgear is potentially harmful - potential leaks, no mitigation. c. The safety and security of all residents unmitigated."

Martin Binning
"Re East Anglia North 1: I wish to object for the following reasons. 1 If allowed it will ruin a large tract of pleasant countryside and Friston Village. 2 The trench proposed will cause enormous local inconvenience to all traffic and should surely have as short a route as possible. 3 The duration of this and other proposed works will be a blight on the area for years with the knock on economic effect. 4 Assuming that the substation ( if that is the right term) has to be in this area would not near Leiston dump be a better site with a far shorter trench needed to connect to the wind farms and far less disruption."

Michael Farley
"Sirs or Madams I writing this as to my concerns on the proposed developments by Scottish Power EA1N. I live in the village were this development is intended and it seams to me that there has been very little thought about the disruption this will cause to the village of Friston. It has very small and narrow roads that by what is being proposed will more or less cut us off at times. Most of the residents of Friston are (to be polite ) older which means that there is more demand for medical services with the nearest at Saxmundham and Leiston getting there at times of need is vital for the residents. Also carers and visiting nursing staff which are essential for some residents may not be able to get to there patients when needed this will also apply to emergency services ambulances, police and fire. Bus services will also be disrupted and/or by-pass Friston due to the works meaning that people will be more stuck and unable to go shopping or attending there various hobbies, friends and pastimes which are a great benefit to older people. The damage to the environment is also a concern. This is a very beautiful area and a lot of it is likely to be destroyed or changed, damaging the abundant wildlife here. Some footpaths will be lost or changed to skirt the development which will not be a pleasant walk anymore around a building site and then a large industrial facility. The damage to tourism must not be overlooked a lot of jobs rely on this including tradespeople who maintain holiday cottages and houses in the area, who will want holiday here with road disruption, noise and tranquility lost. There several listed buildings in the area which could be damaged due to vibrations whilst works are undertaken, older structures do not have the deep and solid foundations and bases that newer builds have. There will be light pollution whilst this construction is happening and when it is completed as there is proposed 24 hour lighting at all times. Water run off is likely to cause problems as this year we have had some of our roads covered in quite deep puddles to long stretches of road so the water coming off the site will all contribute to make things worse. As far as I can gather the site selection process was defective especially in regard to National Grid Works as to how this site was chosen. The cabling corridor trenches is absolutely deplorable as they come from Thorpeness (big tourist draw) all the way to Friston the damage and disruption this will cause to Thorpeness and all the villages to Friston is likely to be very bad. This will cause property prices to fall, which are a lot of peoples retirement fund so this will cause worry and stress to a lot of people along this route. I feel that common sense should prevail here and to plan this project to be nearer the coast as this will cause least disruption to lots of inland villages and lovely countryside. We all know that progress on energy supply must improve and I for one am in favour of wind and solar power but to destroy and disrupt so much when other solutions or possible using already industrialised sites e.g. Sizewell and Leiston industrial area which are on the coast or just slightly in land. The plans that are being proposed are not a short term thing, seeing all the possible future developments that may occur here means that all of this will continue for many years and things always turn out to be bigger and larger than what was originally proposed. Yours Faithfully M. Farley"

Mike Flower
"I live in Friston and object to the devastation to communities and the environment that the building and siting of the huge permanent substations by SPR will cause. I work full time and travel to Martlesham using the B1121 Aldeburgh to Saxmundham Road as well as A12/A1094 junction (Friday Street). These roads are used by residents and tourists and the impact by adding construction traffic, clogging up this beautiful part of the Suffolk coastline is ill concieved and will damage the area forever. I wish to add my support to all the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. The substations will have a significantly detrimental impact to the heritage of the village and surrounding area. No mitigation by SPR with their suggestion to plant native plants and trees, will ever replace the loss of more than 80 acres of quiet open countryside and disguise substations 18 metres at their highest. Flooding is of real concern following significant flooding in the village in 2019 which without intervention by resident almost entered homes and the village pub following heavy rain running off the fields. SPR know that there is an increase in flood risk due to their planned onshore development. However, the is no demonstration that their proposed mitigation measures are enough or even achievable. I walk daily around the village and it is a pleasure to use the footpaths and public rights of way. Under plans walking the historic path between Friston and Knodishall will not be possible as the footpath will be permanently closed. Residents close to the siting of the substation will likely experience noise after construction. Changes in the weather result in traffic on the A1094 being in Friston some days and not others. Pigs in the fields can be heard some days and not others. There should be no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside local houses and this would need to be measured. Quiet country lanes surround the village and the character will be destroyed with new traffic routes installed during construction. SPR and National Grid claims to have consulted with a range of stakeholders. However, suggestions by SASES and others to ‘digg’ substations into the landscape have been ignored. Throughout the process there has been a total lack of strategic, long term planning by central government, local government and the energy sector to address the cumulative impact of seven other energy projects in Suffolk. There will be no benefit locally, no jobs, and woodland permanently removed by an offshore windfarm that requires 9km of destructive cable corridor to bring power onshore."

Mrs Gillian White
"I Support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and I would also like my concerns taken into account. The quality of life for many years will be damaged by noise, high volume of traffic and light pollution. Mill Road is bound to become a rat run. The road is single track in places and there is no footpath although housing is on both sides of the road. The beautiful landscape will be destroyed, country footpaths will be lost. Wild life will be destroyed and the flood risk will be increased. Tourism will be drastically effected and the value of property will be slashed leaving many people vulnerable. Already people can’t sell due to the effect of this monstrosity. The visual design is too large for the area and I strongly object to the construction being built in the area."

Mrs V Chapman
"I wish to register an interest in the proposals being made by Scottish Power to build substations in the village in which I live. We will lose 83 acres of prime agricultural land along with ancient public footpaths, trees and hedges providing valuable habitats for a variety of flora and fauna, given we do not know what the future holds once Brexit is in place I am concerned we shall lose land on which food can be grown. There is concern about light pollution from the substations and, that while construction takes place, the village will virtually be cut off. While I accept we need renewable energy it is essential to think carefully about how this can be done with minimal damage to this wonderful coastal area in order to hand it on to future generations."

Murray Thomas
"Whilst I support the generation of energy by off shore wind farms, the attendant supporting infrastructure must be sensitive and as compatible as possible with the environment. The scale and location of the proposed supporting infrastructure associated with this project is not sensitive and compatible with the local environment and should be resisted. It appears to be driven more by factors of profit rather than by sustainability. Other brown field sites should be found and used for the infrastructure necessary. This may be at greater cost to the companies and their shareholders in the short term but not to the catastrophic effect to the environment in the long term."

Nick Crowe
"I’ve been coming to Suffolk since I was 1, in 1974. And I come back at least once a year. It is more than a holiday destination, for me. It’s a place of memories made and memories still to be made. For me, this is not just about PEOPLE… This was an area of diverse wildlife long before anyone inhabited it…This is about plants, trees, animals, insects, rivers, coastlines, cliffs, the sea…and all this encompasses. And no one consults the planet and it’s non-human beings and asks if EA 1+2 is what it/they want. Where else can you find the shingle beaches, the cliffs, heathland, moor land and marshes, all side-by-side in such a small area? It is unique in so many ways. As usual, it’s about money. We see the bribes of more local jobs, more cash input in the area, as if the coast and all it’s beauty is something to be brought of or held to ransom. We see it all the time, when a big business wants to invade, be it when building a massive supermarket or retail park, or something like this. It seems to be the only way businesses see fit to pacify people affected. The whole area is one of the most individual, beautiful, diverse but fragile areas of nature, and all that nature is capable, of in the entire country. Many people have worked tirelessly to keep this area free from harm. There are areas that, if damaged, will never return. It is a tiny area. There is no way such a small space should be bombarded with up to 7 energy projects over the coming decades. There is no safe way of preventing harm to the area, of destroying woodlands, of severing the wildlife corridor between the Coast and the Heaths AONB, of not damaging Thorpness’ already fragile cliffs, of installing cable trenches, of installing a massive substation at Friston… The local roads are in no way build to carry excess traffic and more HGV’s and extra traffic will put off tourists and make the roads more dangerous and polluted. There will be further pollution – noise pollution – from the works and vehicles and light pollution at the works, which will spoil Suffolk’s famous dark skies. The entire area thrives and, in part, relies on tourism. Right from Southwold and Dunwich, down to Orford and Rendlesham. It is an area where so many people give their working lives to maintain and care for Suffolks history and habitats. The towns and villages are colourful and vibrant, with diverse places to eat and shop. The area is filled with places to walk/bike/sight see/explore. And because of that, thousands upon thousands of people return year after year, to one of the few places where you can feel the history and experience the peace and beauty of life at a slower pace. But all of this is at risk with the possibility of East Anglia 1 & 2."

Nicola (Ning) Fulford
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council - As a resident of Friston Village - please acknowledge my objection to this application. Two separate SPR projects applied for under one application so EVERYTHING IS DOUBLED! It is shocking that a Green Energy project is allowed to ‘scope out’ its responsibility to local people and environments for profit. Noise pollution During construction: 24/7 generators to power lighting. Industrial equipment during the working day (6 days a week). When substation turned on: 34dBLAeq5min reference level now proposed rather than 35dBLLAeq15min but currently only applies to residential homes marked as SSR2 and SSr5 - rather than all residential locations. Super-grid transformers and their cooling fans are noisy but Harmonic Filters now identified as the noisiest items (also tallest at 18m) which are now unscreened! SPR claim no ‘humming’ noise (Tonality) – this is nonsense, go and stand near Galloper at Sizewell to hear the hum. Impact of atmospheric effects is also a concern (elephants communicating at dawn/dusk). There should be no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside our homes in Friston day or night – this should be proven by measurement prior to construction, not just a calculation on paper. Light pollution During construction: 24/7 industrial security lighting for site (plus all other construction consolidation sites). During operation: security lighting possibly motion sensitive Pollution – generators will be belching out fumes 24/7 Fumes from industrial equipment during working day Flood risk Current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate. SPR state clearly there is an increase in flood risk and sediment mobilization due to their development – but does not show that their proposed mitigation measures are sufficient, feasible or achievable. No assessment of the adequacy of the Friston Watercourse has been undertaken. SPR take no proper account of surface water flooding. SPR propose two new retention ponds on the substation site but ignore the existing field drainage system (which will be removed). These matters of environmental impact must be addressed prior to consent. Onshore ecology Permanent removal of approximately 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the substation site is unacceptable. There will be permanent effects on birds and wildlife due to light and noise pollution from the substations. Cable route: During the lengthy construction period all types of wildlife along the cable route will be disrupted and/or displaced. Permanent loss of ancient woodland. Landfall at Thorpeness – cliffs already fragile Route far too close to residential housing. Construction noise assessment and impact on residents grossly underestimated. There is no commitment to restore woodland or to remove the haul roads and return land to as before. Substation design issues There is no low impact design for this site – it is all about the ‘bottom line’ there is no requirement to consider the inhabitants of the surrounding area (both human and wildlife) The technology exists to make this building smaller/less intrusive and for it to be quiet – this would cost money that SPR are not willing to spend. Traffic/Roads Inadequate and delusional proposals made."

Niki Steen
"While I support the development of off-shore renewable energy, the proposed plans are absurd. To be digging such a large and invasive trench across several miles of countryside will have seriously grave and negative effects to both the wildlife and more importantly the local tourism industr. The area does not have the infrastructure to support both tourism and this project. In addition the environmental impact of such an infrastructure project must bring into question the actual environmental benefit of the wind farm in question. There are much better sites much closer to the sea that should be used for this project, namely at Sizewell where the infrastructure is already in place. This will limit the impact on so many levels."

Norma Philpotts
"Dear Planners, Re: East Anglia North One Herewith my relevant representation on Scottish Powers plans, I object on the following grounds:- Impact on wildlife in the woodlands, and heaths and also the loss of footpaths, byways and bridle ways. The threat to migrating birds. Domination of huge substations and digging up of ancient lands in unspoiled areas. Air and noise pollution from vast amounts of traffic involved, together with danger to residents either on cycles or cars. Access for Emergency services would be impossible. Also the tracking of the cables from the sea through the heritage coast and unspoiled local countryside when other brownfield sites would be better options. Yours sincerely Norma Philpotts"

Pippa Manby
"I wish to object to the planning application for the following reasons: - Cumulative impact on small local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs - these roads are already crowded and used by cars and bicycles. The project will endanger lives on the roads and with delays to emergency services. ? Light, noise & air pollution ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Robert Barwell
"I wish to register my objection to the applications. Apart from the obvious problems of visual impact and noise pollution from the substations, there is the serious issue of FLOOD RISK. The run off from the surrounding fields already causes problems in our village and this would continue to be the case, but with the addition of surface water drainage from this massive site. As a CIVIL ENGINEER I am of the option that the drainage through the centre of the village would drastically need to be UPGRADED!! This means excavating and re-cultivating with all that it involves. This assuming that the proposed drainage can be connected at the Church Road end with the road levels and foul drainage (which crosses under the present ditch). This work then makes the heart of our village part if the SITE!!!! It cannot be allowed and I fully support SASES and our PARISH COUNCIL regarding this. We are in the process of TRYING to sell our house and unless we reduce our home by several thousand pounds it is looking as we are stuck here. We have already LOST a couple of would be purchases, as who wants to live in a village covered in concrete and also the ridiculous amounts of traffic with the unknown amount of time to complete if this goes ahead!!!!! Surely we as human beings have the right to this."

Sarah Clark
"The substations are dangerously close to the village of Friston which will be dominated by the huge buildings. It is also prone to flooding. The substations are in a beautiful part of suffolk and crises crossed with footpaths that will be destroyed or lose their appeal. These PRoWs will be permanently closed or temporarily closed during construction. Ancient woodland will be destroyed. The local roads are unsuitable for a construction of the enormity in this part of rural suffolk, and cannot cope with the number or size of vehicles that will will be used. There is a culmulative effect on our local community of up to 7 energy projects during the next 12/15 years."

Sarah Wilson
"RE: EastAnglia North one and East Anglia Two -We are so concerned about our beautiful suffolk countryside . -Our woodlands and wild life -Increase traffic on our roads which is a danger to all the local cyclists and holiday makers who love cycling round our suffolk roads . -Noise pollution .suffolk’s famous pease and tranquillity will be lost . -The closure of our roads -Cable trenchers with roads too close to residents homes . -Severing the suffolk coast and heath causing big problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering Lives ! -Impact on businesses.Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social economic decline."

Sue Cattermole
"I have no objection to the construction of offshore wind farms but to the onshoring of such a facility and its effect on the countryside. The proposed construction by SPR will create one of the largest substations in Europe on an historic landscape. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. There are seven Grade 2 listed properties encircling the SPR/NG site dating from mediaeval times. (Redacted), was constructed within the curtilage of an older 13th century dwelling and is crossed with ancient paths to the Church. It is surrounded by very old moats and ponds. The property and environs harbour birds (owls/birds of prey), toads, stoats, ferrets, otters & muntjac deer. SPR/NG site: Construction work will occur on the very boundary of some properties and the impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Green energy risks becoming dirty green energy. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken of will destroy the peace for the much of the current residents’ lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. The view for some will be obliterated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms people will lose the amenity of their homes for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings (eg harmonic filters) will dominate the local landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith. In any event it would take decades for planting to mature. We already hear humming and crackling from the pylons and the inevitable increase in noise will blight the peace. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution and SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. The locality: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment (who will wish to live near Friston?). It will harm capital values of properties"

Tim Anfilogoff
"I'm all for wind farms but this is blatant vandalism. From what I can gather there will be a huge cumulative impact from the planned series of constructions at Friston. This is not joined up or logical. It risks undermining Green Energy. The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings will dominate the landscape and planting cannot mitigate it. The wildlife will be decimated. Instead of helping the economy locally it will blight tourism."

Tristan Steen
"While I support the development of off-shore renewable energy, the proposed plans are absurd. To be digging such a large and invasive trench across several miles of countryside will have seriously grave and negative effects to both the wildlife and more importantly the local tourism industry. The area does not have the infrastructure to support both tourism and this project. In addition the environmental impact of such an infrastructure project must bring into question the actual environmental benefit of the wind farm in question. There are much better sites much closer to the sea that should be used for this project, namely at Sizewell where the infrastructure is already in place. This will limit the impact on so many levels."

William Nicholls
"I wish to object to the planning application for the following reasons: - Cumulative impact on small local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs - these roads are already crowded and used by cars and bicycles. The project will endanger lives on the roads and with delays to emergency services. ? Light, noise & air pollution ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Adrian Duffield
"I object to ScottishPower's planning application in the strongest possible terms for two main reasons: - environmentally, it is simply unacceptable. The cliff north of Thorpeness are very unstable and will further collapse if the cabling comes onshore there. The local environment is also very fragile and sensitive as demonstrated by the number of nature reserves as well as Sandlings Heath. Any further industrial developments with the associated pollution will destroy irreplaceable flora and fauna, and - the communications - one single road and one single railway track - are simply unable to sustain any further additional traffic. Any increases will effectively bring the whole area to a halt, have a major environmental impact and damage the vitally important tourist industry, which will lead to social-economic decline. I have no objects to off shore windfarms but the cabling should not come ashore in environmentally sensitive regions with remote poor communications which are dependent on tourism. Bring the cabling ashore in industrialised areas nearer to where the energy is required."

Amy Rayner
"I'm concerned regarding: Cumulative impact on local community and biodiversity of up to 7 energy projects infrastructure being built over 12 to 15 years. 11km of cable trenches impacting environmentally sensitive areas. Threat to wildlife and the Sandlings Heath habitat AONB affecting migratory species and terminating the wildlife corridor. Destruction of ancient woodland. Increase in light, noise and air pollution. Impact on local businesses. loss of trade, visitor income, impact on jobs. impact of increased traffic on congestion, pollution, road infrastructure residents and cyclists."

Andrew Bell
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for substations inappropriately sited close to our village. The following reasons are relevant but by no means including all aspects of the issues raised by the proposal: • Cumulative impact on local communities: With up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years the cumulative impact on local communities and the local economy along the Suffolk Coastal district and several miles inland will be significant. o SPR Renewables as I am objecting to here o Sizewell C o National Grid Ventures Interconnectors • Nautilus o Eurolink o Expansion of offshore windfarms • Galloper • Greater Gabbard • Human Impact: The human impact of the SPR proposals with the cumulative impact on local communities will be significant. Visual impact and loss of environmental resource: o There will be a loss of important footpaths, in particular around Friston. These footpaths are regularly used and enjoyed by villagers and visitors and lead trade to the local pubs and other businesses. To lose these will be to lose a significant local resource. The footpath (FP6) running north from the village to Little Moor Farm will be permanently closed. This footpath is the historic parish boundary between Friston and Knodishall and, whilst alternative routes are proposed, these in no way replace the existing paths and will certainly not be attractive to walk on due to the presence of the proposed sub-stations. o The impact of the substations visually from the village and surrounding properties will be significant. What have been unspoilt views of woodland and open farmland will be rudely interrupted by the substations which are threatening to be as high as the houses of Parliament and as large as Wembley Stadium. Our historic church in Friston, at which 3 Lord Mayors of London are buried, will be overshadowed by the huge development. Mental and Physical Health impact: o The uncertainty resulting from the SPR proposals has already had a significant impact on the wellbeing of people in our local communities, in particular residents of Friston and surrounding area. Our neighbours are expecting their second child and need to move to a larger home. They cannot as the threat of the substations has blighted house sales. Friends with large properties even closer to the proposed site have had their lives ruined and the investment value of their homes reduced to almost zero. o The a loss of equity for home owners in Friston counts for little and the glacial process means that this will endure for years to come. o There is huge concern over damage to quality of life through noise and light pollution, both during the building phase and when operational. The substation is too close to domestic residences in Friston and breaches guidelines. • Flood Risk: The current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate. SPR state clearly there is an increase in flood risk and sediment mobilisation due to the development but fails to show that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient, feasible or achievable. No assessment of the adequacy of the Friston Watercourse has been undertaken and SPR take no proper account of surface water flooding. SPR propose two new retention ponds on the substation site but ignore the existing field drainage system, which will be removed. • Impact on Wildlife and ecosystems: Not only will there be destruction of ancient woodland in order to build the substations and drive the cable corridor the long distance from the coast, but the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB will be disrupted, causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. The apparently lunatic plan to drive 11km of cable trenches inland from the coast will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. A ring main at sea or placing the substation next to Sizewell would mitigate all of these effects. • Economic Impact: There are reports from governmental organisations pointing to the impact on tourism of the SPR proposals. Traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area resulting in an impact on businesses through loss of trade and a loss of jobs leading to social and economic decline. The SPR proposals will not bring any long-term employment to the area. Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) will compound the impact on tourism. Andrew Bell 20 January 2020"

Ann Turnbull
"1. The disruption to an AONB, which includes SSSI’s, is unacceptable. Vast acres of habitat will be disturbed, if not destroyed. For instance two pairs of nightingales nested in the shrub behind the cliffs. Nightingale numbers have dramatically declined in recent years. 2. The entry point should be at Sizewell which has already got all the infra structure required and whose character has already been destroyed by the building of the power stations. 3. The social disruption is totally unnecessary as the power can be brought into Sizewell with comparatively little disruption"

Anthony Bone
"There has been no coordinated planning for all the energy projects coming to this area of coast. The outcome will devastate the environment and have a very adverse impact on the local environment and economy. The landfall site is in the wrong place. The substations are in the wrong place. I am very concerned about the visual impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, impact on tourism, the severe effects on the village of Friston, doubts about the planting mitigation, noise and disturbance on communities and road networks."

Charlotte Dawson
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: - Increasing impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects taking place consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Light pollution which will mean Suffolk’s famous dark skies are lost ? Noise pollution which means Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity will be lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area which will then impact on local businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline. Thanks Charlotte"

CofE Saxmundham Deanery
"EAST ANGLIA 1 NORTH WINDFARM RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS TO THE NATIONAL PLANNING INSPECTORATE BY REVEREND SHEILA HART RURAL DEAN ON BEHALF OF SAXMUNDHAM DEANERY JANUARY 2020 I fully endorse all that has been submitted by the Parochial Church Council of the Church of Saint Mary the Virgin, Friston. Accordingly, I also concur with the relevant representations made by: - Friston Parish Council supported by the SASES action group - Historic England - Suffolk County Council - East Suffolk Council - Other local interested parties opposed to the selection of Friston as the site for EA1(North), EA2 and National Grid substations. This development, however, has wider implications than merely for the Parish of Friston which has been the focal point of the relevant representations up to this point as they are the Parish which is most directly affected by the proposals of SPR. In the Church of England we work in Parishes, Benefices and Deaneries as subsections of Dioceses and the implications of this proposed development will not only have a direct impact on Friston Parish, but also on the three other Parishes of the Alde Sandlings Benefice (Redacted) which are under the pastoral charge of the same Rector. The proposed trenches for the cables bring the power from the windfarm to the proposed substation at Friston run within approximately 150 metres of each of the above-mentioned churches which are also Grade 11 and Grade 11* listed buildings with an historical significance and continuing growth and relevance to the communities in which they are set. During the construction process the disruption caused will significantly affect not only the peace and tranquillity of each of these churches and their congregations, but will also invade the areas of the surrounding countryside in which the majority of the congregations live, in some cases making it extremely difficult for the congregations to not only gather for worship, but support each other and work in collaboration and co-operation as a benefice. It will significantly hamper the ability of the Rector and the assistant Clergy to easily work across the benefice and fulfil the mission and ministry of the church. The proposed development, including the new roads that are envisaged to enable easier communication for the construction vehicles, would also have wider implications for the Deanery which is not merely a theoretical entity to ensure easy communication between the Diocese and the benefices at a local level, but also a vehicle for co-operative and collaborative working for the mission and ministry of the Church. In order to ensure this approach to mission and ministry is able to be effective, particularly among small rural churches which in and of themselves, may not have the numbers to sustain mission and ministry, but which, with the co-operation and collaboration of the wider Deanery can sustain growth and effective ministry, there needs to be the means whereby communication across the Deanery and access to the other benefices which make up the Deanery is maintained. There is a real possibility that this co-operation and collaboration in Mission and ministry will be significantly affected by the proposals for SPR – even to the extent that the Deanery will not be able to function in the way in which we are being encouraged to function as deaneries by the Diocese of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich and, indeed, the national Church. Reverend Sheila Hart Assistant Priest of Alde Sandlings Benefice Rural Dean of Saxmundham Deanery (Redacted) (Redacted)"

David Copp
"My objections to the application relate primarily to the siting of the onshore substation in Friston when a site nearer to the coast (and ideally adjoin the Sizewell power station complex) would cause far less disruption both to the countryside and during the construction process. I have watched the continuing disruption caused in constructing the cable line from Bawdsey to Bramford and am amazed at how disruptive this has been and how long it has all taken. It is rumoured that if the substation at Friston is built, other similar installations will follow. IS this true?"

SEAS (Suffolk Energy Action Solutions) (SEAS (Suffolk Energy Action Solutions)) on behalf of David Dongray
"To the PINS Panel, Herewith are my objections to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application, EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE - Cumulative impact on local communities and the environment 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years will devastate the area Thorpeness Cliffs for landfall is not suitable due to the fragility of the Coraline Cliffs. Use of unspoiled countryside at Friston for substation complexes each the size of Wembley Stadium. And the Substations are dangerously close to the small village of Friston. Up to 9miles of cable trenches driven through environmentally sensitive areas will destroy it for many many decades. Whether it will ever recover as the cables cannot be planted upon, is anyone's guess. The Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath is unthinkable. The construction will cut Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB in half causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Lost woodland will devastate the populations of badgers, red deer, invertebrates and other wildlife . Light pollution, Noise pollution, Air pollution and Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity will be lost for ever with substations operating 24hrs. Increased traffic on roads will endanger cyclists and residents and the roads themselves are not made for more HGV's than we already have. Traffic delays to the Emergency Services may endangering lives. And in the event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered This area is a tourist area. The impact on tourism may deter tourists from coming to the area which in turn will impact on businesses, loss of trade and jobs leading to social and economic decline . Thank you for your attention Yours David Dongray"

David Jackson
"I support SASES and Friston Parish Council in their submissions. Whilst totally supporting renewable energy and off shore wind farms in principle, the onshore impact MUST be taken into consideration and very careful consideration should be given to the impact on peoples lives and health, wildlife and the environment. It cannot be renewable energy at any cost, it needs to be balanced and every effort made to place the on shore infrastructure on brown field sites in order to protect our delicate ecology and coastline. Cumulative impact • Too many energy projects in a small area, more in future. • No coordination or consideration for the impact of these on local communities. Human Impact • Too close to human habitation • Air quality caused by the traffic and construction • Impact of traffic on daily life • Effect on quality of life due to noise and light pollution • Health implications • Mental Health implications • Destruction of peace and tranquillity in and around Friston village • Loss of open spaces and places to walk • No benefits for the local community Landscape • Harm to heritage buildings including the church • Loss of footpaths • Visual harm Socio Economic • Damage to tourism • Loss of jobs • Loss of income for holiday homes • No jobs for the on shore development Flood Risk • Village currently floods when it rains • Water passes from the fields in the north • Current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate • All assessments done by SPR are desk top exercises Footpaths • All footpaths around Friston will be in sight of the substation & around the substation. • Not conducive to walking, loss of peace and tranquillity • Loss of green space Ecology • Permanent removal of habitation for wildlife • Permanent effect to wildlife of light and noise pollution during construction of substation and cable corridor Substation Design • Profile too high • Visual impact from village is unacceptable Noise • There must be no discernable noise either inside or outside our homes, day or night Traffic • Sizewell evacuation plan • Safety of local community • Traffic flows and speeds • Impact on emergency vehicles – access and times • Rat runs • Protection for walkers and cyclists on single track roads Cable Corridor • Fragility of Thorpeness cliffs • Destruction of woodland • Impacts on ecology and ornithology outside and in AONB • Too close to residential properties • Noise • Dust pollution • Light Pollution • Haul roads – no consultation • Cumulative assessment needed • Cable routes for other projects – impact • Too long- crosses too much AONB • Flood risk • Management of construction traffic impact The substations are far too close to where people live and will not benefit those villagers in any way. They will remove most of the green space around the village and destroy the peace and tranquillity. The noise, light and dust pollution will have direct impact on villager’s health."

David Robinette
"I object for the following reasons... negative impact on communities , road infrastructures and wildlife and tourism and jobs."

Deborah Mary Bone
"I am most unhappy about these proposals. I am worried about impact on the AONB, impact on tourism, the severe effects on the village of Friston, doubts about the planting mitigation, noise and disturbance on communities and road networks. The traffic cannot be handled on the road network and I consider the whole this has not been holistically thought through."

Diana Huntingford
"I am a resident of Aldeburgh and have had a property here since 1981. The thought of queuing in traffic to get home will be a disaster. The charms of Aldeburgh will be affected. I have friends who live at Thorpeness whose houses are on the edge of the cliffs and are already at risk of loss of loosing their properties with cliff side erosion more excavation will hasten their fall. I also have friends with properties at Friston where a substation would not only devastate their existences but wipe out the beauty of quiet and tranquil landscape, bird life ,amenities of the land beautiful clear night skies A substation the size of Wembley stadium would be a disaster to the surrounding area.this invasion will dominate the small village liable to flood. With pollution both fumes and continuous light glare from 24 hour light round the clock.What a nightmare great cable trenches will destroy sensitive environment , will be dug close to residents, a threat to wildlife. Destroy ancient woodland and disturb bird migration. The roads will be a nightmare, they have not been designed for heavy traffic .I understand 300 workers will be driving to work the majority of the A12. Causing huge congestion for the already heavy commuting cars and holiday traffic. Tourism to Aldeburgh will be affected who wants to sit in a jam on the way for a day out. Therefore shopkeepers and holiday makers will be affected.Loss of trade, visitor income loss of jobs leading to economic decline. Health issues, air pollution .light pollution, noise pollution.danger to cyclists and walkers. Permanent and temporary closures of footpaths ,bridleways, byways and cycle paths delays for emergency services.In an event of a nuclear fall out delays to escape routes will be effected"

Elizabeth Hart
"Dear Sir/Madam Please accept the following objections to construction work by Scottish Power; *There will be enormous damage to the Thorpness Cliffs, the environment and wildlife will suffer as we have migrating birds on Sandlings Heath. *There will be massive destruction of ancient woodlands. *There will be many years of dust, pollution and noise from the construction. There will be traffic congestion and hazardous roads, and danger to cyclists and residents. *Retail shops and businesses will suffer. *The beautiful village of Friston due to the sub station complex the size of Wembley Stadium. I look forward to your support on these worrying matters Many thanks Elizabeth Hart"

Elizabeth Matthias
"!. This proposal will greatly impact on the quality of life of for those living in the Sandlings area. 2. There will be huge disruption to Aldeburgh, Friston and Knodishall during the construction time. 3. There will be large scale destruction of our Suffolk Countryside and it's nature. 4. The installations will will form a monstrous blot on the landscape. 5. This disruption is going to continue for many years."

Elizabeth Thomas
"As a resident of Friston, I wish to object to the DCO Application by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) in respect of the proposed EA1(N) Windfarm, and support fully the objections raised by Friston Parish Council and the SASES group working on behalf of the Council. In particular I wish to object to the massive increase in local traffic that will be needed to service a development of this size, and the limitations that this will cause to me and others living in this quiet area of East Suffolk. SPR has failed totally to recognise that the village of Friston is set in farmland and serviced mainly by narrow country lanes. These lanes provide access to local amenities such as shops, transport links, schools, medical facilities and leisure facilities as well as forming the backbone for recreational cycling and rambler groups. SPR intend to impose traffic controls where the construction haul road crosses the public road system. These, when combined with “improvements” planned by SPR to the A12-Friday Street junction and at other sites seem certain to impede the smooth passage of local traffic and more worryingly, the response times of emergency vehicles. There is no local contribution to the development: all traffic concerned with the development will arrive and leave via the A12. SPR has not produced a coherent traffic management plan. The sole concession to villagers’ concerns has been a statement that all HGV traffic will be “monitored”. By definition, this means that all other traffic concerned with the development will be ‘uncontrolled’, leading to narrow lanes being used as “rat-runs” For this DCO, SPR have introduced the concept of a “Pre-construction Road” commencing at the Grove Road and Church Lane intersection, just a few hundred yards from the centre of the village. [see map reference TM 41480 60528]. This proposal has not been subject to any consultation during the past 24 months. It poses significant dangers to the residents of Friston, given that: • Grove Road, Church Road/Lane and Mill Road are all single lane roads with limited sightlines, sharp bends and lacking any pedestrian pavements • These roads are bounded on one side by residential properties whose driveways have restricted visibility • They provide the only vehicular access to the Parish Church, allotments and Village Hall • Grove Road is bordered by unfenced access to the children’s play area SPR have treated all traffic issues as being “temporary”, forgetting that for many in the village, a development lasting a minimum of 4 years (and possibly 7 or more when combined with the proposed EA2 development), is in effect, a lifetime. In summary, my objection to SPR’s proposal is that I will be placed in danger when walking around the village to visit friends, accessing the church, village pub and Village Hall. The increased traffic volume will change the character of my rural village into an urban area with noise and pollution preventing the quiet enjoyment of my home and garden."

Friston Parochial Church Council
"EAST ANGLIA 1 NORTH WINDFARM RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS TO THE NATIONAL PLANNING INSPECTORATE BY FRISTON PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL THE CHURCH OF ST MARY THE VIRGIN, FRISTON JANUARY 2020 PEACE AND TRANQUILLITY Terms most quoted in our Visitors’ Book and by Residents OVERVIEW Friston Parish Church (The Church of St Mary the Virgin) sits in an elevated position with respect to the village and provides an area of quietude that is much regarded by villagers and visitors alike. The fabric of the church is a Grade ll* listed building and sits in an hitherto unspoilt rural landscape surrounded by other Grade ll buildings. It remains open during daylight hours, and provides an area of peace and tranquillity for all. The boundary of the proposed development is now a mere 3 metres away from the churchyard and burial ground; this will threaten the whole sustainability and purpose of the church. The Church has an ongoing duty of care to the local community, which by many measures is vulnerable and ageing. It is driven by two key marks of mission of the Anglican Community, namely: - To transform unjust structures of society - To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the life of the earth. This extends to our stewardship of the land and environment. The Parochial Church Council supports the move towards renewable energy, including offshore windfarms, but is deeply concerned that the onshore element is being pursued to the detriment of those living in Friston and along the proposed cable route. In this matter the Parochial Church Council concurs with the relevant representations made by: - Friston Parish Council supported by the SASES action group - Historic England - Suffolk County Council - East Suffolk Council- - Other local interested parties opposed to the selection of Friston as the site for EA1(N), EA2 and National Grid Substations. The Church, in its pastoral role, finds that the many residents are deeply anxious and dismayed by the likely impact of noise and disruption caused by construction traffic and its effect upon their safety and security. The developer categorises these concerns as ‘minor’, ‘negligible’ or ‘temporary’: with a development lasting between 4 and 8 years ignoring the fact that to an ageing and vulnerable population this is hardly ‘minor, negligible or temporary’! The impact of a 12-hour, 7 day-week construction programme has the potential to seriously detract from the spirituality of church services. The human impact will be felt over the operational life of the substation(s). The current quiet and restful rural landscape, traversed by footpaths, with the fabric of the church as its backdrop, will be replaced by upwards of 30 acres of industrial scale buildings and plant generating a tiresome noise (mains frequency hum), and light pollution for the next 40 years. This loss will be permanent. The effect already is to depress the prospects for house sale to newer and younger residents, thereby impacting the capacity of ageing residents to pay for ongoing health facilities and long-term care. Several residents now find themselves trapped by the uncertainty surrounding the development of EA1(N). Also arising from all this is the economic sustainability of our church. It relies on a regular flow of new residents into the village. They maintain our congregation and become valuable financial supporters. Also, many as volunteers support our outreach to our community and beyond through our annual programme of events and which contribute substantially to our income. In short, the PCC opposes the onshore development of EA1(N) substation and the National Grid substation so close to the Parish Church on account of the serious damage that it will cause to the local environment and the spiritual well-being of the local residents. KEY INITIAL RELEVANT REPRESENTATION ISSUES We have strived to limit our concerns to around 500 words. However, the magnitude and complexity of the proposals are such to wish to ensure that the Examination process is rigorous in assessing all the issues related to our own concerns. Whilst these may be covered in other submissions, we list them below. Cumulative Impacts - Construction of Sizewell C (Two reactors). - Expansion of Greater Gabbard and Galloper offshore windfarms. - National Grid Ventures Interconnectors – Nautilus and Eurolink There are so many inter-linking issues here – location, sequencing, disruption, safety and more. Site Selection - We are concerned at the changes surrounding the switch from the original link from Bawdsey to the long established Bramford site which has capacity to expand and now the requirement for a new additional site on hitherto unspoilt rural landscape. - The role of National Grid and its interest in this and the other projects which have not been subject to proper scrutiny through the NSIP process and lack of consultation and accountability. Flood Risk - Friston is already subject to flooding, not least in areas in close proximity to the church. The issues and their totality have not been addressed. Land Use - Significant loss of valuable agricultural land. Onshore Ecology - Disturbs the balance of biodiversity and spreads to adjoining areas of special protection and special scientific interest. Heritage - Our churchyard is testimony to the history of the village going back to Saxon times and includes the War Memorial and Commonwealth War Grave. - The area is surrounded by other GradeII buildings and others reflecting the historic and rural characteristics. Pollution – all issues of increasing wider public concern: Noise - During construction minimum four years but issues of overruns, sequencing, cumulative projects. - Potential seven day working (already projected at 6 ½ days) - 24 hour on-site working - Impacts on Church services – their dignity and solemnity as appropriate. - Also, the well-maintained churchyard as a haven for reflection and contemplation over the surrounding landscape; the tending of graves; acts of remembrance. - Post construction noise from major infrastructures and further projects. - Tonality in a rural environment. Light - We have concerns for the impacts of necessary lighting for safety and security both during and post construction. Air - Habitually the driest county of the country in the summer months, we shall be prone to the impacts of dust and disruption both on site and along the cable route. Traffic and Transport - The area is characterised by historic routes of lanes and footpaths linking hamlets and villages; the area is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic. - There is no comprehensive traffic management plan addressing accessibility, safety of residents, visitors, walkers and cyclists. There will be lasting damage from road alterations. Human Impact - Lives have already been damaged by anxiety and uncertainty given the proximity of the proposals to the community. - The majority of the resident population is ageing and vulnerable, hence the human impacts will weigh more heavily. - Financial risks associated with potential mobility within the village and attracting new residents and ability to afford care. - Loss of amenity – recreation and walking; loss of footpaths. Historic Landscape - Flawed site selection causes irreversible and severe loss of landscape and visual harm which cannot be effectively mitigated. - Impacts adversely on peace and tranquillity - key elements cited by residents and visitors. - Closes permanently and temporarily public rights of way. - The cable route permanently scars the landscape. Amenity, Tourism and Socio-Economic - Research indicates that total local business turnover supported by tourism activity is in excess of £671million. The main drivers are tranquillity and accessibility – the skies, the seascapes, the landscapes and the dark sky at night all integral to this area. - The area is an ‘escape valve’ for those affected by increasing and creeping urbanisation of the east coast. - Local Plans subject to review by the National Planning Inspectorate envisage 85,000 new homes in areas all within an hour’s drive from this area. More families to be attracted by the qualities and activities available. - This will sustain investment and tourism opportunities for the local economy whereas there are none post construction of the proposals and potentially negative. Safety - Increases in traffic and transport along country lanes without pedestrian refuge threaten the safety of residents, visitors, walkers and cyclists. - Consequently, Friston and its community are most at risk. - Safety and security both during and post construction. Sustainability of the Church - Peace and tranquillity are the reasons most residents and visitors come to Friston. - We rely on a regular flow of new residents into the village. - They maintain our congregation and become valuable financial supporters and volunteers. - Our outreach to our community and beyond is through our annual programme of events which also contribute over 30% to our annual income."

Harriet Nicholls
"I live on(Redacted) which is the only road into Aldeburgh from the A12. It has terrible traffic at the best times and peak season it is awful. I cannot imagine the pollution, noise, danger involved with the amount of lorries that would be passing through to build this. I cannot believe that this concrete block is being allocated to an area of such important wildlife conservation and an area of outstanding natural beauty. And to think that it will be outdated in 10 years by other energy sources, and left as a concrete block that will never breakdown is wholly depressing. I am hugely passionate about the climate and what we need to do to reach net zero - I am very well informed and do not see this project as beneficial in any way."

Hugh Large
"I object to the plans published by The East Anglia 2 offshore windfarm for the following reasons: The height and size of the buildings and substations at Friston will turn green fields into industrial sites. The infrastucture of the local area is not able to support the number of HGVs (nor their size) required during construction. The cable pylons planned will cross an ANOB and will affect nature/bird reserves - Hardly environmentally friendly. There are further sites and developments independant of each other planned for this same area prolonging work and destroying larger areas of green fields - predicted vehicle movements are not sustainable on the local road network."

Jocelyn Bond
"The cumulative impact of this NSIP together with the additional and existing energy projects is potentially ruinous to the immediate area, any benefits far outweighed by the negatives."

John Driscoll
"I wish to object to the Scottish Power Renewables for the following reasons: It is unreasonable to have to endure up to 7 energy projects over the next 12 years The site for landing cables is totally unsuitable and too fragile The site at Friston for the Sub-Station is totally unsuitable for a site equivalent to Wembley Stadium! The SS site is dangerously close to the village of Friston and liable to flooding 11km of cable trenches will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. Proximity of cable trenches and haul roads to residential properties. Local roads not suitable for high volumes of construction traffic Threat to wildlife particularly Sandlings Heath etc etc etc."

Jonathan Franklin
"Dear Sir/Madam, I live 500 metres away from where Scottish Power are proposing to install a huge substation for EA1N. I thoroughly support Friston Parish Council's objection to the siting of this substation. It will destroy 30 plus acres of pristine Suffolk. It will; - destroy quality of life, - destroy wildlife for ever, - change the character of not only Friston but that of several other adjacent villages, It will greatly affect to the worse the lives of many people. I am in favour of windfarms but not when they are badly thought out. There is a perfectly good site, to which nobody would object and that is going out of Leiston towards Sizewell, over the level crossing and on the right is a barely used field with several derelict unused farm buildings. Put it there and not in the middle of unspoilt countryside. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Franklinj"

Jonathan Valentine
"Dear Examining Authority Re: East Anglia North One. I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons. - the use of countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium. - 11 km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas. - the threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. - Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species. - the destruction of ancient woodland. - light, noise and air pollution in construction of Substation and infrastructure. - increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents. - permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs ( footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths ) - the impact on local businesses, possible loss of trade, visitor income - the impact on tourism, I fully approve of the development of renewable energy from wind off the East Anglian Coast, however I think that alternatives to the resulting industrialisation and ecological damage that building a series of onshore Substations would bring to the people and fragile and vulnerable landscape of the Suffolk Sandlings ought to be considered. thank you for your consideration Jonathan Valentine"

Joy Robinette
"I object for the following reasons... fragility of Thorpeness cliffs, impact on local communities, threat to wild life. Local road infrastructure unsuitable for higher traffic levels and more HGVs. Impact on tourism due to traffic congestion and related issues Light and noise pollution."

Judith Large
"I object to the plans published by The East Anglia 2 offshore windfarm for the following reasons: The height and size of the buildings and substations at Friston will turn green fields into industrial sites. The infrastucture of the local area is not able to support the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (nor their size) required during construction. The cable pylons planned will cross an ANOB and will affect nature/bird reserves - Hardly environmentally friendly. There are further sites and developments independant of each other planned for this same area prolonging work and destroying larger areas of green fields - predicted vehicle movements are not sustainable on the local road network."

Karina Cavalcanti
"This project will be extremely damaging to the environment - destroying, affecting and changing a large area of outstanding and fragile beauty. It will completely and utterly unsuitable for the proposed area and is driven by commercial greed without regard to the local environment. In these days of greater environmental protection and awareness it is totally unacceptable to destroy so much countryside and endanger the fragile area around Thorpeness as well as other areas. It is also an important area for tourism - for visitors who come because of the environment and peace."

Kathryn Meader
"Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. Destruction of ancient woodland. Local road network unsuitable for high traffic levels and more HGVs Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies. Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost. Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives. In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered."

Linda Driscoll
"I wish to object to the Scottish Power Renewables for the following reasons: It is unreasonable to have to endure up to 7 energy projects over the next 12 years The site for landing cables is totally unsuitable and too fragile The site at Friston for the Sub-Station is totally unsuitable for a site equivalent to Wembley Stadium! The SS site is dangerously close to the village of Friston and liable to flooding 11km of cable trenches will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. Proximity of cable trenches and haul roads to residential properties. Local roads not suitable for high volumes of construction traffic Threat to wildlife particularly Sandlings Heath etc etc etc."

Mark Richardson
"I object to the East Anglia One North Offshore Windfarm project as currently proposed, primarily because of the planned construction of the enormous sub-station very close to the village of Frinton. The proposed sub-station, together with the one for East Anglia Two (and any others that might follow), is planned to be about 6 stories high and would be totally over-bearing to the village, dominating both it and the surrounding unspoilt countryside. Given the height and scale of the sub-station, the proposed "screening" in the Landscape Management Plan is likely to be almost completely ineffective - with native trees likely to take many decades to reach useful screening heights in Suffolk's low rainfall environment."

Maureen Bell
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons 1. Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. 2. Unsuitability of the Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables. 3. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium. 4. 11km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas. 5. Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. 6. Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. 7. Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. 8. Destruction of ancient woodland, 9. Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and increase in HGV traffic. 10. Emergency Services, Inevitable delays, endangering lives. 11. Impact on tourism. DMO reports traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourist from visiting the area. 12. Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income leading to social and economic decline."

Melissa Baker
"Dear Examining Authority Re EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables Planning application, for the following reasons: * Destruction of ancient woodland * Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath * Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor * Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues * The traffic and pollution created will adversely affect the physical and mental health and well being of the people living and working in the area * There is a large elderly population living in Aldeburgh who need to get to Ipswich for hospital appointments and need ambulances. The huge increase in traffic will make it harder for these people to get the medical attention they need In closing - As David Attenborough recently said - We have the know how and expertise to find better ways to provide power. But for some reason we are not implementing them. We must start caring for our environment and stop destroying it otherwise we will not have a future."

Mr Eileen Leah
"To the PINS Panel, Herewith are my objections to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application, EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE – Cumulative impact on local communities and the environment 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years will devastate the area Thorpeness Cliffs for landfall is not suitable due to the fragility of the Coraline Cliffs. Use of unspoiled countryside at Friston for substation complexes each the size of Wembley Stadium. And the Substations are dangerously close to the small village of Friston. Up to 9miles of cable trenches driven through environmentally sensitive areas will destroy it for many many decades. Whether it will ever recover as the cables cannot be planted upon, is anyone's guess. The Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath is unthinkable. The construction will cut Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB in half causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Lost woodland will devastate the populations of badgers, red deer, invertebrates and other wildlife . Light pollution, Noise pollution, Air pollution and Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity will be lost for ever with substations operating 24hrs. Increased traffic on roads will endanger cyclists and residents and the roads themselves are not made for more HGV's than we already have. Traffic delays to the Emergency Services may endangering lives. And in the event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered This area is a tourist area. The impact on tourism may deter tourists from coming to the area which in turn will impact on businesses, loss of trade and jobs leading to social and economic decline . Thank you for your attention Yours Mrs Eileen Leah"

Mr Patrick Steen
"I am writing to you with regards Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) planning application EA2- PINS DCO application with regards the Friston Substation and register as an interested party. I wish to object to this application on the following grounds; The building of the SPR substation and National Grid inter connector is a major construction project that should not be placed in the middle of an unspoilt rural location recognised as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ('AONB'). The reasons being; The planned site is far too close to Friston, a thriving village with great historical interest. In effect it will blight the village. The local footpaths will be destroyed and local wildlife such as Badgers and Bats will be displaced. SPR has shown little concern for any of these issues. Noise pollution. There will be a constant loud hum from the the site that will blight all the surrounding areas. Light Pollution. There will be constant 24/7 lighting of the site which will cause major harm to both humans and nocturnal wildlife such as owls and bats. Destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. Flooding. SPR has shown very little concern over the risk of flooding to the village and surrounding areas. The impact that this will have on the village is enormous. The potential for home owners in the village not being able to get flood insurance or to have to pay much higher premiums has not been addressed. Traffic and Transport. The whole road network around the site and along the pipeline route from Thorpness to Friston is rural and unspoilt and is a major part of the charm of the area along the Suffolk coast. It is totally inadequate for this size of construction project and the vast increase in traffic movements, for a prolonged period of time, that will be required to service this construction. This traffic increase will blight the area for miles around and will severely damage the main industry and employment in this beautiful area which is based on tourism. SPR have tacitly shown that they are aware of this by the amount of “Road improvements” that they accept will be needed. SPR has shown a complete lack of concern with how the increase traffic will affect the area or come up with any proposals as to how they will effectively police their contractors/employees, making sure they stick to the correct routes and not use local villages and back roads as “rat runs” or what sanctions would be imposed on contractors who do not follow their instructions. Landfall and Cable Trench. The choice of landfall for the cables at Thorpeness is flawed. Again the destruction of footpaths, ancient woodlands and wildlife along the route is unacceptable. The timescale for building the cable trench for the project does not fall into the category of temporary. Site Design. No attempt has been made to reduce the impact of the site by using more up to date technologies."

Mr W Seale
"We wish to object to the siting of Scottish Power Renewables project East Anglia One North's substation at Friston and the cable route through the Parish of Aldringham. It is evident that this project is the first of a number of infrastructure project to land at Thorpeness and make their way across the parish, in this case to Friston, but with others to follow. The creation of the so-called 'Energy Coast' has been ill thought out with so many projects fighting for space in our very beautiful corner of England. The cumulative effects of these energy projects will seriously damage our tourist economy, protected wildlife and landscape for the next decade. There has been no central planning to ensure that the cable route of this project will not be excavated in the coming years to accommodate further such projects. This is too much for this fragile area. The number of projects planned require a different co-ordinated approach. An answer could be to cancel the construction of the unnecessary Sizewell C and land all of these on that site. To keep threading route after route through this narrow corridor is unbelievably short-sighted. All of these projects should be suspended until a centrally planned solution is ironed out for them to follow. This could mean an offshore 'ring main' with one landing point at Sizewell. It beggars belief that this piecemeal approach seems to enacted. It does not make sense!"

Mrs Cheryl Barwell
"These are the important reasons this project must not go ahead:- 1. Desecration of our lovely scenic countryside, this will destroy it including wildlife etc. 2. Flooding which is getting worse all over the UK. The extra water that would have to join our drainage system which now struggles. 3. Years and years of noise pollution and disturbance to all the residents in our area. 4. Devaluation of everyone's property. We purchased ours in 2015 as a quiet little village and looking forward to living an idyllic lifestyle. We have invested a great deal of money renovating it so it would suit us as our forever home. We open our garden every year for the church and once for the St Elizabeth Hospice, Ipswich. That is how much it meant to us. I know people who have lost perspective purchases due to the possibility of this absurd substation going ahead. 5. Size well has already been destroyed so wouldn't that have been a more suitable and cost effective location?"

Norfolk County Council
"Thank you for consulting Norfolk County Council, please see below the County Councils comments below that relate the East Anglia One North Offshore Windfarm S52 consultation. (a) General Comments It is understood that the onshore development (landfall and grid connection) associated with these two offshore windfarm proposals will be located outside of Norfolk within the neighbouring County of Suffolk. As such it is unlikely that these proposals will have any immediate impacts on Norfolk in terms of landscape, ecology and archaeological matters. Furthermore, it is not felt that there will be any significant transport impacts on Norfolk arising from either the construction or operation of the onshore infrastructure. (b) Employment and Training While Norfolk County Council welcomes the potential employment opportunities the offshore proposals will have within the local/regional area both during construction and once operational, there are significant economic issues, which the development consent order (DCO)will need to address with regard to: (a) The cumulative impacts on the local labour market; and supply chain (i.e. taking into account other planned NSIPs e.g. Sizewell C; Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Farm; Hornsea Project Three; and Boreas Offshore Windfarm). (b) Developing a local skills strategy to ensure there are sufficient skilled workers. Norfolk County Council would especially welcome measures that will enable permanent, long term job opportunities to be taken up by local people; and (c) In addition the County Council would support measures that would encourage/enable people currently excluded from the formal labour market to be supported into jobs at any level/degree of permanency. It is felt that given the proposal’s proximity to Norfolk and the likelihood of additional major construction projects in both Norfolk and Suffolk arising from the offshore wind energy sector and Nuclear sector (as outlined above) there is a need for an Education, Skills and Employment Strategy to be prepared to address / consider the wider cumulative impacts arising from other planned NSIPs in the area (i.e. covering the above offshore projects and Sizewell C). The DCO needs to have a requirement setting out the need for an education, employment and skills strategy. (c ) Transmission network – grid connection comments There are wider grid connection issues in respect of the 400kV network which runs between Norfolk and Suffolk. It is considered that as part of any the DCO application and accompanying Environmental Statement there needs to be clarification on whether there is likely to be any requirement in the wider area for either: (a) reinforcement of the existing 400 kV network; or (b) new overhead lines (400kV). Given the amount of electricity coming ashore from other offshore wind energy projects and the increased generation from Sizewell C, the DCO application will need to address the in-combination impact on the 400 kV transmission network in the wider strategic area i.e. including the potential for reinforcement and new lines in both Norfolk and Suffolk."

Peter Bell
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons 1. Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. 2. Unsuitability of the Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables. 3. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium. 4. 11km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas. 5. Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. 6. Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. 7. Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. 8. Destruction of ancient woodland, 9. Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and increase in HGV traffic. 10. Emergency Services, Inevitable delays, endangering lives. 11. Impact on tourism. DMO reports traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourist from visiting the area. 12. Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income leading to social and economic decline."

Peter Minta
"I wish to object to to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application for East Anglia One North. I am writing on behalf of myself and also in my role as Chairman of Saxmundham Museum. The planning application, if successful, will devastate great swathes of the Suffolk Coastal Countryside, both during its construction and once it is operational. This area of the Suffolk Coast is simply not suitable for a development of this kind/ size and would have a huge detrimental affect on the local tourist industry. There has been no "joined up" thinking for this development and the large number of other energy projects currently planned for the area. It would spell economic disaster for the region, which only has agriculture and tourism to support it. Whilst in general favour of off-shore wind, the fact that no consideration has been given to its connection to the National Grid in a consolidated fashion is totally unbelievable."

S N Fulford
"EN010077 Windfarm Dear Sir I am registering an interest in the above application as a resident of Friston Village. I endorse all points raised by the SASES action group without exception. Friston House is a listed building 350m from the site. The property boundary is 150m from the proposed site. I dispute the claim that there will be no or negligible impact on Friston House or Friston Village by SPR. There will be: Pollution Evidenced by residents near the Galloper substation (Sizewell ) construction experience and others. Air born diesel fumes, dust. Other pollutants from a heavy industrial site. Noise during construction will be untenable for years six days a week. 66 Hours, not including traffic movements to and from site outside of those hours given that it is an extremely quiet zone. Night time disruption from generator noise and other activity. The long term prediction re operating noise from Philip Rew-Williamson of consultants RHDHV was/is that we will need double glazing! Initially he insisted publicly that there would be no noise impact. SPR are not acknowledging this and are actively excluding Friston House as a receptor. (World Health Organisation outlines 21db with a window open as a reasonable urban expectation at night) It will be shown elsewhere that the ambient night time level is far below that. Water course pollution re surface run off through Friston village, including flooding. The proposed and likely future development of Friston will create Industrial pollutants that have no recourse but to flow through Friston Village and on into The Rivers Alde and Ore that currently enjoy marine protection. Friston currently enjoys a “Dark Sky” environment that will be lost. Consultation process Further to the fact that SPR have mislead the public repeatedly re noise and appearance, the total absence of information about the National Grid elements of this application and the further consequences of their (NG) intensions in the immediate vicinity of Friston Village is not acceptable even if this process “Scopes out” these elements. The residents of Friston are expecting further cable routes and infrastructure which will remove the point of the Village. Cable route The destruction of so much land is not sustainable in such a closed community. In particular the loss of woodland at Aldringham Court. This woodland is not replaceable by replanting or mitigation. This area is priceless in context of loss of environment. This will be the second cable route carved through Suffolk by SPR. The Bawdsey to Bramford debacle should be held as an example of how unfit this company is to proceed with this project. At present it appears they (SPR) are applying the same criteria and design parameters to Friston as Bramford, an existing “Brown Field “site. Road access SPR have changed their stance from claiming the present road infrastructure was wholly adequate to planning wholesale changes to all the roads leading to Friston and Thorpeness. The general public are and remain oblivious and ignorant of the impact this project will reek in Suffolk."

Sally Miles
"Dear Examining Authority, Re East Anglia North One (and East Anglia Two) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: The cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. The local Road network is unsuitable for high traffic levels and more HGVs. The 11kms of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas and AONB. The threat to wildlife from noise and light pollution. The subsequent impact on tourism and thus business. See DMO report saying traffic congestion would have a detrimental effect. Evacuation routes from nuclear incident severely hampered."

Simon Ive
"EAST ANGLIA 1 (NORTH) OFFSHORE WINDFARM RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS. Be assured that I am not against proposals for offshore windfarms (better offshore than onshore) as part of the Governments renewable energy policy but reject the choice of Friston as the site for a hub of energy projects in addition to that proposed. Accordingly, I concur with the relevant representations made by: - Friston Parish Council supported by the SASES action group - Historic England - Suffolk County Council - East Suffolk Council - Other local interested parties opposed to the selection of Friston as the site for EA1(North), EA2 and National Grid substations. The proposals are acts of human and environmental vandalism. - Destroying in excess of 30 acres of historic rural and agricultural land, wild life and fauna habitats, turning the area into an industrial wasteland. - Five-mile cable route scars permanently the landscape. - In the heart of an area surrounded by areas of Specific Scientific Interest and Specially Protected and AONB. - Closing permanently and temporarily 26 footpaths and PRoWs. - Causing permanent loss of amenity to visitors and residents seeking peace and tranquillity offered by skies (day and night!), landscapes, seascapes and nature. - Loss of valuable agricultural land. - The site spreads into the social and spiritual heart of the village – the Village Hall and the Grade ll* listed Church undermining their sustainability and roles within the community. - Exposes a vulnerable ageing community to increased health and safety risks: - Flooding - Noise - Light - Air pollution - Traffic and transport arising from road alterations and increased traffic volumes (no overarching traffic management plan) and no refuge for walkers and cyclists. - Anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation and isolation. - Financial – loss of equity, funding of social and health care. - These issues are NOT ‘negligible, temporary or minor’. (SPR terms!). - Inadequate site selection planning. - Both projects were conceived to follow the Bawdsey to Bramford corridor through open countryside to an already established substation complex far from a population centre with capacity to expand. - Questionable manoeuvring by the developer and National Grid to establish a new hub for further energy projects and to avoid the NSIP process for the National Grid substation. - No accountability by/for National Grid and withholding information. - Insufficient accounting for cumulative effects of existing and proposed projects – namely Sizewell C construction – it is seeking DCO approval this year which means major disruption to the whole of this part of the coast being subject to its preparatory and construction works at the same time as these projects. Meanwhile, its viability and construction are questionable and the site could alternatively be used to accommodate these projects with much less damage to Sizewell and its community. - expansion of Greater Gabbard and Galloper offshore windfarms; two National Grid Ventures Interconnectors (Nautilus and Eurolink) and then energy storage facilities. - These exacerbate the risks of the two projects subject to examination and the extended construction periods damaging to nature, the community and visitors. - Raising the questions of lack of planning co-ordination for all the projects. - Allied to Councils’ Local Plans (subject to scrutiny and approval by the National Planning Inspectorate) for the development of 85,000 new homes within one hour’s drive of this area – total impact on local infrastructure and population, services, accessibility and then the need for new home families to have access to historic and unspoilt land and seascapes. - Sustainability of the community is threatened by the loss of new residents into the village; inward investment; loss of support of church and village hall and local events; loss of jobs arising from fall in tourism as potential residents and visitors are deterred by spread and size of these and other projects. - The DCO application, 17,000 pages is lazy and contemptuous displaying a lack of understanding and care for humans and environment. No cognisance of local issues and concerns already advised. Indeed, most of the visuals omit to show the existence of the village. - Too much key detail including that relating to safety and traffic to be subject to detail after DCO consent – who approves, monitors and enforces? - Even now the developer is drip feeding further information concerning acquiring rights of way, land and access which have sinister implications for the future of Friston. Simon Ive 20 January 2020"

Stephen Clark
"• Open areas of Greenfield at Friston selected for siting substation complex the size of Wembley Stadium. Completely dominate the small village. • Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables. Cliffs subject to erosion and falls. Have resulted in one fatality in recent years. Vibration from drilling can cause further instability. • 11Km of trenching passing through environmentally sensitive areas with resulting disturbance to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. Area important to many migrating birds and other species transiting through each season. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths is at its thinnest at the project area. Works would effectively create a barrier to migrating species. • Impact on local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels. Many roads not wide enough to allow heavy lorries to pass. Damage to roadside haunches and drainage. Increased danger threat to local residential traffic. • Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies will be lost for the 4 – 8 year project duration. • Noise pollution. Peace and tranquillity that residents and visitors enjoy lost for project duration. • Air pollution. Light sandy soil blows when disturbed, causing visibility hazard and health issues for residents and visitors with chronic chest issues. Soil ingress into residential and business properties, especially during warm and summer months through open doors and windows. • Cumulative impact on local communities of several energy projects occurring together or in sequence, as well as other housing and utilities projects and day-to-day business activities. Travel on road network subject to delays and speeding lorries. • Impact on tourism. 4,500 local people employed in this valuable industry. Visitors come for the peace, tranquillity and ‘off-grid’ experience the Heritage Coast offers. • Impact on businesses – late deliveries caused by increased traffic, loss of trade, visitor income, rents, touring caravans and motorhomes discouraged sharing narrow roads with heavy traffic etc.. • Permanent and temporary closure of many PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) for the 4 – 8 year project duration. Used by many locals and visitors for a multitude of recreational pursuits."

Sue Westney
"Dear Examining Authority Re: East Anglia ONE North I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: • Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years • Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness cliffs as site for landing cables • Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium • 11km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas • Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath • Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor • Destruction of ancient woodland • Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs • Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists, drivers and residents • Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area. This would cause loss of trade and jobs leading to social and economic decline"

Suffolk Preservation Society
"The Suffolk Preservation Society (SPS) acknowledges the contribution that wind power will make towards the Nation’s energy needs. Notwithstanding this, SPS’s charitable objects are to protect and promote the special landscape and heritage of Suffolk by ensuring that proposals are critically assessed and properly mitigated. SPS operates as the county branch of CPRE. Having responded to the consultations and participated in the archaeology and cultural heritage working group, SPS remains concerned about the scale of this project and the enormity of its environmental impacts. As such, SPS wishes to register as an Interested Party on the following grounds: Onshore Impacts – Landscape and visual SPS’s principal concern is the scale of the industrialising effect of the onshore substation within an area where its intrinsic rural character is defined by its historic landscape and buildings. Friston, a tiny rural village has remained substantially unchanged for centuries and will be overwhelmed by the substation. The Environmental Statement underestimates the onshore landscape and visual impacts and does not truly reflect the character or the historic significance of the landscape and the harm that will result. Such a large alien feature will not integrate with this existing landscape but will dominate in terms of siting, scale and massing. The effectiveness of the proposed mitigation planting is ambitious and the reliability of the supporting visualisations is questionable. Moreover in some cases the mitigation planting being proposed is inappropriate and will create further harm to this historic landscape. SPS believes that a more creative and sympathetic design, and/or consideration of lowering the ground level, rather than adopting generic layouts would minimise some impacts. The detail provided within the Design and Access Statement and the Design Principle Statement is superficial. SPS also has strong reservations about the adequacy of the assessment of the impacts on designated heritage assets. Although the methodology for assessing impacts appears sound, the resulting narrative and conclusions drawn are both inaccurate and misleading and do not fully recognise the important contribution of setting to significance. Seascape and Visual Effects The visual impacts of the turbines upon the special qualities of the AONB will be significant, particularly with the cumulative impacts from EA2. Although the applicant has reduced the extent of the arrays they will continue to have a significant adverse impact on a nationally designated coastline and numerous coastal heritage assets. Consideration should be given to a height restriction to mitigate the impacts. Other Issues SPS also has concerns relating to the Cable Route, Archaeology, Traffic, Rights of Way, Lighting and the Cumulative Impacts including the uncoordinated approach to all offshore wind developments. These will be included within future representations. Finally SPS would raise the case for an environmental fund to compensate (in part) those that will be undoubtedly impacted upon and disrupted during the life of this project. The absence of any such recognition of the impact from such significant infrastructure provision within small rural communities is considered to be wholly unacceptable and inequitable to the cost being paid by those communities."

Susan Hawker
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE I wish to object to the ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoiled countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas and woodlands ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light noise air and dust pollution destoying Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Traffic jams delaying Emergency Services ? The loss of tourism resulting in loss of jobs. Thank you Susan Hawker"

Susan Moon
"Dear Examining Authority. RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE ( and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons... Threat to wildlife and the important sandlings heath Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs Light pollution.Our wonderful huge dark skies will be gone. Noise pollution. Our famous peace and quiet lost. Impact on tourism, traffic congestion and related issues would deter people from visiting. 11KM of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas. Cable trenches to close to homes A substation the size of Wembley Stadium spoiling our beautiful countryside at Friston. Thorpeness cliffs are already fragile and landing cables would have a huge impact on these causing more erosion. These are enormous issues which cannot be ignored ."

Tessa Radcliffe
"I am a frequent visitor to Friston because of the wonderful landscape and the cultural offerings of SNAPE and the nearby coast at Aldeburgh. I find it absolutely shocking that a Green Energy project is allowed to ‘scope out’ its responsibility to local people and environments for profit. The individual points for your consideration are: Noise pollution During construction: 24/7 generators to power lighting. Industrial equipment during the working day (6 days a week). When substation turned on: 34dBLAeq5min reference level now proposed rather than 35dBLLAeq15min but currently only applies to residential homes marked as SSR2 and SSr5 - rather than all residential locations. Super-grid transformers and their cooling fans are noisy but Harmonic Filters now identified as the noisiest items (also tallest at 18m) which are now unscreened! SPR claim no ‘humming’ noise (Tonality) – this is nonsense, go and stand near Galloper at Sizewell to hear the hum. Impact of atmospheric effects is also a concern (elephants communicating at dawn/dusk). There should be no discernible noise from the substations inside or outside our homes in Friston day or night – this should be proven by measurement prior to construction, not just a calculation on paper. Light pollution During construction: 24/7 industrial security lighting for site (plus all other construction consolidation sites). During operation: security lighting possibly motion sensitive Pollution – generators will be belching out fumes 24/7 Fumes from industrial equipment during working day Flood risk Current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate. SPR state clearly there is an increase in flood risk and sediment mobilization due to their development – but does not show that their proposed mitigation measures are sufficient, feasible or achievable. No assessment of the adequacy of the Friston Watercourse has been undertaken. SPR take no proper account of surface water flooding. SPR propose two new retention ponds on the substation site but ignore the existing field drainage system (which will be removed). These matters of environmental impact must be addressed prior to consent. Onshore ecology Permanent removal of approximately 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the substation site is unacceptable. There will be permanent effects on birds and wildlife due to light and noise pollution from the substations. Cable route: During the lengthy construction period all types of wildlife along the cable route will be disrupted and/or displaced. Permanent loss of ancient woodland. Landfall at Thorpeness – cliffs already fragile Route far too close to residential housing. Construction noise assessment and impact on residents grossly underestimated. There is no commitment to restore woodland or to remove the haul roads and return land to as before. Substation design issues There is no low impact design for this site – it is all about the ‘bottom line’ there is no requirement to consider the inhabitants of the surrounding area (both human and wildlife) The technology exists to make this building smaller/less intrusive and for it to be quiet – this would cost money that SPR are not willing to spend. Traffic/Roads Inadequate and delusional proposals made. I do hope that common sense will prevail over profit. Thank you"

Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell C
"We are concerned regarding the potential cumulative impacts of construction HGV and other associated traffic on the B1122, from its junction with the A12 to Lovers Lane in Leiston, from: • The current proposal from Scottish Power Renewables, for East Anglia One North wind farm; o On-shoring and landside developments being pursued in parallel with East Anglia Two Or o On-shoring and landside developments separated by an unspecified time gap between East Anglia One North and East Anglia Two • The Sizewell B Facilities Relocation • The “early years” of any approved Sizewell C Construction when no relief road will be available but will potentially be under construction, according to current unapproved EDF NNB proposals There are also four other potential developments in this area with as yet unknown development timescales, being Nautilus and Eurolink interconnectors and expansions to Greater Gabbard and Galloper wind farms some of which also have potential to overlap with these more developed projects."

Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council
"The Parish Council is concerned regarding the potential cumulative impacts of construction HGV and other associated traffic on the B1122, from its junction with the A12 to Lovers Lane in Leiston, from: • The current proposal from Scottish Power Renewables, for East Anglia One North wind farm; o On-shoring and landside developments being pursued in parallel with East Anglia Two o Or o On-shoring and landside developments separated by an unspecified time gap between East Anglia One North and East Anglia Two • The Sizewell B Facilities Relocation • The “early years” of any approved Sizewell C Construction when no relief road will be available but will potentially be under construction, according to current unapproved EDF NNB proposals There are also four other potential developments in this area with as yet unknown development timescales, being Nautilus and Eurolink interconnectors and expansions to Greater Gabbard and Galloper wind farms some of which also have potential to overlap with these more developed projects."

Theresa Tollemache
"Use of unspoiled countryside with pipeline access over AONB land is wholly unacceptable. The substation complexes each the size of Wembley Stadium are dangerously close to a small picturesque village which is also liable to flooding. The noise from the Sub station will dominate their lives and from previous experience it is impossible to live with in close proximity and even up to a wider radius. The delays and blockages on the country roads, from up to 700 HGV per day 6 days per week) will cause untold misery to locals, the many tourists who visit the area ( who contribute hugely to the local economy), farm traffic and emergency services. Our precious environment famous for migrating birds and wild fowl as well as many wild animals and also the unique marsh areas, forests will be disrupted for ever. Alternative ways such as Brown field sites or the Ring main must be the alternatives as we must protect our countryside and preserve for future generations."

WG Fishwick
"Landing of cables to for these multiple projects on a area of outstanding beauty and fragility totally unsuitable. Planned multiple years of disruption Friston as a small village to be blighted and ruined by a totally unsuitable sub station the size of Wembly stadium is nothing short of criminal The required cabling will be laid within a few hundred meters of my house. Having received unsolicited legal documents requesting information, no reply to requests for why the information was needed can only make those who received said forms highly suspicious of intentions. As an owner of a holiday letting business the impact of the disruption, damage to the area from cables trenches, and the resultant closure of footpaths and bridleways and destruction of sensitive habitats, will no doubt reduce the viability of my business. On a broader note the damage to this beautiful part of the world which has poor infrastructure in roads and rails to facilitate a large infrastructure project will be permanent and highly destructive. Sizewell has a large industrial site which seems to be perfect place to build what ever infrastructure needs to be required to connect these projects to the grid, or even if necessary build a sub station. I we get Sizewell C we will be the most blighted Energy area in the country. What will this area ever get to compensate for the destruction on a vast scale that is proposed? Nothing in the plans have suggested that as local residents we will receive any permanent benefits. No cycle paths no infrastructure, just the usual injection of money to the local economy which once everybody leaves will not continue and we will be left living in an area that has been destroyed by poor thought and planning Surely in 2020 we can do better than this sorry attempt to railroad destruction on an area of the country which by virtue of being sparsely populated, is unlikely to be able to mount protests big enough to matter. Been here before and its sad."

Will Horton-Fawkes
"Scottish Power EA1N Proposal We support the representations of SASES and Friston Parish Council And I object to:- Future expansion beyond the current proposal and timings of work i.e. ongoing consecutive construction rather than concurrent construction, which would increase disruptive construction time considerably. Risk that if approved, the area will become a power hub and ongoing construction will therefore become semi-permanent. The highly detrimental impact on the edge of our AONB, our heritage landscape, - footpaths, woodland, country roads. Permanent noise pollution in peaceful rural site & effect on human & wildlife health - 'tonality' correction should be imperative Permanent light pollution in area with low existing light levels - effect on humans & wildlife (insect numbers already in steep decline), particularly during 24hr construction period, Friston is free of street lighting and there are no large towns nearby Impact on movement of humans and wildlife once corridors (footpaths, hedgerows)are destroyed Effect on tourism and jobs - of high significance in the area, including world renowned cultural sites e.g. Snape Major disruption to road network during construction and consequent increased use of narrow country roads adding to air & noise pollution & risks to pedestrians, cyclists, livestock .Design of substation. It must be 'low impact' following best practice & given sensitivity of site and inherent ugliness of substations. Not 18/21m high as in proposal Planting to screen the site should be at start and not end of construction and be compatible with existing landscape i.e. large deciduous trees such as oak Replacement of wildlife habitat should exceed what is removed given the environmental impact Forecast timings for alteration of road junctions seems inadequate and wildly optimistic e.g. Changes to A12/A1094 completed in 3 weeks! During the tourist season, March-Nov, there will be major disruption and there are no alternative routes north-south or to Snape/Aldeburgh, so small roads will be used not suitable for heavy traffic There is no long term cohesive assessment of future traffic movements and flows No on-going jobs once construction complete and likelihood of local jobs being put at risk due to downturn in tourism (DMO report) Inadequate proposed measures so far to deal with surface water flooding risk, which will impact farmland viability, nearby listed buildings and the village of Friston Harmful potential of setting a precedent for construction on the edge of AONBs Also harmful potential of precedent for second class construction and second class or non-existent mitigation in sensitive rural sites that are currently well adapted to human and wildlife co-habitation A new footpath map should be devised for all those links that are broken by the construction and each new footpath ought to be planted to provide access to humans and refuge and habitat to wildlife A vulnerable coastline risks being damaged at Thorpeness where the cables come on shore The cable corridor (9km long), will not only be destructive of habitat and disruptive to residential properties, but will also set a precedent for future cable corridors - hence the importance of a quality impact reduction plan and mitigation/reinstatement plan Local businesses and property owners will have to endure the inconvenience and will see a downturn in the value of their properties, possibly causing an exodus and loss of revenue to the area"

William Bloomfield
"Dear Examining authority, I wish to object this scottish power renewables planning application on the grounds that: it will be a huge disruption to local wildlife inc. the extremely fragile cliffs at thorpeness and the wildlife it includes it will make a huge disruption to local people who due to the jargon and heavy handedness of these institutions, have no idea of what is to come the air pollution brought with the amount of traffic the subsequent effect on local business and tourism"

Aline Mowat
"Negative impact on tourism and local business. Fragility of the cliffs at Thorpness and the destruction of ancient woodland are 2 very good reasons to rethink this. Massive negative impact on main road [A12 ]with high volume of lorries daily...pollution...noise...etc"

Andrea Smith
"Four years ago I bought a cottage in Friston with a view to retiring here. It is an area I have been visiting regularly for the past 40 years. It is an area known and loved for its peace and tranquility, stunning natural environment, dark skies and minimal invasive development. An area loved by artists, musicians, writers. I chose the village carefully, being aware of the proposals for a new nuclear build at Sizewell and its potential impact. I did not come across any information whatsoever about the threats from onshore windfarm infrastructure in the area. Since hearing about the onshore windfarm infrastructure proposals I have participated actively in all consultations and written a number of letters to all the relevant parties. I would like to stress I am very much in favour of the windfarms. What deeply concerns me is the lack of overall strategy and poor transparency in the development of the proposals. I am particularly concerned about the lack of consideration given to the cumulative impacts of a great number of energy proposals that will destroy irreversibly a huge section of this area and sever the Suffolk AONB. The most sensible way forward for the North Sea windfarms is to reactivate the 2012 proposals for an offshore ringmain and hub. For a project as exciting and important as the offshore wind industry, it is a massive shame that it has not been strategically developed, instead being conducted in a chaotic and piecemeal fashion with absolutely no regard for the social, environmental and economic impacts on people living in the area. This is an area of outstanding natural beauty and relies heavily on tourists and visitors. I beg you not to grant the planning application until there has been a full public enquiry and sufficient consideration given to all of the cumulative impacts of all the energy proposals and alternative ways forward using for example brownfield sites that would not destroy an area of such environmental importance and beauty."

Anthony Ball
"I am in favour of renewable energy production but the impact of schemes such as this have to be minimised on shore. I, like many other members of the public was unaware of the huge scale of the infrastructure required to utilise the power generated. For a rural community to have such a vast industrial sub-station constructed where there are alternative areas already built to accommodate incoming power (at Burstall near Bramford), is an unnecessary blight and irreversibly damaging development in a large rural community that will have its peace diminished and the local tourism business ruined. The decision not to use Bramford can only be a financial one brought about by the contract conditions between the suppliers of these projects. It would be far more beneficial for all communities for this sub-station to sited in a brownfield or already developed site even if this were to be more costly in monetary terms it would be the right thing to do."

Ben Gittins
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: - Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. - Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables. - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium. - Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. - 11km of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas. - Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. - Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. - Destruction of ancient woodland. - Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. - Light pollution and loss of Suffolk's famous dark skies. - Noise pollution and loss of Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity. - Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard/health issues. - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents. - Emergency services - Inevitable delays endangering lives in a remote area. - In event of a Nuclear incident evacuation routes would be severely hampered. - Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area. - Impact on businesses; loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline. - Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) - Ruining the lovely places which I have so many fond memories of, and hope to continue to make."

Bridget Barclay
"Cumulative effect of up to 7 energy projects is too much on communities and the local environment. Fragility of eroding Thorpeness cliff is a danger to public and homes. One fatality about 2 years ago. Spread of industrial energy development inland to rural Friston. Cable trenches and haul routes destroying habitats and too close to residential areas. Construction activity would intrude into tourist activities and reduce visitor numbers to coast attractions. Permanent closure of countryside rights of way including closure of footpath crossings on the local rail lines. A link main needs to collect all the energy from wind farms and run undersea from the Suffolk and Norfolk coast to lead to the Thames estuary for landfall well away from ho 1 Damage to aquifers in Aldringham 2 Damage to aquatic environment in Aldringham 3 Lack of serious survey of rare insect populations in Aldringham, including glow worms and stag beetles in the vicinity of the trenching, leaving rare are fragmented local populations at risk of functional extinction 4 Inadequate road capacity 5 Loss of forage and habitat for rare and endangered species of bird, mammal, insect, reptile and amphibian in the vicinity of the trenches in Aldringham 6 Damage to archaeological sites in Aldringham 7 Loss of tourism and huge blow to local economy 8 Renewable energy should not be at the cost of what it is meant to preserve."

C. Smith
"I would first like to say that I fully support the development of renewable sources of energy, including wind. However, I am opposed to the proposed site north of Friston village for three substations (2 Scottish Power Renewables and 1 National Grid) which would feed electricity produced in the planned EA1N and EA2 windfarms into the overhead cables running from Sizewell to Bramford in Essex. In my opinion the proposed substations should be sited at Sizewell. This would avoid not only the destruction of pristine farmland which the proposed site north of Friston would entail but also the hugely disruptive process of digging a trench 50 metres wide for cables from the proposed landfall site between Thorpeness and Sizewell seven kilometres inland to Friston with all the negative impacts for the villages of Leiston, Aldringham, Coldfair Green, Friston and Knodishall. If this is not possible, then a ring main needs to be considered. My worry is that the 30-acre site proposed for the windfarm substations in Friston and the associated infrastructure and new access roads required will have a major negative impact (noise, visual and traffic) on the whole area, and not only during the period of construction. In addition, the cumulative effect of numerous major energy projects (Sizewell C, East Anglia windfarms as well as the Nautilus and Eurolink intercontinental connectors) could have an overwhelming effect which will radically change the appeal of this rural area."

Catherine Howard-Dobson
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: 1.The cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years 2.The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for large substation complexes, which will dominate a small village liable to flooding. 3.The threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. 4.The destruction of ancient woodland & loss of footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths. 5. The local road network is unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs 6. Pollution – Light, noise & air pollution. 7. The impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would put tourists off. 8. Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline"

Charles Courage
"I am objecting strongly to your proposed substation site at Friston for two SPR transformers and a further National Grid transformer on the grounds that: 1. Ruination of the countryside and surrounding areas of this tranquil village with several Grade 2 listed buildings including St Mary's Church, Friston. This is the Heritage Coast. 2. Light and noise pollution from the site and lack of mitigation for water run-off from the area except by a narrow ditch which will likely flood the low lying properties. 3. The impact of HGV traffic on local and surrounding roads, all of which are narrowl and not suited to the proposed traffic flows. 4. The impact on employment will be negative due to loss of trade for hotels, shops, pubs and holiday cottages because no tourists will visit the area due to clogged roads. 5. The digging of a 65m wide trench all the way from Thorpeness to the Friston site crossing roads, taking out hedges and woodland. 6.Permanent or temporary loss of PRoWs. I am all in favour of green energy but not at the cost of ruining this fragile area. SPR state that they have consulted local people, they have in fact, dictated to the local people. There are better ways and locations to bring the power lines ashore without blighting this beautiful part of Suffolk. This whole scheme is corporate greed with no vision of the impact on local people. ? Scottish Power Renewables are riding roughshod over the local community and have not taken into account the concerns of the residents and others communities along cable route from the sea to Friston. ? The road system in this quiet area of Suffolk will be unable to carry the daily workload that the construction of the substation will inevitably bring to our small roads. The idea of not only SPR but also EDF Nuclear Power trying to carry all their building materials on the A12 and A14 is ridiculous. The amount of HGVs, LGVs and buses required will bring the entire area to a halt. This is not rocket science, the roads are simply not good or large enough to carry this amount of traffic. ? The impact of all this building work will have a huge negative effect of the area, ruining our local trades such as hotels, shops, restaurants, etc. as no tourists will want to venture this far as they will be unable to move for construction traffic. ? The lack of forethought with regard to planning for the future not only for this project but also Sizewell C show that there is no joined-up thinking, especially from a Government Ministerial level, so allowing SPR and EDF to desecrate this pretty area of Suffolk. ? The planned site for the substation at Friston will bring a greater flood risk for those who live next to the main drainage ditch that flows through the village. ? The substation, if built, needs to be moved so that it is not less than 600 meters from the nearest houses and for bunding to be constructed so that there is as little noise and light pollution as possible to those living in the vicinity."

Chris Wheeler
"I support the PINS representations made by Friston Parish Council and Substation Action – Save East Suffolk and reserve the right to be allowed to speak to any or all of the points they have raised, many of which I have contributed to. I strongly object to approval of the DCO application on the following grounds (amongst others): 1. Grid Connection. The guidance given to SPR by National Grid to connect at Sizewell/Leiston is seriously questionable for a variety of reasons, including those related to lack of consultation and the Energy Act 1989. 2. National Grid The evident desire of National Grid to construct an Energy Hub at Friston based on a new substation there should be the subject of an NSIP in its own right. 3. Noise. The proposed rating level of 34dB LAeq5min of industrial noise will be unacceptable in the quiet rural location of Friston with a substantial nearby community. The evidence offered that it will not have a significant or serious adverse impact is incomplete, inadequate and questionable. 4. Noise. The statement that the substation will NOT be ‘tonal’ and hence subject to a noise penalty is unjustified by the information provided, which is inadequate and incomplete. 5. Landscape, Visual Impact and Heritage. The massively intrusive environmental impact on the rural setting of Friston village will present a serious threat to the viability of the community inconsistent with the requirements of NPS EN-1, EN-3 and EN–5 and is a major adverse effect. Great damage will be caused to the setting of listed buildings and to longstanding woodland. 6. Substation Design. The proposed engineering design of the proposed substations is not ‘low impact’ and no adequate effort has been made to reduce visual and noise impacts by superior electrical engineering technical design and procurement. 7. Flood Risk. The project, both during Construction and in Operation is very likely to exacerbate the existing flood risk in Friston village and no adequate evidence of mitigation is provided. 8. Cumulative Impact including Traffic. The application fails to properly consider the cumulative impact of EA1N and EA2 taken together with other projects such as Nautilus and EuroLink, and the potential construction of Sizewell C nuclear power station. The impact on traffic congestion in particular would be unacceptable including on the Emergency Evacuation Plan for Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station which should take priority over all other issues. 9. Socio-Economic and Health Factors. Housing in Friston (a popular retirement and holiday home area) is already blighted with no consideration or mitigation offered by SPR. Professionally produced plans predict the loss of hundreds of jobs and livelihoods in the local community if the energy projects proceed as well as enhanced pollution. There is a high level of anxiety in the community resulting from the projects. 10. Rights of Way The permanent closure of high value PRoWs in an unspoilt rural environment and their partial replacement by low value ones passing close to noisy and ugly electrical equipment is unacceptable. The extent of temporary PRoW closures during construction is also unacceptable. 11. Onshore Ecology The project will permanently damage a wide variety of wildlife habitats with no adequate consideration or mitigation. 12. Cable Route Impact During construction this will result in the same unacceptable effects as listed above for the substation complex. 13. Sustainability The project is clearly not sustainable as it will sterilise large areas of seashore, cable route, and substation location in a way that entirely prevents effective usage in the future. A sustainable approach would require the coordinated development of an existing major substation site in a relatively unpopulated brownfield area, such as at Bramford, or Lowestoft, or Bradwell, with a carefully designed on-shore cable ‘motorway’ rather than fragmented radial connections. C Wheeler CEng MIET MIEEE"

Christian Blackshaw MBE
"Whilst not against wind power per se, the proposed substations at Friston seem misguided when there is a clear alternative, namely the ringmain option. To desecrate AONB land for ever with the erection of these monsters is not only depriving future generations of beautiful countryside, but additionally causing major disruption to everyone who lives and works in the area. Road widening, 6 to 700 lorries per day creating massive problems, let alone noise and, God forbid should these substations be built, the tinnitus they create twenty four hours per day go to show that there is a major flaw in these outrageous proposals. It has been said that the ringmain option is more expensive. However, considering all options this would clearly be more sensible and in the long run more cost effective. Throughout history we see the desecration of precious countryside. This glorious Suffolk land should not be a victim."

Christopher Matthew
"Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substations complexes the size of Wembley stadium Substation close to a villagen liabkle to flooding 11 kilometres of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas Threat to wildlife Destruction of Ancient Woodland Local roads unsuitable for HGVs Noise pollution Air pollution Danger on roads to residents and cyclists Closure of PROWs Serious impact on tourism Unimagineable damage to area of outstanding natural beauty"

Clare McWhirter
"As a resident in the local area I want to voice my concerns about the disruption and negative impact that I feel the plans by Scottish power are going to have on particularly the village of Friston but also the wider area of east Suffolk coastal from the Thorpness cliffs through Aldringham and Knodishall to Friston. Not only will there be damage to wildlife but also to tourism which this part of Suffolk relies on. I support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council."

CLdN Group
"The CLdN Group operates ro-ro shipping lines between the Humber and northern European ports including Rotterdam [operated by CLdN ro-ro SA]) and Zeebrugge [operated by Cobelfret Ferries NV]. The CLdN Group has been consulted about the project by the applicant and considers that there should not be any impact on its operations provided that the Secretary of State ensures that the mitigation measures set out in the environmental statement are secured by way of a requirement or other provision, and that there is adequate future monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures. Any failure to provide the mitigation would present collision and allision risk to commercial shipping, particularly in the event of ships sailing off their usual course as a result of adverse weather or other incidents."

Colin Westney
"Dear Examining Authority Re: East Anglia ONE North I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: • Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years • Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness cliffs as site for landing cables • Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium • 11km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas • Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath • Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor • Destruction of ancient woodland • Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs • Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists, drivers and residents • Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area. This would cause loss of trade and jobs leading to social and economic decline"

David Moon
"I would like to raise my objection to Scottish Power application for an Offshore Wind Farm (East Anglia North One) off the coast at Sizewell for the reason i list below > Unsuitabilty for the fragility of the cliff and beach area from Thorpness to Sizewell as a site for the landing of cabling from the wind farm. > impact on the local communities of Thorpness, Sizewell, Leiston, Aldringham, Knodishall and Friston. >Closure of Foot Paths, Bridleways/Byways and cycle paths. >Unsuitable infrastructure to withstand the heavy vehicle volume that will be associated with this development. >Disruption to the economy from visitor that will be put off coming to the area that will take years to recover from. >Impact on the dark skies from light pollution. >The increase to carbon admission for to the fragile environment in and around this part of Suffolk area"

Dorie Jackson
"I support SASES and Friston Parish Council in their submissions. Whilst totally supporting renewable energy and off shore wind farms in principle, the on shore impact MUST be taken into consideration and very careful consideration should be given to the impact on peoples lives and health, wildlife and the environment. It cannot be renewable energy at any cost, it needs to be balanced and every effort made to place the on shore infrastructure on brown field sites in order to protect our delicate ecology and coastline. Cumulative impact • Too many energy projects in a small area, more in future. • No coordination or consideration for the impact of these on local communities. Human Impact • Too close to human habitation • Air quality caused by the traffic and construction • Impact of traffic on daily life • Effect on quality of life due to noise and light pollution • Health implications • Mental Health implications • Destruction of peace and tranquillity in and around Friston village • Loss of open spaces and places to walk • No benefits for the local community Landscape • Harm to heritage buildings including the church • Loss of footpaths • Visual harm Socio Economic • Damage to tourism • Loss of jobs • Loss of income for holiday homes • No jobs for the on shore development Flood Risk • Village currently floods when it rains • Water passes from the fields in the north • Current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate • All assessments done by SPR are desk top exercises Footpaths • All footpaths around Friston will be in sight of the substation & around the substation. • Not conducive to walking, loss of peace and tranquillity • Loss of green space Ecology • Permanent removal of habitation for wildlife • Permanent effect to wildlife of light and noise pollution during construction of substation and cable corridor Substation Design • Profile too high • Visual impact from village is unacceptable Noise • There must be no discernable noise either inside or outside our homes, day or night Traffic • Sizewell evacuation plan • Safety of local community • Traffic flows and speeds • Impact on emergency vehicles – access and times • Rat runs • Protection for walkers and cyclists on single track roads Cable Corridor • Fragility of Thorpeness cliffs • Destruction of woodland • Impacts on ecology and ornithology outside and in AONB • Too close to residential properties • Noise • Dust pollution • Light Pollution • Haul roads – no consultation • Cumulative assessment needed • Cable routes for other projects – impact • Too long- crosses too much AONB • Flood risk • Management of construction traffic impact The substations are far too close to where people live and will not benefit those villagers in any way. They will remove most of the green space around the village and destroy the peace and tranquillity. The noise, light and dust pollution will have direct impact on villager’s health."

Dr. C.J. Atkinson
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: - cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects which are likely to run for 12 to 15 years. - threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath from the impact of these massive projects. - severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor which Suffolk Wildlife Trust have been working to safeguard. - destruction of ancient woodland. - light pollution affecting Suffolk's dark skies - noise pollution in a traditionally tranquil and peaceful environment."

Francis Jasper Jacob
"To save the fragile and precious countryside and wildlife from SPR wanting to build massive substations and interconnectors Destruction of ancient woodland Local roads not suitable for the HGVs Noise pollution Delays to emergency services Closures of PRoWs Impact on tourism and businesses leading to social and economic decline"

George lightfoot
"Damage to important wildlife areas. Negative impact local communities."

Hilary lightfoot
"I wish to object to this Scottish a power renewables for the following reasons : cumulative impact on local communities over 12 to 15 years : fragility of Thorpeness cliffs for landing cables : local road network unsuitable for all the heavy traffic : impact on businesses . I have a shop in Aldeburgh and related traffic congestion would deter tourists : substation too near to small village"

Ingrid Emsden-Fox
"Dear Examining Authority Re. EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons; **  Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occuring consecutively over 12-15 years **  Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables **  Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley stadium **  Substations dangerously close to and dominating a small village liable to flooding **  11km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas **  Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes **  Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath **  Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ** Destruction of ancient woodland ** Local road network unsuitable for high traffic levels and more HGVs ** Light pollution, Suffolk's famous dark skies lost forever ** Noise pollution, Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost **  Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk's lkight sandy soil which blows away, causing visibilty and heath issues ** Increased traffic on roads, a danger to residents and cyclists ** Emergency services will be delayed, which would endanger lives **  In the event of a nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered **  Negative impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ** Negative impact on businesses, leading to loss of trade, loss of visitor income, loss of jobs leading to social and economic decline ** Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)."

J A K Millar
"I wish to object to the planning application from Scottish Power Renewables.....it is part of an unthought out and uncoordinated scheme for much needed power but for the following reasons misconceived .... the impact on this whole area will cause a wholly disproportionate amount of environmental damage to nature, wildlife and neighbourhood....vast increase in heavy lorry traffic on narrow roads not built for this purpose causing congestion and subsequent danger to life through emergency vehicles being unable to obtain unrestricted access at short notice . major earth works close to residential housing..multiple projects over many years adversely affecting tourism and substantial loss of income on local small businesses causing light and noise pollution on an area of natural beauty and depleting the opportunities for paths, woodland area walks and cycle ways...the destruction of land, woods and amenities will cause some permanent and huge shortish but still over many years considerable disruption and health (pollution) issues."

Jack Broom
"I am very concerned that the proposed site for the terminal to connect to the power grid is located very far inland from Thorpeness to Friston in areas of outstanding natural beauty, very close to the small village of Friston. The digging of the underground cable will cut an enormous swathe through the Suffolk Sandlings which is in itself a rare and important area for wild life, starting from fragile cliffs at Thorpeness. The proposed sub station at Friston on a green field site is enormous and will destroy much of the pleasure of this landscape for all nearby residents and the large tourist economy that this region has. There is much development of power, both nuclear and renewable located at nearby Sizewell with more nuclear developments likely with two new reactors called Sizewell C. The power grid from Sizewell will be heavily loaded. It could be said by some that this grid is or will be precariously overloaded with this additional input and it is likely, but not confirmed that an electrical interconnector will come in at Sizewell. Traffic needs of all types will be very high on very small rural roads which causes additional danger? Why is this power not coming ashore at a brown field nearer to where the power can be used in a highly populated area? Some, including MPs have suggest an offshore power 'ring main grid' to direct the power directly to where it is consumed. I am a supporter of offshore renewables, but plans for bringing the power ashore are muddled and replicated by different offshore power generators. This needs sorting so that there more of a national plan to bring this renewable power ashore where it is needed."

James Watson
"I support SASES and Friston Parish Council in their submissions. Whilst totally supporting renewable energy and off shore wind farms in principle, the on shore impact MUST be taken into consideration and very careful consideration should be given to the impact on peoples lives and health, wildlife and the environment. It cannot be renewable energy at any cost, it needs to be balanced and every effort made to place the on shore infrastructure on brown field sites in order to protect our delicate ecology and coastline. Cumulative impact • Too many energy projects in a small area, more in future. • No coordination or consideration for the impact of these on local communities. Human Impact • Too close to human habitation • Air quality caused by the traffic and construction • Impact of traffic on daily life • Effect on quality of life due to noise and light pollution • Health implications • Mental Health implications • Destruction of peace and tranquillity in and around Friston village • Loss of open spaces and places to walk • No benefits for the local community Landscape • Harm to heritage buildings including the church • Loss of footpaths • Visual harm Socio Economic • Damage to tourism • Loss of jobs • Loss of income for holiday homes • No jobs for the on shore development Flood Risk • Village currently floods when it rains • Water passes from the fields in the north • Current village drainage infrastructure is inadequate • All assessments done by SPR are desk top exercises Footpaths • All footpaths around Friston will be in sight of the substation & around the substation. • Not conducive to walking, loss of peace and tranquillity • Loss of green space Ecology • Permanent removal of habitation for wildlife • Permanent effect to wildlife of light and noise pollution during construction of substation and cable corridor Substation Design • Profile too high • Visual impact from village is unacceptable Noise • There must be no discernable noise either inside or outside our homes, day or night Traffic • Sizewell evacuation plan • Safety of local community • Traffic flows and speeds • Impact on emergency vehicles – access and times • Rat runs • Protection for walkers and cyclists on single track roads Cable Corridor • Fragility of Thorpeness cliffs • Destruction of woodland • Impacts on ecology and ornithology outside and in AONB • Too close to residential properties • Noise • Dust pollution • Light Pollution • Haul roads – no consultation • Cumulative assessment needed • Cable routes for other projects – impact • Too long- crosses too much AONB • Flood risk • Management of construction traffic impact The substations are far too close to where people live and will not benefit those villagers in any way. They will remove most of the green space around the village and destroy the peace and tranquillity. The noise, light and dust pollution will have direct impact on villager’s health."

Jean Floodgate MBE
"There are offshore alternatives to the desecration of environmentally sensitive areas. We have to consider the future. In the short term the projects will cause considerable pollution in terms of Air, Noise and Light. Suffolk will no longer hold the same attraction for visitors The people who live here will change in attitude and approach towards their surroundings...this has been seen elsewhere. Communities become divided and lack the support network. Care and consideration for others is lost."

Jill Hubbard
"*Danger for children at the local school. They will have to cross a road where heavy vehicles will be carrying equipment for work on wind farm. *Concern for elderly residents. There are several care homes in the area .Noise pollution and work near homes will be a disturbance for them *Ancient woodland in the area will be uprooted and endangered species may be destroyed (eg Nightingales slow worms 'butterflies etc.) *The proposed substation seems too near to resident's homes. *If there are numerous different substations going to be built the volume of traffic and the disruption will be intolerable"

John Last
"Cumulative impact on local communities of a large number of projects without any central co-ordination. Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs due to current erosion, previous serious accident. Impact on Tourism Severe impact on AONB and wildlife. Road network and Infrastructure not suitable for projects not joined up and of differing timescales Threat to wildlife and Sandlings. Substations to imposing on local area. Destruction of woodland. Impact on local economy Not enough evidence that offshore ring mains have been explored as a feasible option."

John Ruiz
"I wish to object to this application broadly because of the industrialisation of this part of the country which is so environmentally sensitive. The proposals, among other damaging factors will include: Overloading local roads and services with thousands of heavy goods vehicles- danger to pedestrians, cyclists. Cabling and trenching on unspoilt countryside Huge substations in rural situations. Loss of valuable farmland. Negative impact on tourism, wildlife. Destruction of ancient woodland. Noise pollution. May I suggest the consideration of Orford Ness as a more suitable site for this proposal as most of the materials could be brought in by sea."

Julia Mary Ruiz
"I object to this proposal because of the huge damage it will cause in this area, principally: Noise, noise, noise. Traffic on narrow local roads not designed for the anticipated heavy goods vehicles. Pressure on local services, i.e. doctors, which are already under strain. Threat to wildlife. Loss of wildlife habitat. Loss of valuable farmland. Irreparable damage to Thorpeness cliffs. Substations too close to small villages. Negative impact on tourism."

Katie Emerson
"I wish to object to the ScottishPower Renewables planning Application for the following reasons:- Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for the huge substation complexes Putting substations and large cables so close to housing and dominating small villages Cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas Threat to wildlife and Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Destruction of environmentally valuable woodland Light and Noise pollution The local road network is unsuitable for the increase in traffic with several knock on effects. This will be the start of something that will continue to grow over several years, so this is not just about the current application, it also concerns the ongoing impact. There are more suitable locations to put these substations that are brownfield sites and not an Conservation and AONB area."

Lamorna Good
"I wish to protest because overall these plans will ruin the tourist industry which has brought money to a poor seaside villages. Noise and air pollution will affect people’s health; [Redacted] may have to move if the air pollution is very bad. The narrow roads are not suitable for heavy vehicles and there will inevitably be delays in the emergency services reaching the affected towns and villages. If your HGVs come into Aldeburgh, this will affect the primary and secondary school children, as they cross the Saxmundham and Leiston Roads. Cable trenches are too close to residential homes, including our only Nursing Home at Aldringhamk. Walking, bicycling and riding will be affected; all these have been promoted by the District Council for our health. The Thorpeness Cliffs are not suitable as site for landing cables - too fragile Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. Local road network unsuitable for the articulated HGVs. The emergency services will be delayed. This area has worked hard to build up tourism; we are not a rich area. This will be spoilt. Business will therefore collapse. Footpaths, bridleways and cycle paths will disappear - what about our health? Air pollution will force people [Redacted] to either stay indoors or move. Cable trenches will affect people’s homes and in particular for me, our only Nursing Home in this area, at Aldringham. Why can’t you build a road through fields so that the traffic won’t ruin people’s lives? The Friston substation will probably cause more flooding."

Leiston-cum-Sizewell Town Council
"I believe that the Initial Assessment of the Principal Issues must acknowledge the very real concerns raised regarding the cumulative impact of this and the other energy NSIP’s coming forward on this coast and, at least, make reference to this concern for the SoS to consider. The project itself, should it be consented, must be clearly linked to its sister application and conditions be applied to ensure that the cable route is laid and populated for both projects at the same time. The sandy topsoil along the cable route is in one of the driest areas of the country and particular conditions must be applied to ensure dust is effectively controlled continuously throughout construction. The disruption which will be caused by the crossing west of Knodishall on the B1069 must be quantified and conditions applied to ensure it is not used during peak periods of the daily commute. The Town Council continues to believe that the construction of such visually intrusive complexes and such large-scale industrial developments where they are now being proposed will always be wholly uncharacteristic to this area and will affect tourism and local amenity on a large scale. This will be addressed by other interested parties The proposed landfall at Thorpeness and associated cable route will severely affect our community’s quality of life and leave a visual blight on the landscape for many years to come. It is unacceptable to place these complexes within the close confines of rural villages like Friston and they should be located in positions better able to accommodate and disguise them. We still believe that any of the sites originally proposed to the west of Leiston in the onshore study area would extend and introduce the industrial development area right out into the countryside in a random fashion blighting a beautiful and agricultural landscape to an unacceptable degree and should not be used. If this does get approval it must be on the basis that the cable trenches will be filled in as soon as possible as the cable route moves west rather than the whole length laying open for years to come. Do a section at a time and re-instate. That working hours in the compounds and on the haul roads be brought in to 7.30am – 5pm to give local residents and walkers etc. some dust free and noise free recreation time in their gardens and in the countryside. The A1094, as it passes the junction to the B1069 (Blackheath Corner) should have a 40mph limit imposed. The detailed work done by SPR is noted but there should be another study done to look at changing the whole layout and visibility at this junction to increase safety of local residents further. The carriageway should be widened on B1069 from Blackheath to Knodishall as it will be very intimidating for motorists encountering continual (100% increase) HGV traffic. The B1069 from Blackheath to Knodishall is difficult for local drivers when buses or HGV’s are encountered. The carriageway must be widened. Other issues include the junction at Friday Street, the problems with abnormal loads and issues on the Sizewell Gap Road which is the only route to and from Sizewell B."

Lynne Darley
"I wish to object in the strongest terms. Our countryside is fast disappearing. It would have a huge impact on all of the following: the countryside; wildlife; woodland; pollution, both noise and air; and impact on the road network; tourism. There are plenty of other spaces, not close to towns and villages i.e. Leicestershire, which could 'house' this type of transformation. This part of East Anglia would never recover. I know this will be a waste of time as money always wins. But how could you!?!"

Margaret Palmer
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE As my family has lived in Thorpeness and Sizewell for the past two centuries we are alarmed by the ScottishPower Renewables planning application, and wish to object for the following reasons: The Thorpeness cliffs are very fragile and unstable, and not a suitable site for landing cables The area is massively important environmentally and the threat to wildlife and endangered species is completely unacceptable Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor The threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath The destruction of beautiful and ancient woodland Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas For the village the cumulative impact on the community of up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years The cable trenches and haul roads are too close to residential homes The local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline."

Meg Purvey
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: The East Anglian coastline is natural and beautiful this proposal will cause the destruction of parts of it and have great environmental significance. This breakup of the coast line will cause problems to migrating wildlife. The Country side will be irreparably spoilt and the destruction of woodland will happen if substations and other infrastructures are allowed to be built. This again impacting upon the wildlife. From information available there are brownfield sights in the vicinity that could be considered for the substations For local communities this will have a impact upon jobs created from trade and tourism as the area would not be so appealing. Increased traffic, light pollution and peace and tranquility being affected by massive infrastructure"

Michael Dee
"Dear Examining Authority, I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: - Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years - Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding - 11Km of cable trenches,destroying environmentally sensitive areas - Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs - Light pollution.Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost - Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost - Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents - Impact on businesses.Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Middleton cum Fordley Parish Council
"Representation giving notice of interest in, and concerns regarding: The East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm Development Consent Order Application ref: EN010077 We are deeply dismayed, not to say alarmed, that this application is being submitted for consideration with so little reference to, or allowance being made for, the combined impact of some six other projects planned in the very area covered by this DCO. There seems to be no regard being paid to the cumulative disruption that will be caused to the daily life of local residents, in terms of noise, air and light pollution, delays to all forms of traffic (including the emergency services). Nor is there due recognition of the damage and destruction of the adjacent AONB and SSSI with their fragile environmental and ecological aspects and the inevitable erosion of this unique region’s tourism. With several further windfarm developments, their associated National Grid infrastructures , the NG Nautilus project and the proposed new twin nuclear power station complex at Sizewell (SZC) all envisaged to overlap in part or even run consecutively, the various specific transport movement figures quoted in this particular application are all but meaningless. And the effect, not only to people living on or around the HGV routes shown, but also the delays to deliveries of the constructors’ own materials, could well be devastating. The lack of “joined-up thinking” in this process is spectacular at all levels. Back in the 1980s, a new road, providing direct access to Sizewell from the A12, was planned to protect local communities from the problems of construction of Sizewell B. But it never happened. With all the current proposals, the need for that very road, taking its original path (D2 as it was then labelled; EDF’s misguidedly dismissed route W today), is now overwhelming. We beg to question whether the piecemeal construction of onshore facilities for each new windfarm is really necessary or appropriate. The Dutch solution of each farm being joined by an offshore Ring Main, and landfall thus limited to fewer, or even singular, locations makes absolute sense, especially when the East Suffolk coastline’s beauty and fragility is considered. With existing onshore windfarm infrastructure already existent at nearby Bawdsey, what prevents the new farms’ supply being added to that? Or select an area already spoiled, for example the brown field sites alongside the rail tracks at Manningtree?"

Mr B T Kemp
"I object to this ill-conceived plan for a number of reasons including: 1) Cumlutive impact on our local cmmunities of up to seven energy projects 2)Substations dangerously close and small villages 3)Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes 4)Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels 5)Light pollution 6)Noise pollution 7)Permanent and temporary closure of footpaths and bridleways"

Mr Stephen Dorcey
"As far as we can ascertain (only by our own measurements because SPR will not indicate the precise route until contracts are in place0 the cable/haul route could be just 16 metres from my near neighbours property. this to say the least is very disturbing especially as the noise monitoring survey appears flawed for the following reasons:- In Volume 2 Onshore Figures and Volume 3 Appendices:- 1) The Receptor/Identifier CRR1 identified as CCR1 on the map location is in fact the incorrect address - the correct location never received noise monitoring assessments even though the owner was approached. 2) The same probably occurred at the 2nd receptor LFR3 on the map. The Ref LFR3 in Volume 3 appendices is the incorrect address. Therefore the noise assessment is null and void. 3) Further residents located along the cable/haul route should have received noise assessment due to their close proximity but not V15- (Redacted) Traffic Issues: The Leiston /Sizewell Road is single carriageway which is prone to flood (lack of drainage) and is cracking up due to its high volume of traffic. It also hosts the only public waste site in the area which is situated on a staggered S bend. Now it is expected to bear the construction traffic fo Sizewell C. SPR's on shore sub station traffic and is expected to be everyone's escape route in the event of a nuclear emergency!"

J A K Millar on behalf of Mrs A.C. Millar
"I wish to object to the planning application from Scottish Power Renewables.....it is part of an unthought out and uncoordinated scheme for much needed power but for the following reasons misconceived .... the impact on this whole area will cause a wholly disproportionate amount of environmental damage to nature, wildlife and neighbourhood....vast increase in heavy lorry traffic on narrow roads not built for this purpose causing congestion and subsequent danger to life through emergency vehicles being unable to obtain unrestricted access at short notice . major earth works close to residential housing..multiple projects over many years adversely affecting tourism and substantial loss of income on local small businesses causing light and noise pollution on an area of natural beauty and depleting the opportunities for paths, woodland area walks and cycle ways...the destruction of land, woods and amenities will cause some permanent and huge shortish but still over many years considerable disruption and health (pollution) issues."

Mrs Shelley Cowlin
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: Scottish Power's EAN1 and EA2 I would like to make my representations why this DCO application should not be allowed to proceed : 1. The cumulative effect of 7 energy projects being built over 10-15 years will destroy the area. 2. Drilling and running cables under the Thorpeness Cliff is unthinkable due to their fragility. In fact not that long ago a person was killed due to a cliff collapse. 3. Building massive electrical substations in close proximity to the small hamlet of Friston will create air, noise, light and dust pollution which in turn will severely affect the health and well being of the residents. Yours truly Mrs Shelley Cowlin"

Nicholas Matthew
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: There is already instability on the Thorpeness coastline which needs no further exacerbating. The cliffs at Thorpeness are unsuitable and too fragile a site for landing cables. The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium is totally unacceptable and will ruin the surrounding areas. These substations are dangerously close and would totally dominate a small village already liable to flooding. The proposed 11Km of cable trenches will almost certainly destroy environmentally sensitive areas. Not to mention the cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. There is a clear and unquestionable threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath and by severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths' AONB, this will almost certainly cause problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. And the destruction of ancient woodland. The local road network is resolutely unsuitable and ill prepared for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. Light pollution is going to be a huge issue, Suffolk’s famous dark skies will be lost and noise pollution will also cause Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity to be lost. Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away will cause visibility hazard and health issues. The increased traffic on roads will be both a danger to cyclists and residents alike. The Emergency Services will struggle in the face of HGVs. Inevitable delays will endanger lives. And the permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) will cause extreme inconvenience to local residents and visitors. Kind regards, Nicholas Matthew"

Paul Wilson
"RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Peter Chadwick
"I live (Redacted) within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is part of a thin strip of AONB along the Suffolk Coast. This area of AONB has special protected areas and special sites of scientific interest as well as incorporating Minsmere bird reserve. This AONB and the area around plays a special part in the quality of the landscape for local people, wildlife, and tourism which accounts for £200million pounds in East Suffolk. This project for EAN1 and EA2 will drive cable routes the width of a motorway through this AONB landscape for 4- 8 years which is a timescale that cannot be described as temporary. People will not want to live or visit here. There will be a very detrimental effect on the tourist industry. Wildlife will be affected long term and migration routes for birds and red deer will be cut in half. Minsmere bird reserve will be negatively affected in terms of visitors who often walked to Thorpeness or Aldeburgh as do other tourists. Footpaths, bridleways, and cycle paths will be closed for locals, tourists and visitors with a negative impact on the local economy. Health and quality of life will be badly affected by substantial pollution by noise, light, dust, and carbon emissions. On the grounds of the devastating effects of a massive cable route(s) through the AONB and other sensitive areas alone the project should be refused. The cliffs at Thorpeness are crumbling and part of a disintegrating coastline - not suitable at all for cable landfall. The massive substations themselves are totally unsuitable for the landscape around Friston or indeed this whole East Suffolk Coastal area and will overwhelm this beautiful village for local people and tourists alike. Views will be ruined. Again pollution of all kinds will be at an unacceptable level. The effects of construction traffic and haul roads arising from this project will have a very negative effect on the area for local people and tourists. Times to get anywhere will be greatly increased by the building of the massive complex and the cable route over a long timescale affecting people's wish to remain in the area or visit it. There will be no benefit to the local area with no local jobs. It will have an effect on ambulance and fire engines response times. The traffic gridlock effects will be greatly intensified by other energy projects planned for the area such as Sizewell C and D, and two Continental Interconnectors happening at the same time. The noise, light, dust and other pollution will be unacceptable. The siting of the project is flawed and solely based on inadequate and out of date national grid connections and no overall plan that takes into account the special qualities of this East Suffolk Landscape. The Secretary of State has promised an inquiry into this problem in Suffolk and Norfolk which will look into the possibility of a ring main or a hub out at sea as is used in other countries or at least the siting of these substations on suitable brownfield sites. This application should be turned down or at least halted until the results of this inquiry are known. It should be turned down on the grounds of the above very adverse effects that this project will have on the sensitive much-visited East Suffolk areawith its Heritage Coast, AONB coastal strip, SSSIs and special protected areas and beautiful landscape inland ."

Peter Howard-Dobson
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: - In spite of several representations to SPR and others, no attempt has been made to co-ordinate between offshore and on-shore delivery agencies in order to minimise the impact on the countryside. Better central government planning would help to minimise these problems. ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Peter Redshaw
"I wish to object to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application East Anglia north one ( and East Anglia Two) I live locally to this planned development of up to 7 energy projects to be developed consecutively over 12-15 years will have a major cumulative impact on our local communities . The impact on our unspoilt countryside of this massive development , will have a very damaging effect on wildlife and the country side , the cliffs at Thorpness which are fragile and prone to subsidence and falls yet they are being considered to land cables and the development will spoil the lovely village of Friston if a major substation as big as Wembley Station is built close bye. The proposed concrete used to build the substation will deflect the water course giving rise to localised flooding. We live in a very important part of the country for Wildlife,plants and Tourism , the cable trenches will destroy environmentally sensitive areas, destroying ancient woodland and will be a major threat to wildlife locally particularly at Sandlings Heath. This is a peaceful part of the world with small communities and very few major roads, our local network of roads is unsuitable for anticipated high traffic levels and heavy Traffic with many HGV loads per day for 10-12 years .This massive increase in road traffic will be a danger to cyclists and local residents , will delay our emergency Services in getting to our local people with Inevitable delays endangering lives and in the event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered.There would be very significantly increased Noise and Air and Light pollution, destroying the peace and tranquillity of the area,Suffolks famous dark skies would be lost, air pollution from the effect on the soil and from the fumes from the traffic. The building of this massive site would have a major impact on Tourism a major employer locally , would have an impact on businesses , loss of trade ,fewer visitors reduced income leading to social and economic decline in the area. For all the above reasons please reject this development and re-consider whether there is an need for this development and place it ,in a less sensitive area."

Philippa McLardy
"I am a Thorpeness resident and Aldringham cum Thorpe Parish Councillor. While supporting renewable energy generally, I do not think the proposed site at Friston is the best choice for ScottishPower Renewables’ substations, or that the best place for cables to make landfall is the sensitive area north of Thorpeness. I am also deeply concerned about the lack of cooperation between the diverse companies proposing future projects in the same area. Before any works begin, it is imperative to identify and minimise the cumulative disruption that will make life extremely difficult for residents (many elderly) possibly for decades. As well as devastating life-style, businesses and landscape, there will be unquantifiable impact on wildlife, sea and plant life, which may never fully recover. Landfall site:- Despite assurances that the SPR cable will pass underneath the cliff north of Thorpeness, bringing it ashore here will mean increased traffic over a piece of unstable coastline, where landslips occur regularly. During landfall works, construction processes will ruin a highly-valued area , Thorpeness clifftop Common and Aldringham Walks, turning these from much-loved zones of peace, tranquillity and abundant wildlife into places bounded by an industrial site. The Coastal Path will be disrupted. This will cause considerable distress to many regular users who walk, birdwatch, picnic, fish and generally unwind in the area. The much-loved annual August caravan camp will also suffer. Disruption to residents:- Traditional cottages in Sizewell, originally to be protected from disturbance, will now suffer the cable route and site access road running along their boundaries. This will also apply to properties adjacent to the cable route further inland towards the Friston site, notably in Aldringham around listed Aldringham House. There will also be destruction of woodland here. Even supposing thorough restoration of cable route land, it will be decades before the area as a whole recovers. Traffic:- While the Thorpeness to Aldringham Road (B1353) will not now bear the brunt of HGVs, it is extremely likely that Thorpeness and Aldringham will experience considerable traffic increase from employees and contractors working at the site and occupying former holiday accommodation. Parts of Sizewell within our parish will, however, be inflicted with a huge burden of increased traffic with associated noise, fumes, and danger from HGVs. Tourism:- Tourism will inevitably suffer. The cliffs and beach are popular with day-trippers and holidaymakers renting properties or staying in local hostelries. However, few will choose to come to an area where the beach and its immediate environs are an industrial construction site with the accompanying noise, dust, traffic and 24 hour light pollution. In particular, Beach View Holiday Park, Sizewell, which will have the new cable route running close to its boundary, will be seriously detrimentally affected. Fishing:- Fishing areas will be severely restricted for commercial fishermen out of Sizewell and Aldeburgh, including those setting lobster pots close to the Ness, and stocks will be affected long after works ceases. Leisure fishermen will also have to relinquish a large section of the beach where they normally set out their rods."

R Singleton
"The proposed development would cause serious environmental damage to this important and fragile coastal area. The area is relatively remote, in an area of scarce development and the pros also are totally out of scale with the locality. There would be damage to established environmental interest in this area of open skies and fragile landscape The proposal would bring harmful extra traffic, including heavy lorry traffic to an area where ambient noise levels are low."

R. C. G. Rowe
"I object to use of unspoilt countryside at Friston and around for substation complexes of enormous sizes. They will alter the tranquillity of the Sandlings Heath and surroundings. Tourism in East Suffolk will be adversely affected. Local business will be adversely affected.The 7 energy projects cumulatively will destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area for which it is known. If these developments have to be sited as planned, build the substations deep underground as (Redacted) Germany did 80 years ago siting the V1 and V2 rocket sites in deep concrete bunkers in NW France where their impact on those areas is small. I ask you to extend cables, etc. and substations from the coastline inland at an adequate depth to achieve a similar effect locally. Preservation of our local environment is essential. Your plans will destroy it.."

Rachel Armstrong
"Dear Examining Authority, I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: - Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years - Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding - 11Km of cable trenches,destroying environmentally sensitive areas - Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath - Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland - Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs - Light pollution.Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost - Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost - Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents - Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Richard Gardiner
"The connecting cables from Thorpeness and the substation at Friston will cause temporary and permanent damage and loss of amenity. This is unnecessary and/or the possible alternative siting at or near Sizewell, which would involve reduced need for connecting cable and cause less damage and loss of amenity, has not been properly investigated and considered."

Shirley Brice Keeble
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: - Cumulative impact on local communities of up to SEVEN energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. -Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables -Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium -Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding -11KM of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas -Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes -Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath -Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor -Destruction of ancient Woodland -Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs -Light pollution. Suffolks famous dark skies lost -Noise pollution Suffolks peace and tranquility lost -Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolks light sandy soil which blows/runs away causing visibility hazard and health issues -Increased traffic on the roads, a danger to cyclists and residents -Emergency services. Inevitable delays endangering lives -In the event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered -Impact on tourism DMO reports say traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area -Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs beading to social and economic decline -Permanent and tempory closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways ,byways an cycle paths) -The destruction of communities"

Snape Parish Council
"Registration as an Interested Party DCO Application Scottish Power Renewables project Friston, Suffolk Snape Parish Council (SPC) SPC wishes to register as an interested party in the Development Consent Order (DCO) Process. Based on the local consultation process thus far and the Stage 4 consultation document and recent DCO submission, the PC must reflect overwhelming opposition of residents to the current proposals. That includes both the construction of the substations as outlined and the traffic management plans. The PC does not feel that consultation has been either adequate or fair given the potential impacts and the quality of the information, research and calculation contained within the consultation document nor the DCO submission. The location of the site, potential impact on the environment and road network, levels of noise and air pollution, lack of consideration of the direct impact of the project on Snape generally, and specifically around traffic, undermine the proposals as outlined in the project documentation and application for DCO. The opposition to the proposals to build the substation are also based on the impact the construction will have visually and environmentally, adjacent to an AONB and to what are small rural roads and conurbations. The PC has noted and agrees with the concerns of both Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council to the DCO proposals in terms of the impact in an AONB and the lack of detail contained in the consultation documentation and DCO application. This lack of detail has been a consistent theme and remains a concern shared by Snape PC given the length of time that has been available to SPR to construct and research the proposed development. It is an issue that must be outlined in much greater detail in terms of the transport proposals and environmental impact before the DCO can be approved. The PC noted with concern that there continues to be complete lack of detailed granular analysis of the potential impact of traffic over peak periods such as holidays or the frequent and long established cultural events at both Snape and Aldeburgh. All the analysis and calculations were based on average traffic movements which given the nature of traffic in the area ignores the GEART guidance that is referred to in the documentation. The PC was concerned that despite specifically previously asking for consideration of the potential cumulative impact of the SPR proposals taken together with the developing Sizewell C plans and National Grid plans for infrastructure developments, that the sections on cumulative impact within the documentation held no real detail on the potential impact of concurrent development. It has been striking that there is frequent reference to ongoing work and the need to continue it over an extended period, but the issue remains of the potential damaging cumulative impact that could destroy, or at the very least significantly denude, the vital tourist and farming industries that the area depends on currently for employment."

St. Andrew's, Aldringahm Parochial Church Council
"Aldringham church serves the people of Aldringham and Thorpeness both of which communities are severely affected by your proposals. In particular, Thorpeness with its fragile crumbling cliffs is not a suitable place to bring cables ashore. The proposed cable route to Friston cuts right through Aldringham and the laying of the cable will cause considerable disruption to our parishioners. We feel that the choice of Friston for the substation is wrong and that the substation should be placed nearer to the coast. We are very worried about the impact on this special countryside."

Stephanie Powell
"I strongly object to the ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons:- Traffic The local road network is wholly unsuitable for the high levels of traffic and especially the HGVs that would be involved. There are several narrow points on the A1094 where 2 HGVs travelling in opposite directions would have difficulty passing. This would cause delays to other road users. Please bear in mind that Aldeburgh is a tourist destination and traffic disruption therefore matters to the livelihoods of many people employed in Aldeburgh. I understand the HGVs would travel north on the B1122 accessed from the roundabout in Aldeburgh. This area is narrow and can be time consuming for standard motor cars to negotiate due to oncoming traffic and the presence of parked vehicles along the residential part of the road. This route is wholly unsuitable for the intended volume of traffic and for HGVs in particular. Environmental This area is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is afforded the highest degree of protection. This has been totally overlooked when considering landfall locations. Creating 11 kilometres of cable trenches will destroy environmentally sensitive areas and threaten wild life. The digging of trenches and heavy machinery involved will create noise pollution. I understand that the proposed wind farms will collectively generate a considerable percentage of the UK’s electricity needs. This will therefore generate a considerable amount of money which should enable offshore energy companies to collectively create an integrated offshore design. Alternative Solutions The Developers should be required to use an Offshoure Ring Main (ORM) which would remove the need for individual substations and cable corridors. Such an ORM would involve each wind farm joining the same connection via a marine cable which would mean only two landfalls locations and two large onshore substations as opposed to many individual substations like the one proposed at Friston."

Steven Burch
"Having taken a considerable time to go through the whole planning application by Scottish Power Renewables i strongly object for the following main reasons. Destruction of ancient woodland and the desecration of an AONB area from the coast through to Friston. The cable trenches will have a huge impact on wildlife and on local footpaths/byways. The Friston substations will destroy the countryside around the village. There will be a huge increase in construction traffic again detrimental to the whole area, small roads with HGV traffic, noise pollution. All the above will have an impact on tourism in the area, therefore affecting local businesses and possibly the local economy. Since studying the plans it shows there are possibly another 5 projects to follow in the future, again a point not made public at consultation days."

The Fryers
"Dear Planning Inspectors We would like to make our objections known to Scottish Powers EAN1 and EA2 DCO application as follows: a. The Thorpeness Cliffs are too fragile to drill and run cables under them. Just two years ago there was a fatality due to a cliff collapse. b. The roads are not suitable for all the construction that will happen and will stop residents and visitors from freely moving around and hamper the emergency services reaching their destinations. c. Friston village will be swamped by the substations each the size of Wembley Stadium, affecting residents’ lives with air, noise, light and dust pollution. Regards Mr Dudley and Mrs Anne Fryer"

Wendy Margoram
"Dear Sirs, Please find my objections to EAN1 and EA2; The Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables Use of unspoiled countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas and woodlands Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs Light noise air and dust pollution destroying Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Traffic jams delaying Emergency Services The loss of tourism resulting in loss of jobs. Regards Wendy Margoram"

William Matthew
"- I disagree with the project and its location and do not want it to go ahead. - This project in its entirety appears to be totally at odds with the fact that this is a designated AONB. The idea that an AONB is even being considered as location seems counter-intuitive. - The roads around Thorpeness, Leiston and Aldeburgh already have a continuous flow of traffic due to the influx of visitors all year round. They simply couldn't manage the traffic proposed by the project in a way which protects the residents and visitors, both young and old. - There are a number of businesses that thrive in the area due to the influx of visitors. If the area were to become less attractive, less welcoming for children, adults and the elderly, less safe, and harder to get to the visitor numbers would precipitously decline putting many of these businesses at risk of failure. - The beach in Thorpeness and the surrounding area is continuously changing and a number of houses in Thorpeness are at risk near the cliffs. Should there be further man-made changes to the seabed it could have a knock-on effect on the wave formations putting further pressure on areas where there is significant land erosion. - In general, wind farms are a fantastic proposition. However, there are thousands of miles of coastline which could be used for such purpose. The idea of cramming all of these together in one place, especially it being an AONB, is detrimental to the quality of live for those that live there. There are clearly a number of other locations which would be suitable. If these areas are less economic then they should be subsidised by the government. The quality of people's lives should not be interfered with simply because ScottishPower Renewables wishes to pursue the easiest and most cost-effective course of action."

Aldeburgh Society
"The Aldeburgh Society is a civic society devoted to protecting the urban environment in the historic coastal town of Aldeburgh. We are concerned about the many major infrastructure projects, and SPR EAN1 and EA2 in particular, which have the potential negatively to impact Aldeburgh and its coast. The Society is in favour of renewable energy but concerned about the absence of coherent planning for implementation of the various projects. On behalf of the Aldeburgh Society I request that the Society be registered as an interested party and I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: • Cumulative impact on local communities of excessive number of energy projects being planned to occur concurrently over 10-15 years • Proposed landfall in a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and threat to wildlife and important Sandlings Heath • Local road network unsuitable for high traffic levels and number of HGV movements • Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents • Impact on tourism. This large construction project would deter tourists from coming to the area • Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs, leading to social and economic decline. • The SPR wind farms and their onshore installations pose a threat of significant industrialisation locally with the building of large new electrical substations or interconnectors and 60m wide cable trenches dividing the AONB in half. • We have been informed that apart from on-site disruption the delivery of construction materials will necessitate up to 750 lorries to the area every day. • The current plans for delivering that energy have been poorly thought through, would cause destruction of countryside and rare habitats, would make life much more difficult for residents and pose a serious risk of harm to the area’s important tourist trade. Regards Katherine Mackie Chair Aldeburgh Society"

Anita Parkinson
"We are strongly opposed to the proposed development at Friston for the following reasons: 1. There will be an unacceptable cumulative impact on the area with the proposed energy developments at Sizewell and the National Grid ventures interconnectors. 2. During construction the area will subject to unacceptable levels of heavy goods traffic. This could propose risk for emergency planning and access for emergency vehicles. 3. There will be unacceptable human impacts on a predominantly ageing and vulnerable population, particularly with regard to loss of equity in properties which are largely used to fund care in later years. 4. There will be an unacceptable impact on the visual enjoyment of the area. A rural area will be blighted by an industrial landscape. Scottish Power have not considered a design with a lower profile which would help to minimise impact. Proposed mitigation is ineffective and will provide no positive benefit for many years. 5. Loss of footpaths will have a negative impact on current enjoyment of the area. 6. The site is ringed by five grade 11 and two grade 11* listed buildings. 7. Quality of life will be damaged by noise and light pollution. The impact of this has been underestimated by Scottish Power. 8. Scottish Power have acknowledged the current risk of flooding in Friston, and accepted the proposed substation development will increase the risk of further flooding. Mitigation is ineffective. 9. There will be permanent detrimental effect to wildlife. 10. There will be no positive benefits to the local economy. No jobs will be created from the onshore development and the thriving tourism trade will be negatively affected. Nina Parkinson [Redacted]"

Antonia Owen
"Dear Examining Authority RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: * The unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables * The utilisation of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium * Substations dangerously close to a small village liable to flooding * 11Km of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas * Cable trenches and haul roads close to residential homes * The consequent threat to wildlife in general and to the Sandlings Heath and the Minsmere Bird Reserve; the severance of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths areas of outstanding natural beauty will cause problems to migrating species * The destruction of ancient woodland and ancient habitats * The local road network unsuitable for high traffic levels and heavy goods vehicles * Light and noise pollution * Increased traffic on roads, destroying rural tranquillity, increasing air pollution and representing a danger to cyclists and local residents * Major detrimental impact on tourism with loss of visitor income, trade and jobs leading to social and economic decline * Both permanent and temporary closure and/or destruction of public footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths, including peaceful and attractive dog-walking areas Yours Antonia Owen"

Carolyn Ridgeon
"I am writing as I have before because we have lived in Friston for 32 years and this proposed development is causing tremendous anxiety. This is a beautiful rural area and historically an arable farming region and these plans are going to alter this situation and it will never be redeemed. Not to mention the stress of the inevitable upheaval caused during the construction phase. The potential flood risk which is already acute with all the pigs on the fields surrounding the village. We are unhappy that the value of our home will be compromised. The whole thing is ruinous to the environment, the wildlife and the living standards of the villagers who reside in Friston and the surrounding locale. How can this possibly be allowed? SPR are calling this renewable energy, better for the environment, but I beg to differ when one looks at the damage to the beautiful surrounding countryside that this preposterous plan will bring about. We like to walk on the footpaths in the area ear-marked for development. This will be a vastly different experience with a substation humming away in the fields. What of the potential problems to our health? Why should a community have to tolerate this? Put this ugly excrescence somewhere that is not a rural idyll and make the design more palatable as well."

Charles Read
"I wish to object to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application for East Anglia One North on the following grounds: Cumulative Impacts The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 require, in Schedules 3 and 4, that the impacts of the project are considered in “..cumulation with other existing development and/or approved development”. Firstly the Applicant has failed to demonstrate the impacts in cumulation with their other application (East Anglia Two), and has kept these projects artificially separate to obfuscate the overall impacts from the two schemes. In addition, the Applicant has failed to consider other planned projects, such as National Grid’s plans for the Nautilus and Eurolink Interconnectors. Whether or not these applications have been made to the Planning Inspectorate, the plans for Nautilus and Eurolink are in the public domain and therefore constitute “Existing projects”. The Nautilus and Eurolink briefings identify potential cable landfalls, cross-country cable routes and substation locations as the EA1 and EA2N applications. The Briefing concludes “…the Leiston area compares more favourably than other connection options and forms the basis of the connection offers for the Nautilus and Eurolink projects”. The projects proposed by Scottish Power (EA1N, EA2) and National Grid Ventures include for the same infrastructure in the same area serving the same purposes. These projects need to be assessed for their impacts as whole, that is “in cumulation”, as required by Legislation. Given the importance of the projects to national infrastructure, and the impacts to the local area extending over a wide area for many years, I request that a Public Inquiry is held so that all matters can be considered and the correct solution reached. Examining the Scottish Power EA1N Application in isolation would be a failure of the Planning Inspectorate to comply correctly with existing Legislation. Impacts on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty The proposal from the applicant will have significant impacts in the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The applicant will claim that these impacts are not permanent, but there is no evidence for residual impacts or how long the area will take to recover from 12 to 15 years of heavy construction work. The purpose of an AONB designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the designated landscape. Secondary aims are meeting the need for quiet enjoyment of the countryside and having regard for the interests of those who live and work there. The Applicants proposals have a significant detrimental impacts on all the purposed of an AONB designation. Whether such impacts are justified, together with “cumulation” impacts from follow-on projects can only be fully considered through a Public Inquiry"

Charles Scott
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of un-interrelated energy projects occurring consecutively or sequentially over the next 12 to 15 years and the ostensible lack of involvement of the primary participant in the distribution process, the National Grid, in the planning process. - The lack of a coherent strategic plan to interrelate the connection of multiple energy sources ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Offshore hub could rationalise the sources whilst protecting the endangered coast line ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes of as yet indeterminate size ? Substations dangerously close to and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB including the wildlife corridors ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and often too narrow for HGVs - Grave risk of collisions and other accidents and of injury to the elderly and children in seeking to cross A 1094 Saxmundham Rd and B1122 Leiston Rd ? Light and noise pollution. Suffolk’s famed for its dark skies and peace and tranquility ? Air pollution from traffic petrol diesel and rubber fumes/particulates and associated health hazards. ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays potentially endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. Traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area. ? Impact on local independent businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income and jobs leading to social and economic decline. ? Permanent and temporary closure of footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths - Deleterious effect of the influx of a substantial workforce from outside the area on the socio economic structures of the resident population. -Requirement of additional policing and security to ameliorate consequent frictions."

Clare Palmier
"1.The Suffolk coast is an essential cultural, natural and heritage asset for the area and integral to its local economy and community. 2. Much of the coastline is AONB and should be protected as such. 3. There is an option for an offshore hub instead of many substations proposed by separate companies with their own interest and agendas to pursue. 4. One offshore hub could effectively bring in power from windfarms and centralise this function while protecting the coastline 5. There hasn't been adequate consultation with the community or adequate promotion of the issues at stake and the risk to the coast or the amount and area of construction and change that will be involved both during construction and as a result of the building of several substations."

Deborah Collis
"Severe detrimental Impact of onshore facilities especially transport infrastructure upon the local environment."

Derek Turner
"We are strongly opposed to the proposed development at Friston for the following reasons: 1. There will be an unacceptable cumulative impact on the area with the proposed energy developments at Sizewell and the National Grid ventures interconnectors. 2. During construction the area will subject to unacceptable levels of heavy goods traffic. This could propose risk for emergency planning and access for emergency vehicles. 3. There will be unacceptable human impacts on a predominantly ageing and vulnerable population, particularly with regard to loss of equity in properties which are largely used to fund care in later years. 4. There will be an unacceptable impact on the visual enjoyment of the area. A rural area will be blighted by an industrial landscape. Scottish Power have not considered a design with a lower profile which would help to minimise impact. Proposed mitigation is ineffective and will provide no positive benefit for many years. 5. Loss of footpaths will have a negative impact on current enjoyment of the area. 6. The site is ringed by five grade 11 and two grade 11* listed buildings. 7. Quality of life will be damaged by noise and light pollution. The impact of this has been underestimated by Scottish Power. 8. Scottish Power have acknowledged the current risk of flooding in Friston, and accepted the proposed substation development will increase the risk of further flooding. Mitigation is ineffective. 9. There will be permanent detrimental effect to wildlife. 10. There will be no positive benefits to the local economy. No jobs will be created from the onshore development and the thriving tourism trade will be negatively affected. Derek Turner [Redacted]"

East Suffolk Council
"Please be advised that East Suffolk Council intends to provide a separate written submission via e-mail to the Planning Inspectorate by the deadline of 27 January 2020."

Edward Twort
"Two trenches the width of the M25 EACH are about to be dug out by Scottish Power from Thorpeness to Friston causing chaos on the roads, to our business and destroying the cliffs at Thorpeness. It's also due to go on for at least 8 years!!"

Frances Cahill
"*The proposed development would irreversibly damage the environment in an area designated as a heritage coast and of outstanding natural beauty. This harm would be: 1.visual - namely to the look of what is a unique and tranquil landscape; 2. in terms of damage to the natural environment and habitat; 3. to the unspoilt character of the villages, by creating a vast and disproportionate infrastructure of buildings and roads that will put pressure on schools, health services and other local facilities; 4.in terms of noise levels and pollution, damaging the quality of the air because of the huge increase in vehicle and other emissions. *We owe it to future generations to preserve such a quiet, unspoilt area of natural and fragile beauty: once harmed, it can never be restored. Please, please consider other options, such as offshore hubs or ring mains. The proposals are being made without thought to the local community, to the many people who visit this part of Suffolk in search of peace and a break from busy, stressful lives and to our children. A wrong decision now, to destroy a precious natural asset, will reverberate down the generations."

Graham Tattersall
"Construction of a the EA1 windfarm substation in the village of Friston will have the following specific consequences: * Destruction of a rural landscape that is valued by residents of Friston and visitors to the Suffolk Coastal Area. * Generation of traffic noise and artificial light both during construction and subsequent operation. * Intrusive tonal noise (50 Hz and harmonics) from electronic conversion of windfarm feed to grid frequency and voltage. * Generation of heavy traffic to which existing roads are unsuited. * Degradation of quality of life for all in Suffolk without compensating local benefit. * Insufficient consideration given to alterative sites such as land near Sizewell B/C or brownfield sites such as Bradwell power station in Essex."

Ian Wiles
"This is absurb - have yu looked t the damage to PEOPLE,communties. wildlife? It is an impact on us as human beings livng in a rural community -lossof footpaths, damage to air quality, noise pollution, single track road - I could go on. Th only answer is to revisit the planning and find a less intrusive area."

Joanna Willett
"Concerned about the damage to be done to a historical and beautiful area. Do not believe it makes economic sense. It will blight tourism and deter inward investment."

Josephine Beedell
"I am a resident of Friston and wish to make the following points. The planned substation/s are far too close to the village, closer than any previous substation built in the uk and will cause major and unacceptable destruction to our way of lives, our physical well being and in many cases mental health. The burden put on any age of residents, though the huge impact will be on the older residents, many of whom have lived and enjoyed life here for many years, is immeasurable. The routes planned for HGVs and associated vehicles are clearly not thought through, there would be unbearable noise, pollution and overload throughout the construction stage, the landscape, wildlife, peace gone for many years and concreted over for the rest of our lives. We live here because we love what we have, this will be taken away. Its TOO CLOSE. This part of England is a peaceful unspoilt gift, and this would be a smack in the face of nature. Much more investigation into this decision and why this spot was chosen is needed very quickly and I believe not enough is known about this area by those who will have the final say. We are more than just a place on the map."

Knodishall Parish Council
"Dear Examining Authority EAST ANGLIA ONE NORTH I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons, * The local road into Knodishall form Black Heath Corner (B1069) is not suitable for the large volume of HGV’s that will use this to enter the haul road, this is already heavily used by traffic going to the local Towns, holiday traffic to the coast and staff from the Sizewell sites, this is extremely heavy at the beginning and end of the working day. * The permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs there are many footpaths and bridleways that the cable route crosses, they are heavily used each day temporary routes need to be in place before the work starts. * The cumulative impact on the local communities of up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years, this will blight the local area with so many large projects being done at the same time."

Mary Potsig
"I am a regular visitor to the Suffolk coast and a keen supporter of renewable energy, but the plans for this wind farm seem to negate any environmental benefits through the destruction of the AONB and surrounding countryside on the coast line. Specifically: The harm which will come to the plant and animal habitats in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB as a result of the infrastructure and construction processes. This is land which is supposed to be protected because of its ecological significance and of global significance. It’s damage and destruction could result in the loss of rare species and ecosystems The fragility of the coastline which is already being changed irreparably by climate change and human activity. Many habitats will be destroyed. The laying of the cable alone will damage an area 65m wife along its path through the AONB which is unacceptable The unsuitability of the present infrastructure and impact the construction will have on local roads and traffic, for example: Extra weight of significant amount of HGV traffic through popular tourist destinations such as Thorpness village, Aldeburgh and villages along the path of the single carriageway A12. This will be highly disruptive to local people and deter visitors. Some parts of the route are simply unsuitable for HGV traffic, especially in the volumes needed for this work (for example there are tight roundabouts in Leiston and around Aldeburgh) The amount of construction traffic will result in a huge increase in air pollution for the local population along the route. The disruption on unsuitable B roads and single carriageway A roads is rendered even more unnecessary by the fact there are already two fully functioning ports close by (Felixstowe to the north and Harwich to the south) which have the necessary infrastructure built to reach them and would be idea departure points for any of the wind farm components as they are taken to the offshore site. Construction of a substation in the village of Friston (which in itself is very close to the AONB) will damage the village, deter visitors and overshadow the village itself. The plans to construct a project of this scale in and next to an AONB contravenes the National Policy Planning Framework’s guidelines on AONBs: ‘115. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. 116. Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: • the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; • the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and • any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated It is clear that we need to be constructing more renewables including wind power, but the proposed location of this substation and the routes which will be needed during construction are ill conceived and the environmental and human costs outweigh the environmental benefits. Other routes and locations could have been considered which would be much less disruptive. I believe that the government should halt these plans and look at them as part of its overall policy for increasing renewables, where a strategy which balances the environmental impact of construction with the energy produced once projects are completed."

Megan Thompson
"I am disturbed that the government would condone such actions to a local area. I have business in Aldeburgh High Street, and I believe this will be devastating to the local economy and countryside. It's a beautiful area that will be spoilt by 100,000's trucks, diggers. The concreted substation will cause more flooding to local people as the rain water will run off it. We need to be protecting people and animals in areas of beauty, not destroying them. I ask, how will ambulances and other emergency services get through our small roads with these trucks on there? Lives will be at risk. Our roads cannot hold such a level of construction and nor should it. We do not want straightened and larger roads. Local people are being ignored and its not right."

Michael Pooles
"I OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATIONFOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1.It will have excessive impact upon local communities which have already suffered excessive impact from energy projects. 2.It is an area of outstanding natural beauty which is ecologically sensitive and delicate. The proposals will have an excessive impact upon the natural beauty, wildlife, flora, and topography of the area. 3. It will have excessive impact upon traffic levels, air pollution, and light pollution. 4. It will destroy many local businesses by reason of the effect upon farming and tourism. 5. It will consequently have a catastrophic effect upon the local economy and extend the areas of deprivation on the east coast."

Mr Hunter Smith
"The proposed development will have irreversible and negative economic and environmental effects in The Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The surrounding area, which is also predominantly rural and agricultural, draws in significant tourism and the proposed building of a vast substation involving significant construction traffic movements over a long period of time will have deleterious economic effects. Quite simply tourists who provide significant economic benefits by way of local employment and economic activity by using local businesses will move elsewhere as it becomes increasingly obvious that the area's infrastructure is unable to cope with such a vast construction undertaking. From a purely safety and environmental aspect it is clear that the existing transport infrastructure could not cope with the onslaught of major daily construction movements lasting many months. The latter may well also bring significant health risks, as well as the increased risk of traffic fatalities etc. To attempt to modify the infrastructure to be able to deal with the requirements of the building process, will of itself irrevocably change the nature of such a rural area and the surrounding landscape. Quite simply this is an ill-thought out development in the wrong area."

Mr M J Allen
"I support the submission made by Aldeburgh Town Council and am concerned that this proposed development together with others in the pipeline would completely transform this beautiful and fragile part of the country with its thriving tourist industry into an industrial area."

Mrs S M Henderson
"I am a resident of Aldeburgh living on a road which will be negatively affected during the construction period. The proposal to route traffic through the roundabout in Aldeburgh is unworkable. There will be insufficient room for HGVs to traverse the small road leading towards Leiston as there are numerous cars accessing Aldeburgh via this route and many residents park along this stretch of road. The planned routes are totally unsuitable for construction traffic, dangerous for other motorists and will have a seriously detrimental effect on local residents, villages, woodland, communities, business and tourism across a wide area. Suffolk’s beautiful, protected areas of outstanding natural beauty and the wildlife living in these areas will be greatly disturbed. The intrusion and resulting pollution caused by the increased traffic will be detrimental to the health of people, livestock and wildlife. Offshore wind farms will have a cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. The proposed landing sites for cables is unsatisfactory because of the fragile nature of the Thorpeness cliffs. The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for the substation is tragic and the affect it will have on the village is detrimental. If a closer site was chosen it would remove the requirement to lay underground cables from Thorpeness to Friston. The current planned route for the cables will be hugely disruptive in the construction period. There is an obvious threat to wildlife in the Sandlings Heath. There will also be some destruction of ancient woodland. The proposed route for construction traffic via the local road network is totally unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. This will produce danger, chaos, noise and air pollution and the resulting disruption is unacceptable and unreasonable. Aldeburgh is a popular tourist resort with an internationally renowned golf course whose tranquillity and attraction will be negatively affected during the construction phase. There will be a detrimental impact on the economy of Aldeburgh and area as a holiday resort. There could also be some permanent and certainly temporary closure of footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths. In summary, a better way to bring the power ashore from offshore wind farms must be found that does not have such a recklessly profound impact on an outstandingly beautiful part of England"

N D Barker
"I object to this development. East Suffolk feels like it is under constant attack from developments which will destroy its unique and natural character. This will have a negative impact on local businesses especially tourism. There will be a massive impact on the local road network especially during construction and an increase in noise pollution and air pollution. Most importantly, the cumulative impact of such schemes will be massive and their needs need to be addressed in a holistic fashion with clear high level strategic infrastructure planning so the impact will be minimised not just in East Suffolk but across the whole country. Without such a strategic plan then there will be a much greater impact on not just local communities but also AoNBs etc"

Nicholas Kent
"Dear Examining Authority RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: * The unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables * The utilisation of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium * Substations dangerously close to a small village liable to flooding * 11Km of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas * Cable trenches and haul roads close to residential homes * The consequent threat to wildlife in general and to the Sandlings Heath and the Minsmere Bird Reserve; the severance of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths areas of outstanding natural beauty will cause problems to migrating species * The destruction of ancient woodland and ancient habitats * The local road network unsuitable for high traffic levels and heavy goods vehicles * Light and noise pollution * Increased traffic on roads, destroying rural tranquillity, increasing air pollution and representing a danger to cyclists and local residents * Major detrimental impact on tourism with loss of visitor income, trade and jobs leading to social and economic decline * Both permanent and temporary closure and/or destruction of public footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths, including peaceful and attractive dog-walking areas Yours sincerely Nicholas Kent"

Nicholas Winter
"This proposal by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) is a highly intrusive industrial development in this rural part of Suffolk. I fully support the representations made by SASES (Substation Action Save East Suffolk) concerning the proposal. My wife and I have lived in Friston for 30 years. Friston is, at present, an attractive, quiet, village in this lovely part of the Suffolk countryside. A summary of some of my particular objections follows: • Landscape: The proposed development will destroy the rural charm of the village, both by the construction itself and then because these large structures will be a permanent eyesore visible for miles. SPR’s proposed visual mitigation measures are almost useless and the views presented by SPR showing the "benefits" of their mitigation planting are highly selective. • Wildlife: the many likely impacts on wildlife will be detailed by SASES. For me, one of the rural delights of Friston is that one can sit in the church in the summer with the door open and listen to skylarks singing above. Skylarks are on the Red List of UK birds: “Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action” (RSPB website). Once construction starts, skylarks will no longer sing over Friston. • Site Selection: a fundamental issue was the National Grid NG directing SPR to use the Sizewell grid connection. NG personnel have not attended any of the public meetings to explain their decision. The RAG process by which the site was apparently selected seems flawed and inconsistent. • Light Pollution: the construction process will be attended by floodlighting, affecting both humans and wildlife. This part of Suffolk is blessed with a dark night sky, with the Milky Way being visible on a clear night. Floodlighting will end that rural delight also. • Flood Risk: Friston is acknowledged to be at risk of flooding, even by SPR. However, their proposals to avoid flooding inspire little confidence. We, the residents, will be left with the consequences long after SPR has departed. • Substation Design/Noise: the structures proposed are 18 metres high. Why did SPR not propose lower structures as used elsewhere? Noise is clearly a potential issue; SPR seem unable to guarantee that no noise will be audible in any nearby property, surely an absolute requirement of any permission. • Cable Corridor: the construction involved in the cable corridor from the coast to Friston will impose much disruption in East Suffolk to residents and visitors alike for a period of at least three years, possibly much longer if other projects are included. • Cumulative Impact: this proposal is one of perhaps five others planned for the area, including Sizewell C. No consideration seems to have been given to the cumulative impact of all this construction activity on the people who live and work here. • Jobs and Tourism: many businesses will be impacted by the inevitable loss of tourism to the area. Who will want to go on holiday in a vast construction site? • Impact on People: residents of Friston, and beyond, will be seriously affected by this proposal. Our quality of life will be reduced by noise, dust and light pollution. Our property values will be reduced and may be unsaleable for years. These effects on a generally aging population will cause stress and other health issues. In summary, Friston is not an appropriate site for this project; the adverse effects it will cause are numerous and severe. The substations should be sited on a brownfield site near where the power comes ashore."

Patrick Guy
"I have lived here all my life and walk on this heathland every day. It is a haven for nature lovers, wildlife and animals. This project will cause 1 Irreversible damage to beautiful unspoilt heathlands and wildlife. 2 An ancient wood will be destroyed. 3. More similar projects to follow with same devastating results"

Paul Chandler
"I am writing to register my concerns relating to ScottishPower Renewables applications for East Anglia One North and East Anglia Two offshore windfarm projects. As a resident directly affected by these proposals, living at primary noise sensitive receptor site CCR4, these projects will directly impact upon the health and wellbeing and place a number of restrictions on our everyday lives for the 6 residential properties at this location. At no stage have SPR contacted any affected property owner to discuss mitigation measures or compensation for the additional increase in environmental noise, dust and light pollution. The baseline noise surveys are not representative of the current sound levels experienced in our garden at the rear of the properties, which is extremely quiet. The additional generated noise from the fields at the side and rear of our property is greatly underestimated. Should these projects be permitted, heavy traffic increase along Sizewell Gap Road (Heavy Route HR100) will be substantial. SPR plan to establish 2 haul roads either side of our property, and the cable trenches behind will effectively maroon us in a sea of noise and disruption. Further to this I am also very concerned about the following: 1. Traffic Impact. Apart from HR100, the local road network is typical of a rural location. Only Heavy Lorries will be obliged to use HR100 to access easternmost sites; access to the substation complex will be via the A1094 from the A12 towards Aldeburgh, turning onto the B1069 to Knodishall. There are a number of pinch points on these routes where HGVs passing local traffic, touring caravanners and motorhomes, as well as other HGVs is extremely restricted. All personal, LGV and other project associated traffic are free to choose routes to and from work sites, adding to local congestion. 2. Cumulative local impact on communities and inadequate local infrastructure of the multiple energy projects occurring together simultaneously during the life of these projects, as well as a number of new housing and utilities projects, and the day-to-day activities of local businesses. 3. Vibration, Noise, Light and Air pollution. The area is predominantly rural and abundant with wildlife and rare habitats. A number of rare and unique species will be disturbed and displaced. The health and wellbeing of residents will be affected. The peace and quiet is especially important to the Wardens Trust, a refuge for disabled children and adults, away from the noise and excess of modern city and town living. 4. Impact on Business and Tourism. Tourism is a vital economic contributor to the area, worth in excess of £200M/year. The Suffolk DMO has calculated losses of up to 20% per annum could result if these projects proceed and jeopardise many of the 4,500 people currently employed. 5. Destruction of valuable green spaces adjacent to the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB, SSSI, EPA & SPA. The famous open landscape scarred forever with massive warehouse size structures and electrical compounds, especially dwarfing the tiny village of Friston mentioned in the Doomsday Book. 6. Permanent and temporary closure of many PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) for the 4 – 8 year project duration. Used by many locals and visitors for a multitude of recreational pursuits"

Peter de Mille
"The proposal would seriously and adversely affect the Suffolk Coastal and Heaths AONB. In particular: 1. The Thorpeness cliffs are already extremely vulnerable and fragile. They would be further endangered. 2. The cable trenches and haul roads are far too close to residential properties and would sever the AONB. 3. The proposal would destroy ancient woodland. 4. The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for the huge substation is entirely inappropriate. 5. The impact on tourism, trade and businesses would be substantial and severely detrimental. 6. The roads and infrastructure are inadequate for the high volume of construction traffic. 7. The wind farm is very extensive with many miles of coast more suitable environmentally even if they would be a little more expensive in comparative terms. The inevitable harm that would be caused in the proposed area renders it disproportionate to any such extra cost elsewhere."

Philip Shelley
"I wish to object to this planning application on the grounds that it is completely unsuitable for the area and will cause huge damage to a rural community. It will have a massively negative impact on - tourism, ancient woodland, cause closure of footpaths, bridleways etc, add to pollution. Substations will negatively impact on nearby villages. Thorpeness cliffs are NOT suitable as site for landing cables. It will threaten wildlife and important Sandlings heath."

Rachel Ann Cavers
"I am writing to you with regards Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) planning application EA2- PINS DCO application with regards the Friston Substation and register as an interested party. I wish to object to this application on the following grounds. The building of the SPR substation and National Grid inter connector is a major construction project that should not be placed in the middle of an unspoilt rural location. The reasons being. The planned site is far too close to Friston, a small thriving village with great historical interest. (Three Lord Mayors of London) are buried in the church yard. In effect it will blight the village . The local footpaths will be destroyed and local wildlife such as Badgers and Bats will be displaced. SPR has shown little concern for any of these issues. Noise pollution. There will be a constant loud hum from the the site that will blight all the surrounding areas. Light Pollution. There will be constant 24/7 lighting of the site which will cause major harm to both humans and nocturnal wildlife such as owls and bats. Destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. Flooding. SPR has shown very little concern over the risk of flooding to the village and surrounding areas. The impact that this will have on the village is enormous. The potential for home owners in the village not being able to get flood insurance or to have to pay much higher premiums has not been addressed. Traffic and Transport. The whole road network around the site and along the pipeline route from Thorpness to Friston is rural and unspoilt and is a major part of the charm of the area along the Suffolk coast. It is totally inadequate for this this size of construction project and the vast increase in traffic movements that will be required to service this construction. This traffic increase will blight the area for miles around and will severely damage the main industry and employment in this beautiful area which is based on tourism. SPR have tacitly shown that they are aware of this by the amount of “Road improvements” that they accept will be needed. SPR has shown a complete lack of concern with how the increase traffic will affect the area or come up with any proposals as to how they will effectively police their contractors/employees, making sure they stick to the correct routes and not use local villages and back roads as “rat runs” or what sanctions would be imposed on contractors who do not follow their instructions. Landfall and Cable Trench. The choice of landfall for the cables at Thorpeness is flawed. Again the destruction of footpaths, ancient woodlands and wildlife along the route is unacceptable. The timescale for building the cable trench for the project does not fall into the category of temporary. Site Design. No attempt has been made to reduce the impact of the site by using more up to date technologies."

RJ Sayer
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Robert Clark
"I have known this part of England since the 1960s and long admired its sense of history and benign peace. It is appalling to think that it will be covered with such a huge technological installation and thus converted into what amounts to an industrial park. Why not place it on the beach near Sizewell, already an industrial site, and surrounded by acres of gravel and undistinguished flat marshland? The choice of these green fields so near to three charming Suffolk villages seems unjustifiable: once this landscape is trashed, it can never be restored."

Roger Green
"Dear Examining Authority, Although I am an advocate of offshore and green energy, being a regular visitor to Friston over many years I feel I must write to object to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application. To situate such a development in this area is nothing short of an act of vandalism. The impact on the local community and wildlife will be unrecoverable and devastating. • This development, with seven energy projects running consecutively over a 12 to 15 year period will have an aggregate negative impact on the local community. • The planned substation are so close to existing buildings and infrastructure they will dominate the environment. • Some of the areas involved are liable to flooding. • The Thorpeness Cliffs are very fragile and therefore unsuitable as a site for landing cables. • The 11Km of cable trenches will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. • The planned cable trenches and haul roads are too close to residential homes. • The local road network is unsuitable for the high levels of heavy traffic that will be required to build and maintain the site. • The inevitable increased in traffic on these narrow roads will be a danger to cyclists and residents and increase the response time for the emergency services thus endangering lives. • The building work will involve the destruction of ancient woodland and poses a very real threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. • The work with sever the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. • Light and noise pollution from the site means the tranquil nature and character of this part of Suffolk will be lost for ever. • Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away will cause a visibility hazard, health issues and increase erosion. • According to the DMO report, there will be a negative impact on the tourist industry, on which much of this area relies resulting in the closure of many local business and increased unemployment leading to social and economic decline. • The permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) will exasperate the loss of tourism. • The ancient and unspoilt countryside at Friston is not a logical site for a substation complex the size of Wembley Stadium. Yours sincerely, Roger Green"

Samantha Mann
"- devastation of a small rural village - affect my business as I run an award winning bed and breakfast from the farmhouse - devastation for tourism in the area which is a huge part of the Suffolk Coasts income - poor evidence of Scottish Power trying to mitigate the project - Problems with other Scottish Power Projects that have let to the extension of the building - The proposal of the hall road cutting right though the farm. This will be close to our house (Redacted)"

The Crown Estate
"The Crown Estate manages property and rights which are owned by Her Majesty in right of the Crown. This portfolio includes around half of the foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to 12 nautical miles around the UK. Under the Energy Act 2004 and the Energy Act 2008, The Crown Estate also manages the rights over the continental shelf to offshore energy generation and the rights to carbon dioxide and natural gas storage and transportation (respectively). The Crown Estate requests to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm. Our interest in the project is that East Anglia ONE North Limited holds an Agreement for Lease from The Crown Estate for the area of seabed to be occupied by the project, and (subject to obtaining the necessary development consents) The Crown Estate will issue a lease to East Anglia One North Limited for construction of the project. We therefore wish to follow the progress of examination of the project."

Tim Scotchmer
"Challenge to Scottish Power Renewables EA1N & EA2 Offshore Wind-farms offer one of the better alternative methods of energy currently available. Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) project to construct EA1N and EA2 is welcome as an alternative source of energy. However examination of SPR documentation and discussion at their exhibitions have not in my opinion taken into account all the factors. There are objections to SPR application discovered by close examination of their proposals plus lack of information until diligent investigation completed by local objectors. The reasons for my objections are on the following points, which should be examined or re-examined by The National Planning Inspectorates (PINS) before any decision on the application is approved: - • Insufficient planning regarding impact on the local community – - Continuous construction active for up to 15 years. A fact not clearly identified by SPR in any public meeting or exhibition. - Not only SPR but at least 7 other Wind-farm projects using the same facilities terminating at proposed landside (map ref. TM47/60). Not disclosed by SPR. - Disruption to 3 village communities causing ecological, environmental and health problems. - Disruption to 3 roads B1069;1122 & 1353; main service route to the villages and major town in the area. - Massive HGV and Construction traffic using these roads, not suitable or sustainable. - SPR estimate 200 HGV movements per day increase on A12 and A1094 roads plus Sizewell Nuclear C site movements an additional hazard. • Landside terminate point (map ref. TM47/60) subject to dangerous landslide recently – - Recent fatality adjacent to landside terminal site - Heavy construction & HGV equipment unsuitable and unsustainable in immediate area. - Construction personnel subject to cliff collapse and possible fatalities. - Re-examine as alternative terminal point map ref. TM47/64 with route through TM45/64 & 42/62. Less interference to Communities plus danger from Cliff collapse. - Evacuation in event of Nuclear incident at Sizewell access roads from A12 not restricted. • Tourist industry effected by disruption – - Major impact on a financial asset to the community. - Road network in area restricted by excavation work inconvenient to tourist traffic. - Ancient woodland, countryside access routes e.g. bridle-paths etc. destroyed. - Damage to the wildlife environment, ecology and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with loss of many endangered species and wildlife. • RAMSAR site – internationally designated location. - Recognised as a significant wetland habitat for migrating species. - Damage to wildlife environment and ecology. - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with loss of many endangered wildlife. • Heavy construction of Sub-station and cable routing will bring high level of pollution to the village communities within current planning application at a time when U.K. are Globally attempting to reduce climate change. Ecological and environment terms must be restricted. The current plan exceeds, in my view, acceptable standards. Tim Scotchmer, [Redacted] 22 Jan 2020"

Tony Morley
"SPR's proposal to site on-shore substations next to the village of Friston are completely unacceptable for the following reasons:- The Consultation meetings were very unsatisfactory and no one from National Grid attended any meeting. The proposed site would cover 83 acres of good agricultural land overlooking a small village of 150 houses. This is an area of deeply rural countryside with numerous rights of way and considerable wildlife. The buildings would be up to 25 metres high and just 350 metres from residential housing and listed buildings and would overlook homes, the Church and Village Green. The substations would generate an upsetting humming noise as well as light pollution that would affect the health and quality of life of residents. The concreting over of 83 acres would exacerbate the current serious flood problems at Friston. SPR have not made any assessment of the proposed mitigation measures to avoid additional flooding in Friston. The projected HGV transport movements are quite unrealistic for the narrow roads and would cause very serious problems for residents, local business's, farmers and the holiday makers so essential to the economy of this area. There would almost certainly be accident casualties of road users such as cyclists, walkers and horse riders if this proposal went ahead. The proposed landfall at Thorpeness is ridiculous as the coast there is rapidly eroding and any cable terminal would soon be at risk. The proposed 6 mile cable route would destroy farmland , AONB sites and mature trees that could not be replaced. The road crossings of the route would seriously affect traffic for between 3 and 6 years. There is a perfectly good alternative site at Broom Covert next to the Sizewell A & B sites that SPR say they won't consider as it's within the AONB. However the Suffolk Preservation Society (SPS) - part of the CPRE - have written to SPR (letter dated 6/11/18) saying the Friston site is "not supportable" and they state that Broom Covert is more suitable as a site and would avoid the 6 miles of chaos caused by excavating the cableway. There would be a straightforward sea to shore access at at Sizewell with a much reduced erosion risk. SPS pointed out SPR that the Galloper Examination Panel accepted that onshore infrastructure could be sited within an AONB without a need for "exceptional circumstances". SO WHY HAVEN'T SPR CHOSEN THE OBVIOUS SITE AND CHOSEN TO RUIN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND PEOPLES LIVES? The best solution for this and the further 6 approved - and further planned - substations would be to site them offshore feeding into an offshore ring main or, at least, a number of substations feeding into a smaller number of cables linking to the Grid. This would save our countryside and all construction materials would be delivered by sea avoiding chaos on our rural roads. THIS IS THE SOLUTION CHOSEN BY HOLLAND, GERMANY AND DENMARK - WHY NOT UK?"

W I Liddell
"I am writing to express serious concern over the siting of the substation for the EA1N wind farm that is now located near Friston. In the slide show of the selection process the sites adjacent to Sizewell power station and the substation for the Greater Gabbard wind farm and its future extension were quickly rejected after a RAG assessment presumably because of the existence of a SSSI area. In the engineer's summary of the RAG methodology it states that "It should be noted that if a site is awarded a Red score, this will not necessarily prevent an option being taken forward as preferred into the next stage if, overall, it performs better than others. Ian Liddell CBE FREng I cannot understand why that location continues to be considered in view of the damage to the 9 Kms of land including some SSSI areas that will be heavily damaged by the digging of the cable trenches to get the power from the landfall point to the proposed substation. There is also numerous concerns from the local residents over the amount of damage and disturbance that will be caused by the construction and installation of the new substation and grid connection by plant using the local roads through the village. The road to Sizewell has already been up graded to take these type of loads. I note that the"

Adam Hume
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower renewables planning application for the following reasons, The destruction and damage of the local area, including an AONB. This covers a substantial area of footpaths and farm land that used by a large part of the community. It will disrupt and prevent use of a recognised Long Distance walking route ( The Sandlings Walk). As a result of the work being conducted I believe that the disruption will adversely affect tourism, which will have a negative impact on the local economy and community. This could affect the area for 12 to 15 years if all 7 energy projects are approved. It will require the loss of hedgerows and woodland areas, affecting the retention of top soil and increase the likelihood of flooding which is already an issue on access roads. The Thorpeness cliffs which are marked for landing cables are already fragile and suffering from erosion, resulting in the death a male in 2017. The cables will only make matters worse. There will be a massive impact on the local wildlife including Red Deer, which will destroy their habitats and force a culling or relocate with devastating consequences. Their will be an impact on the local and migrating birdlife, such as Nightjars, Marsh Harriers and Bitterns which will be forced to relocate. Threat to reptiles such as slow worms and adders, which are already being moved in Kenton Hills. All of the above will affect the local economy. There will be such an increase in traffic that it will hamper emergency services access. There will be an increase in noise and light pollution as well. This part of Suffolk is renowned for its peace, tranquility and it's Dark skies. In the event of an incedent at the Nuclear power station, evacuation could be hampered. The cables, substations and the vehicles used will cause issues on the local road infastructure Some of the cables and therfore work takes place very close to residential areas cause disruption. If there a large influx of workers and families this will have a massive affect on the local schools, doctors etc which are already running at capacity."

Alan Simpson
"I am very concerned about the enormous impact the above proposed project would have on my life and the surrounding area. I fully support both SASES & Friston Parish Council views relating to the project. The visual impact on our village of the sub-stations would be enormous. Scottish Power’s mitigation will have minimal benefit as the tree planting will be too long establishing to ever effectively screen the site & would be subject to maintenance being carried out ie. watering & weed control (on previous sites this was not carried out) I live in [Redacted] & am concerned about the additional flood risk of this development, both during construction & when completed. SPR has failed to properly address this. We already suffer from flooding to properties now without more water being discharged into the water course. The increased traffic generated by this project would create gridlock on our narrow country lanes & roads from Thorpeness to Friston. We already have problems at busy times with ‘rat runs’ & this project will make it impossible to travel around the area. I am very concerned with the implications this would have on implementing the Evacuation Plan if there was a nuclear incident at Sizewell B. Tourism has been very important to this area for many years & would suffer badly if this project takes place, losing both tourism jobs & others in the supply & maintenance sectors. The proposed development will also result in the loss of good farm land at the sub-station site as well as the disruption along the cable route. These scars could become permanent if proposed additional projects are implemented as trees cannot be replanted over the cables, leaving permanent scars in the area of the AONB & wider countryside. The inevitable light pollution & constriction noise will disturb wildlife. The peace & quiet is why people live in & visit this area. The loss of footpaths, some permanent & during construction over possibly many years will have a devastating effect on the quality of lfe here. SPR have been at best evasive & at worst misleading throughout the consultation process. I attended the first consultation presentation in Leiston & was told that the sub-station site would be near Sizewell & the coast, that site 7 at Friston would not be considered. This resulted in there being no representation on the implications of the sub-station put forward from Friston residents about the impact of it being so close to people’s homes."

Alexandra Langdon
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor Kind regards Alexandra Langdon [Redacted]"

Amanda Mallett
"I am a resident of Friston who values the tranquillity of this historic village. I occupy an 18th century house in the middle of the village which is ringed by other listed buildings. My main objection is that the proposed development of more than 35 acres of industrial buildings and concrete in a greenfield site in the countryside just a few hundred metres from Friston Village is too close. This will affect villagers’ homes property including the setting of the Grade II* listed church which dates back to the 14th century and is regularly used for worship. The impact on loss of grade 2 and 3 agricultural land has also been understated. The substations will dwarf Friston village and will be visible from all routes into the village. The complex will permanently blight Friston village and the surrounding area, and will be detrimental to quality of life and the value of their property. The construction itself will be very disruptive and will leave an unacceptable legacy of negative visual impact, potential of anti-social noise and light pollution. Friston village already suffers from flooding, and because of the unsuitable nature of the site, risk of surface water flooding will be increased to an unacceptable level. This will have significant impact on residents’ homes in the vicinity. Furthermore the local field are full of rare wildlife including bats, badgers and barn owls which all keep us company Friston location. Destruction of their habitat is unacceptable. The same goes for loss of amenity, well used footpaths and village allotments which are valued by the local residents. Another significant concern is that this planning application only applies to East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm. However it will set a precedent which would threaten other towns and villages in East Anglia. I consider site selection has been defective because it has not taken National Grid works into account. The biggest concern here is that the Friston site will be extended and further blighted by more installations. Most alarming is that National Grid will require further onshore infrastructure. This includes grid scale energy storage, needed to mitigate the effects of intermittency with wind power, as well as the proposed Nautilus interconnector project will provides high voltage under-sea cabling between Great Britain and Belgium. It is likely that East Suffolk will suffer disproportionately than other parts of the country. There will be few new jobs created in the region whilst at the same time tourism will be affected. In terms of loss of jobs, there has been no evaluation on the reduction of inward investment due to loss of amenity in the village. In conclusion, it is quite clear that this development should not be authorised and further technical solutions considered instead"

Andy Manning
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Angela Aldred
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for my following reasons: .Damage and the destruction to an area which is recognised as of natural beauty. .Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables. This is evidenced after a gentleman died when the cliff collapsed beneath him in 2017. .Cumulative impact on local communities of up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over twelve to fifteen years. .Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. .It will cause the loss of hedgerows and woodland areas, affecting the retention of topsoil and increasing the likelihood of flooding which is already a problem on the access roads. .The threat to wildlife including Red deer in which SPR’s plans will destroy their habitats and force them to relocate with potentially devastating consequences. They may be culled or if forced to relocate as they are territorial will be forced to fight clashing antlers and injure themselves. .Threat to wildlife including birds and reptiles (the latter of which have already been relocated in Kenton Hills). Our famous birds unique to this area include the Bitterns, Nightjars and Marsh Harriers. There are numerous others not mentioned. .Destruction of ancient woodland - at least one of these trees is reported to be in The Doomsday Book .As a result of the work being conducted I believe the disruption and destruction will adversely affect tourism which will have a negative impact on the local economy and community. This could affect the Suffolk area for twelve to fifteen years if all seven energy projects are approved. .Light pollution. Suffolk is famous for its dark skies and these will be lost. .Noise pollution. Suffolk is a place of peace and tranquility- this will be lost. .In the event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered endangering lives. .Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridle was, byways and cycle paths). .This includes the famous Suffolk Sandlings Walk through Suffolk coast and Heaths. .Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGV’s. .Air pollution from traffic and trenches through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away causing health issues and hazards to persons and wildlife. .Local amenities already under pressure ie doctors and schools, where are additional workers and families going to go? .The threat to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor from damage/severance to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB - this includes the famous Berwick’s Swan, unique to this area."

Anna Dawson
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons : As a local resident the proposal would spoil the countryside around Thorpeness and Friston. The cliffs at Thorpeness are not suitable for landing cables due to their extreme fragility. The substations at Friston would dominate a currently peaceful village community. The trenches are planned to go through environmentally sensitive areas which attract many visitors due to the varied wildlife, especially bird life. Many species use this area as a migratory route and a wildlife corridor. The tourism trade is crucial to the resident population of both Aldeburgh and Thorpeness and the local community would be badly affected if the tourist trade is reduced. The local road network is not suitable for the high levels of lorries which will be using the roads throughout the construction phase. The area is extremely popular with cyclists and the extra traffic on these roads would be a serious danger to both cyclists and local traffic. I sincerely hope the views of local residents will be considered. ?"

Antonia Howard
"I wish to object to this planning application for the following reasons: Destruction of ancient woodland Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occuring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Threat to wildlife and Sandlings Heath"

Catherine Hackshall
"Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to make the following representations in relation to the application East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm (Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010077). • Cumulative impact of Sizewell, National Grid and offshore windfarms. • Negative impact on human quality of life, enjoyment and use of the area. • Negative impact on the landscape and heritage of the rural coastal area. • Site selection and current land use. • Light pollution from the construction phase and during operation. • The socio-economic impact a job sense and tourism. • Flood risk of the proposed areas that would be affected and where floodwaters may be pushed away to. • Disturbance and stopping up of public rights of way. • Damage and removal to onshore ecology sites and ongoing effects of substation operation on remaining sites. • Design and noise impact of the construction and operation of the substation and cables. • Traffic and transport routes for the construction and operation of the substation and cables. • The route of the cable, particularly the landfall at the fragile cliffs of Thorpeness. The location and scale of the project is not suitable for this rural coastal area. Regards, Catherine Hackshall"

Coastal Fitness
"Coastal Fitness operates in Friston and the tranquillity of this historic village contributes to the reputation of the company. My main objection is that the proposed development of more than 35 acres of industrial buildings and concrete in a greenfield site in the countryside just a few hundred metres from Friston Village is too close. This will affect villagers’ homes property including the setting of the Grade II* listed church which dates back to the 14th century and is regularly used for worship. The impact on loss of grade 2 and 3 agricultural land has also been understated. The substations will dwarf Friston village and will be visible from all routes into the village. The complex will permanently blight Friston village and the surrounding area, and will be detrimental to quality of life and the value of their property. The construction itself will be very disruptive and will leave an unacceptable legacy of negative visual impact, potential of anti-social noise and light pollution. Friston village already suffers from flooding, and because of the unsuitable nature of the site, risk of surface water flooding will be increased to an unacceptable level. This will have significant impact on residents’ homes in the vicinity. Furthermore the local field are full of rare wildlife including bats, badgers and barn owls which all keep us company Friston location. Destruction of their habitat is unacceptable. The same goes for loss of amenity, well used footpaths and village allotments which are valued by the local residents. Another significant concern is that this planning application only applies to East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm. However it will set a precedent which would threaten other towns and villages in East Anglia. I consider site selection has been defective because it has not taken National Grid works into account. The biggest concern here is that the Friston site will be extended and further blighted by more installations. Most alarming is that National Grid will require further onshore infrastructure. This includes grid scale energy storage, needed to mitigate the effects of intermittency with wind power, as well as the proposed Nautilus interconnector project will provides high voltage under-sea cabling between Great Britain and Belgium. It is likely that East Suffolk will suffer disproportionately than other parts of the country. There will be few new jobs created in the region whilst at the same time tourism will be affected. In terms of loss of jobs, there has been no evaluation on the reduction of inward investment due to loss of amenity in the village. In conclusion, it is quite clear that this development should not be authorised and further technical solutions considered instead."

Colin Mallett
"I am an active pensioner and resident of Friston who values the tranquillity of this historic village. I occupy an 18th century house in the middle of the village which is ringed by other listed buildings. My main objection is that the proposed development of more than 35 acres of industrial buildings and concrete in a greenfield site in the countryside just a few hundred metres from Friston Village is too close. This will affect villagers’ homes property including the setting of the Grade II* listed church which dates back to the 14th century and is regularly used for worship. The impact on loss of grade 2 and 3 agricultural land has also been understated. The substations will dwarf Friston village and will be visible from all routes into the village. The complex will permanently blight Friston village and the surrounding area, and will be detrimental to quality of life and the value of their property. The construction itself will be very disruptive and will leave an unacceptable legacy of negative visual impact, potential of anti-social noise and light pollution. Friston village already suffers from flooding, and because of the unsuitable nature of the site, risk of surface water flooding will be increased to an unacceptable level. This will have significant impact on residents’ homes in the vicinity. Furthermore the local field are full of rare wildlife including bats, badgers and barn owls which all keep us company Friston location. Destruction of their habitat is unacceptable. The same goes for loss of amenity, well used footpaths and village allotments which are valued by the local residents. Another significant concern is that this planning application only applies to East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm. However it will set a precedent which would threaten other towns and villages in East Anglia. I consider site selection has been defective because it has not taken National Grid works into account. The biggest concern here is that the Friston site will be extended and further blighted by more installations. Most alarming is that National Grid will require further onshore infrastructure. This includes grid scale energy storage, needed to mitigate the effects of intermittency with wind power, as well as the proposed Nautilus interconnector project will provides high voltage under-sea cabling between Great Britain and Belgium. It is likely that East Suffolk will suffer disproportionately than other parts of the country. There will be few new jobs created in the region whilst at the same time tourism will be affected. In terms of loss of jobs, there has been no evaluation on the reduction of inward investment due to loss of amenity in the village. In conclusion, it is quite clear that this development should not be authorised and further technical solutions considered instead"

East Anglia THREE Limited
"APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER BY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 East Anglia ONE North – APPLICATION REFERENCE EN EN010077 Dear Sirs I write to you on behalf of East Anglia THREE Limited with regard to the above application. Whilst the East Anglia THREE and East Anglia ONE North projects share the same parent company, they are being developed by separate project companies and as such are separate commercial entities. East Anglia THREE Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) which in turn is part of the Iberdrola Group, a world leader in clean energy and the leading wind energy producer worldwide. SPR is at the forefront of the development of the renewables industry and is contributing towards providing cost effective energy security for the UK, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and maximising economic opportunities through investment in the UK. East Anglia THREE Limited fully supports the Development Consent Order application made by East Anglia ONE North Limited. The project will make a significant contribution to the UK’s renewable energy supply and consequently help provide significant benefits in terms of local and regional economic growth, energy security and decarbonisation. The East Anglia ONE North project will continue SPR’s investment in East Anglia as part of our East Anglia HUB initiative, where to date SPR has already spent, or has committed to spending (through the East Anglia ONE project), over £75 million with businesses across the East of England, providing significant jobs and investment to the region. The East Anglia ONE project has also facilitated further investments of £30m in port infrastructure at Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. East Anglia THREE is 17km from East Anglia ONE North. The East Anglia THREE export cables pass through the East Anglia ONE North windfarm site in an East to West trajectory. East Anglia ONE North’s draft Development Consent Order includes Protective Provisions to protect the integrity of East Anglia Three Limited’s offshore assets where interaction between the projects occurs. East Anglia THREE Limited consider this is the appropriate mechanism to ensure its assets are protected in the future and will continue to liaise with East Anglia ONE North Limited during subsequent phases of the project to ensure these protective provisions are adhered to. Yours faithfully Ross Ovens Project Director On behalf of East Anglia THREE Limited"

Felicity Twort
"Firstly I support the development of renewable energy resources and accept the role that offshore wind plays. But I object to Scottish Power Renewables’ (SPR’s) proposed onshore infrastructure associated with East Anglia One North (EA1-N) and East Anglia Two (EA2) windfarms. With a minimum onshore construction period of between 4 to 8 yrs for SPR’s and National Grid’s associated works, Friston and surrounding communities and wildlife will suffer severe, unacceptable disruption. The complex is unacceptable in a rural, non-industrial setting, adjacent to a small village whose population is mainly of pensionable age. With listed buildings, including Friston Church and Friston windmill, reputedly the tallest post mill in the UK. Noise pollution: it's anticipated that there will be an audible and constant “hum” from the substations. We demand that there is no discernible noise from the substations. This noise will likely cause permanent affects on residents hearing. Lighting of the site to be permanent, 24/7, initial consultation suggested that this would be unnecessary after the construction period. The permanent effect on neighbouring residential occupiers and fauna, particularly bats and owls, has not been addressed. SPR has failed to adequately demonstrate appropriate flood mitigation for surface water run-off from the substation sites. Existing watercourses already quickly reach capacity, as seen in 2019/20 - it is unclear how SPR propose to successfully manage this situation. SPR has stated that screening of the substation site by tree planting will be largely effective within 15 years. Highly unlikely, I question SPR’s assumptions on growth rates especially under expected climatic changes. I strongly suggest the mitigation planting will be largely ineffective for many more years. Who will manage/take responsibility for the care of these trees while they become established? I suspect that the impact of the loss of approx 83 acres of versatile agricultural land is underestimated in SPR’s Environmental Impact Assessment. I object to the felling of the ancient woodland at Aldringham. The environment within the AONB through which the cable corridor will pass from its landfall to the Friston substations is by definition both special and fragile. I believe that SPR’s measures to mitigate impacts on the AONB are inadequate. Particularly fragile is the environment around the landfall site at Thorpeness. The cumulative impacts on East Suffolk’s roads have been inadequately addressed. SPR are seeking Compulsory Purchase Orders to widen “pinch points” on main access roads, this will not address the problem that the roads are not designed to take the volume of HGV traffic that will be generated. In the event that Sizewell C is being constructed concurrently, the impacts on the A12 from HGV/LGV/ private car movements associated with the works will be unacceptable. There is likely to be “rat-running” by LGVs/private cars trying to avoid congestion on the A1094. Emergency vehicle (blue-light) access to Friston/Aldeburgh/Leiston and communities will be seriously impacted. On all roads there is limited (if any) footpaths, pedestrians/cyclists will be in acute danger. With the loss of tourism, jobs/income will be lost permanently as tourists choose to avoid visiting and staying in Aldeburgh/Thorpeness/Snape."

Frances Wardale
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower planning application, for the following reasons: -Destruction of ancient woodland, fragile cliffs at Thorpeness and unspoilt countryside -Threat to wildlife including migrating species -increase to noise, air and light pollution -Increased traffic on local roads, unsuitable for high traffic levels and more HGVs -Impact on tourism, local businesses, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs, all leading to local social and economic decline"

Fulvens Ltd
"Fulvens Ltd operates from a registered office in Friston. The company has a global reach and the tranquillity of this historic village contributes to the international reputation of the company. My main objection is that the proposed development of more than 35 acres of industrial buildings and concrete in a greenfield site in the countryside just a few hundred metres from Friston Village is too close. This will affect villagers’ homes property including the setting of the Grade II* listed church which dates back to the 14th century and is regularly used for worship. The impact on loss of grade 2 and 3 agricultural land has also been understated. The substations will dwarf Friston village and will be visible from all routes into the village. The complex will permanently blight Friston village and the surrounding area, and will be detrimental to quality of life and the value of their property. The construction itself will be very disruptive and will leave an unacceptable legacy of negative visual impact, potential of anti-social noise and light pollution. Friston village already suffers from flooding, and because of the unsuitable nature of the site, risk of surface water flooding will be increased to an unacceptable level. This will have significant impact on residents’ homes in the vicinity. Furthermore the local field are full of rare wildlife including bats, badgers and barn owls which all keep us company Friston location. Destruction of their habitat is unacceptable. The same goes for loss of amenity, well used footpaths and village allotments which are valued by the local residents. Another significant concern is that this planning application only applies to East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm. However it will set a precedent which would threaten other towns and villages in East Anglia. I consider site selection has been defective because it has not taken National Grid works into account. The biggest concern here is that the Friston site will be extended and further blighted by more installations. Most alarming is that National Grid will require further onshore infrastructure. This includes grid scale energy storage, needed to mitigate the effects of intermittency with wind power, as well as the proposed Nautilus interconnector project will provides high voltage under-sea cabling between Great Britain and Belgium. It is likely that East Suffolk will suffer disproportionately than other parts of the country. There will be few new jobs created in the region whilst at the same time tourism will be affected. In terms of loss of jobs, there has been no evaluation on the reduction of inward investment due to loss of amenity in the village. In conclusion, it is quite clear that this development should not be authorised and further technical solutions considered instead."

Gillian Crowe
"Although I do not live in Suffolk, my family and I have, for the last 45 years, looked on the county as our second home. In particular, the area around Aldeburgh, Thorpeness and Leiston holds strong and binding memories for us all. I have noted with dismay the formidable changes that have taken place during those years and am horrified to find that no care seems to be taken to preserve Suffolk's rich and beautiful heritage. What a disappointment that my grandchildren will be unable to share this heritage with their children! I hate to think of the upheaval that will inevitably take place and destroy the peacefulness of places where we could always find tranquillity and calm. The heavy traffic that will be necessary for the plans to proceed will destroy the quiet and safety of beautiful, unspoilt villages, causing heartbreak to residents. Will holiday-makers still be drawn to the beaches and coastal towns which have previously pulled them back year after year? I very much doubt it. Here we have been considering the impact of the project on humans. Is there no other life that deserves consideration? What right do we have to destroy the habitats of the wildlife for which Suffolk is famous? Is this really progress? For whom?"

Great Yarmouth Borough Council
"The Council reiterates it’s strong support of the aims and ambitions of both the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Wind Farms, which are consistent with national renewable energy targets and objectives. The location of East Anglia ONE’s Operations & Maintenance base at ABP’s Hamilton Dock in Lowestoft is welcomed and closely linked to Great Yarmouth, which remains England’s offshore sector capital with over 50 years of Southern North Sea offshore energy experience, access to a deep-water port, skills and strong energy supply chain. The Council has no objections to the routing of the proposed cabling of either windfarm project in terms of the locations of the landfall points, onshore cable corridor and converter station as these are all outside of the Council’s administrative boundary. It is not yet known whether both windfarm projects will be constructed at the same time or sequentially, however the Council remains supportive of Scottish Power Renewables’ approach to take both applications simultaneously through the Development Consent Order process. There is a significant geographic of both onshore and offshore development areas of both applications, therefore the approach allows for an improved understanding of the cumulative impacts. It is nonetheless preferred, that where possible, mutual points of infrastructure are secured to help mitigate the overall impact of the combined proposals."

Guy Olliff-Cooper
"I am a frequent visitor to Friston. I would like to object to this application on environmental grounds. The countryside in this area is of rare natural beauty. This proposal would destroy that beauty. I further understand that there are alternative, less idyllic sites that could be used. On that basis, I would invite those who are considering this application not to permit the project to continue."

Harry Twort
"Although the pursuit for more green wind powered energy is commendable. It feel 1 step forward to the 2 steps back of building a colossal trench all the way to Friston. I appreciate the difficulties caused by current landowners near Sizewell for the infrastructure to be built there. But surely there must be a solution to this problem. Your solution of building a vast trench to run the power cables through to Friston is not a good solution. Separate to the deleterious effects on the quality of life for residents of Friston, Aldringham and Thorpeness, it will have a catastrophic effect on the wildlife inbetween. I urge you to find a solution which is NOT entirely mad. Maybe invest a fraction of the money in better lawyers to release some of the land at sizewell from the owners (French owned EDF I believe)."

Hilary Whyard
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Hugh Butterworth
"I am resident in Thorpeness, will be affected by Scottish Power's proposals and wish to object because: - this fragile area of the coastline is threatened by their proposals and cannot ever be replaced, - the inland countryside will be seriously compromised by their earthworks and building plans, - the peace of this area will be destroyed DURING AND AFTER construction, - the development MAY eventually become just an unwelcome feature of our surroundings but once these actions are commenced, there will be no way of restoring what will have been lost, - the development flies in the face of the "precautionary principle"."

Jacqueline Hunnisett
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years; Health issues associated with living in proximity to a substation, noise, radiation, etc; Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables; Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium; Substations dangerously close to and dominating a small village liable to flooding; 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas; Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes; Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath; Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor; Destruction of ancient woodland; Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGV's; Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost; Noise pollution. Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost; Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues; Increased traffic on roads a danger to cyclists and residents; Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives; In event of a nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered; Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area; Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline; Permanent and temporary closure of PRoW's (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)."

Jennifer Wilhide
"The beautiful landscape and long established local communities from Thorpness through to Aldringham, Knodishall and Friston are unique and irreplaceable. I object very strongly to these ill-conceived plans which will destroy so much. I strongly support offshore wind energy. But these plans for the onshore transmission infrastructure would destroy the Heritage Coast and it’s tourist economy. Brownfield sites, offshore hubs and ringmains present much better, alternative solutions. There are many alternative solutions that need to be considered urgently."

John Hickling
"Dear Examining Authority, I wish to submit the following objections against the Scottish Power Renewables Planning Application: Adverse impact upon road network around Aldeburgh and Friston: 1. Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. Danger of serious bottlenecks and congestion. 2. The A1094 Aldeburgh (Saxmundham Road) and B1122 Aldeburgh to Leiston currently present congestion due to residential/business/tourist traffic. The B1122 in particular due to no off road parking for residents. 3. Increase volume in vehicles a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services access restrictions. 4. As a tourist area relying on visitor income - negative impact on businesses and Loss of trade. Aldeburgh is not a town to pass through. The volume of traffic at the roundabout on the A1094 where Tesco's and The Coop are situated is already significant during the height of the tourist season. Environment concerns in the Parish of Friston: 1. The extent of excavation to lay cables when weighed against the damaging effects on the countryside, wildlife and people's property and lifestyle quality is not addressed nor quantified. 2. Aggressive and inadequate compulsory purchase orders on access to property by Scottish Power do confirm this. The concept of Wind Farms and Renewable energy is viable. I do not believe the impact upon the environment and local people has been considered sufficiently. I would urge you to take my constructive objections into consideration. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my major concerns. John Hickling"

Jonathan Sinclair
"Dear Sirs, I write to object not to the development of windfarms mentioned in this application but to the onshore facilities and the lack of overall context in which the application is presented. I object specifically to the proposal to site substations and connecting facilities adjacent to a local inland village with a unique historical heritage. I appeal to government to intervene and develop a strategic plan to coordinate this and future windfarms together with the separate Sizewell C project instead of considering it as one of many applications which taken together, create a significant threat to our natural and human environment. Mega-projects of this kind should respect our heritage, the environment as well as meeting the long-term energy needs of the country. This application is only one constituent part of a series of developments, which threaten an AONB, the local economy and the livelihood and lifestyle of an entire community. The proposed project surpasses the scale of anything in the UK and beyond and takes no account of consequential and separate energy related projects proposed for the area. I support the recommendations of the focus group SASES http://sases.org.uk/ and recommend you to their website to understand the feelings of the community. My specific objections are based on: - HUMAN IMPACT • Financial impact on businesses (including my own) • Quality of life damaged by noise and light pollution • Change of overall environment by transformation into industrial zone. LANDSCAPE • Severe landscape and visual harm. • Destruction of the environs of Friston and consequential damages to the community. HERITAGE • Site is ringed by listed buildings • Applicant visualisations/viewpoints are misleading LAND USE • Substantial loss of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land LIGHT POLLUTION • Impact vastly understated. Have the applicants provided any comparable sites built anywhere in the world for benchmarking? SOCIO ECONOMIC – ONSHORE • Damage to tourism – loss of local jobs FOOTPATHS & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY The footpath from Little Moor Farm will be permanently closed. The village will dwarfed by a massive industrial complex. ONSHORE ECOLOGY • Permanent removal of approx. 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the substation site; SUBSTATION DESIGN ISSUES • The visual impact of the proposed substation is underestimated. No realistic benchmark has been made of similar sites anywhere in the world. • Current SPR design principles only concerned with the visual appearance of building structures, not engineering elements. NOISE • The reference level now proposed remains unacceptably high for a residential area by any reasonable standards. Please refer to SASES research which points out: - 1. Harmonic Filters now identified as noisiest items are unscreened 2. SPR claim of no ‘humming’ noise but tonality should be questioned 3. Without a ‘Tonality’ correction, noise levels may be almost 3 x greater than attributed TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT • Proposals may lead to years of congestion impacting on towns such as Aldeburgh which have only one road in and out to serve the local community for normal and accident and emergency services. CABLE CORRIDOR ISSUES • Please refer to the relevant SASES representations of 27 January 2020"

Julia Vindis
"Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Unsuitability and fragility of THORPENESS CLIFFS as site for landing cables. Substations dangerously close & dominating a small village liable to flooding. 11km of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive area. Cable trenches & haul roads too close to residential homes, Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Destruction of ancient woodland. Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic and HGVs. Light pollution & Noise pollution. Emergency Services delays endangering lives. Permanent & temporary closures of PROws Loss of trade to local businesses. Loss 0f visitors income leading to loss of jobs. In the event of nuclear incident the evacuation route would be severely hampered. Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolks light sandy soil which blows causing visibility hazard and also health issues. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium"

Karen Alexander
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Lesley Martin
"My concerns and objections to SPR proposals Air pollution,noise pollution from all the lorries coming through carrying big wheels of cable and aggregate on narrow Country roads not built for receiving this kind of traffic. Destroying countryside for wildlife ,people walking,horse riding,and rambling,loss of bridleways,cycle paths, footpaths I am in support of offshore wind energy, but there are better solutions, such as brownfield sites offshore hubs, and ringmains Lesley Martin. INTERESTED PARTY"

Leslie A Downing
"ridiculous taking the cables etc miles overland- disrupting the countryside, farms & people's homes. The building is enormous and will be very unsightly. Access roads totally unsuitable"

Lynne Walker
"I am extremely concerned about the cumulative impact on local communities, many of which are within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Specific concerns include: * The unsuitability of the road network to absorb the volume of HGV construction traffic and consequent noise, disruption and diesel/petrol pollution created by huge increase in volume of traffic. * Increased traffic on roads causing dangers to cyclists and residents * Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes with substations dangerously close to and dominating a small village * Multiple kms of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas and too close to residential homes. * The threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath * Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor * Destruction of ancient woodland * Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost * The impact on tourism, a vital part of the economic survival of small towns such as Aldeburgh, as traffic congestion and related issues could deter tourists from coming to the area. The potential loss of trade, visitor income and jobs leading to possible social and economic decline * Permanent and temporary closure of footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths"

Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) remit for offshore renewable energy development is to ensure that the safety of navigation is preserved, and the UK's search and rescue capability is maintained, whilst progress is made towards government targets for renewable energy. The MCA would appreciate the opportunity to consider the project in line with our published guidance as per below, and to ensure that the Development Consent Order Deemed Marine Licence includes MCA’s navigation safety conditions for all offshore renewable developments. The MCA will seek to ensure the following guidance documents are addressed; 1) Marine Guidance Note (MGN) [543] Safety of Navigation: Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) – Guidance on UK Navigational Practice, Safety and Emergency Response and its annexes; 2) Marine Guidance Note (MGN) [372] Safety of Navigation; Guidance to Mariners operating in the vicinity of UK OREIs; and 3) Methodology for Assessing the Marine Navigational Safety and Emergency Response Risks of Offshore Renewable Energy Installations."

Martin Handscombe
"I support the representation being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and believe the proposed site will cause irreparable damage to the character of Friston , Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and Tourism because of the following . *Landscape and visual effects . *Noise/light pollution/damage to air quality *Design issues and Masterplan . *Traffic and Transport . *Seascape and visual effects . *Cumulative impacts/residual impacts of the project . *Loss of equity and financial implications . *Socioeconomic impacts/Tourism/no jobs from onshore development . *Effect on Public Rights of Way . *Flood risk . *Ecology/coastal change . *Archaeology/historic buildings/ancient woodlands . *Construction Management . Furthermore I feel the proposed Permanent Access Road will be unnecessarily near my home and compromise its drainage and also unnecessarily wide given it will only be used for LGV and maintenance access except for the Abnormal Indivisible Loads (will it be illuminated and outside of emergency what hours will it be used ?) . Also the road widening of Saxmundham Road should only be undertaken to the extent this is necessary for the AILs and reinstated after and that SPR must take steps to prevent the Saxmundam Road being used for Works Traffic including construction workers going to site - they should use the A1094 and Haul Road ."

Mary Erwin
"I am writing to object to the Scottish Power proposals for these reasons: -the local environment will be negatively impacted due to trenches and cabling close to housing and also across sensitive wildlife areas - ancient woodland will be destroyed - tourism will be adversely affected - local roads will be congested with unsuitable traffic - emergency services will be delayed in attending events - Friston will be wrecked - there will be unacceptable levels of nose and air pollution."

Mary Pledger
"Dear Sirs, I am totally In favour of the production of renewable energy but not where it will cause upset and misery to many people. We fell in love with this area having spent a number of years holidaying in Thorpeness with our family. We moved to Friston 14 years ago in order to enjoy the peace, tranquillity and unspoilt countryside. However, this is threatened by the proposed substations planned on our doorstep. We have always walked our dogs adjacent to the proposed substation site and this pleasure is threatened by the plans, as is the environment around the planned cable route where the habitat will be devastated. I have monitored an area around pylon number 4ZW21 for a number of years and observed Centaurea erythraea growing here (both the pink a white form – the white form being very unusual I have never seen this anywhere else). Last year, for the first time, I discovered bee orchids growing in the same area. A local resident, who has lived here all her life, remembers seeing them nearly 80 years ago in the same place but none since then until last year. There may of course be others growing along the length of the proposed cable route. These orchids, and all the other plants in the area, would be wiped out if the proposed plans go ahead. Apart from the destruction of the environment along the whole cable corridor, I have a number of objections to the proposed siting of the substations – not in any particular order: - - The fragility of the coast around Thorpeness - Light pollution. Loss of dark skies affects humans and wildlife - Traffic disruption caused by large numbers of lorries and machinery in an area not suitable for this type or amount of heavy traffic. Also disrupting residents’ everyday lives. - The impact on tourism - The impact of flooding in Friston from soil compaction caused by lorries and machinery and inadequate provision of drainage from the proposed site. - Proximity to St Marys church (where all three of our daughters were married), and other Grade 2 Listed buildings in the vicinity."

Michela Parkin
"I'm interested in conserving and preserving the beauty and integrity of the Suffolk coastline and beaches for wildlife and future generations."

Miss Olivia Kersey
"I am writing as yet another concerned resident from Friston area. I am aware you think us local residents are uneducated and our opinions laughable, however, I would be grateful if you read this representation in its entirety. I have lived here since birth an area chosen by my parents as a place of peace, tranquility and unspoiled environment. Living close to fields has made it easy to exercise our dogs and enjoy the wildlife. We are living in an age where every other piece of land is having a compulsory purchase order placed on it and new builds are put up all over our beautiful landscape. I plead with you to use the infrastructure currently in place at sizewell to complete your "project". Our area is full of wildlife, turtle doves were here this year, the starling numeration frequently visits and the loss of the oak wood in Friston is actually disgusting, how could a company so into their "green energy" possibly have the audacity and ignorance to remove such a vital part of the green space for our wildlife, It is truly baffling. The hedge cutting executed I assume by people at your disposal was a mess, thorns everywhere, not an enjoyable dog walk when you end up caked in mud and plucking thorns out of your poor dogs feet every 5 seconds. Furthermore, colleagues of yours have been splattered about our local towns trying to get people to believe their stories. Two members of my family have been spoken to rudely demanding why they didn't want this offshore work to happen. I'm afraid if you laugh at general public who disagree with your policy, word spreads very quickly in small communities. Sniggering at local people who travel by bike because they can in a remote area also for a "green" company is not smart, is it? Our walks and wildlife are going to be taken away from us because of you meaning dog walkers will have to travel by car to walk dogs somewhere unspoilt contributing to carbon emissions every time (that's twice a day) counteracting any good you did by ruining our landscape. Your team keep making very poor mistakes with their terrible customer service, something I think should be a focus for your company considering undertaking a largely opposed project. Could do with briefing especially the ones who were in saxmundham, very poor attitude.. So excuse us if we are not overjoyed by your project, but you need to rectify the way your are speaking to local people who are thoroughly aware you are paying your way to achieve your goals rather than winning on merit and your advertisements."

Berrys on behalf of Mrs Ann Dallas
"Mrs Ann Dallas (“the objector) owns and occupies [Redacted] and is therefore one of the closest residents to the proposed substation. The objector supports and repeats the representations submitted by Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Friston Parish Council. The following is a brief summary of the other main aspects the objector disagrees with and why, which may be followed by a Written Representation: - 1. No explanation of how the scheme will affect the objector. The applicant sent a USB containing 577 files but did not explain how the scheme will affect the objector with reference to specific files on the USB. If present, the information specifically relevant to the objector is buried in the volume of documents received which is disingenuous and a breach of duty. 2. No engagement with the objector who is a key receptor. Aside from receiving notice of acceptance of the application and the USB, the objector has not been engaged with at all by the applicant. The objector’s agent sent enquiries to the email provided and to the liaison officer for the ONE project seeking clarification but received no response. 3. No photographic montages provided to demonstrate visual impact. The documents include a “Proposed Planting Plan”, however it is not clear what will remain visible until the planting is established and thereafter. The applicant proposes developing the final design post consent, however this will limit the influence that key receptors can have on design. 4. No explanation as to what any of the designations on the objector’s land mean. The applicant has failed to make it clear why the objectors land is included in the development area, what for and how it is proposed to be used. The objectors land is designated as Land subject to Temporary Occupation and Use and as Work No 43 but we could find no explanation what any of this means. 5. No plans showing extent of the overhead line realignment works. The objector’s property is already blighted by two National Grid 24 conductor 400,000 volt overhead lines crossing in close proximity within 60 metres. The application refers to permanent realignment and temporary diversion of overhead lines, but we could not find any plans showing the proposed routes. 6. No plans showing location of underground lines and earthing. It is understood that up to six underground cables and up to two fibre optic cables with joining pits will be installed to connect into the substation. However, we could not find any plans showing the routes of the underground cables and there is no mention of any earthing which will presumably also be required. 7. No assurance of non-interference with private water supply. The objectors land benefits from a private water supply from a well that is 60ft deep and has a 10ft borehole, which is fed by an underground stream. No assurance has been received that water quality and level will be monitored and continuity of supply ensured during and after construction. 8. No suitable diversion of footpath from Little Moor Farm to Woodside Farm. The applicant is proposing to permanently stop up a historic footpath and redirect users through Laurel Covert and back on to the main Grove Road. The road could be avoided by providing a footpath through the planting to the east and south of the substation, to link back up with the footpath into Friston. 9. No provision during and after construction for reducing impact of physical factors. No provision during construction for reducing impact of physical factors arising from scheme including noise, dust, fumes, smells, vibration and artificial lighting. No immediate and permanent provisions after construction for reducing impact of physical factors arising from scheme including those stated above and electromagnetic field. 10. No woodland planting proposed to the north and west of the substation. The plans show woodland planting against the boundary to the south and east, however there is no woodland planting proposed against the other boundaries. Once established, additional planting would screen the substation from the diverted footpath and presumably assist in reducing electromagnetic field. In conclusion, there has been a complete lack of transparent consultation with local residents who will be directly and severely prejudiced by the scheme. The East Anglia ONE North onshore substation would severely affect Friston and should not in any case be permitted to be developed in such close vicinity of the village. For the above reasons and those set out in SASES and Friston Parish Council’s representations, the Planning Inspectorate is invited to reject the application."

Mrs Lesley Swann
"Dear Sir/Madam, Re: East Anglia North One (and East Anglia Two) I wish to object to this planning application for the following reasons: • The use of unspoilt countryside in Friston for a large substation complex, in the immediate vicinity of its village community is ill-considered. • The cumulative impact on Friston and other surrounding communities of this project and the combined cumulative impact of other projects, occurring consecutively in this area over many years. • Miles of cable trenches from the proposed landfall to the substation complex will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. • Large HGV’s and other construction traffic on unsuitable roads. • Frequent movement of large HGV’s and construction traffic, the air pollution caused by that movement and the further impact on climate change. • Displacement of local and tourist traffic taking alternative routes through small villages and even more unsuitable roads, in order to avoid the construction traffic. • The potential for increased noise and light pollution. The potential for increased air pollution from our sandy soils (an inevitability of the cable trenching). • The permanent and/or temporary closure of footpaths, bridleways, byways etc. • The impact on tourism to this area and the potential for job losses in that sector, if that impact is under estimated. • The threat to our Suffolk Coastal AONB, the unnecessary destruction of ancient woodland, and the disruption to our precious wildlife. • The failure to consider alternative locations for the infrastructure supporting renewable energy, including existing substations and brownfield sites. In conclusion, I wish to state that I am not against renewables, it is the way forward. Whilst encouraging renewable technology and development, we should consider the wider impact of the infrastructure construction, which supports that technology. Why build more large substations, causing disruption to communities, destroying more countryside, disrupting wildlife and impacting climate change, when there are alternatives. Use what infrastructure you already have, use brownfield sites, consider connections to the grid using an offshore ring main. Government, business and planning authorities need to develop a more strategic and integrated approach to managing the best locations for growing a green economy."

Mrs Marie Smith
"So sad for such a lovely village for all the people have lived in there for many many years I grew up in the village . My mum still lives in the village and is absolutely devastated ."

Norman Johnson
"I wish to object on the following grounds Cumulative Impact on the local environment. Despoiling unspoiled countryside Deleterious effect on tourism Increased traffic on inadequate roads Noise and light pollution"

Penny Johnson
"I wish to object on the following grounds Cumulative Impact on the local environment. Despoiling unspoiled countryside Deleterious effect on tourism Increased traffic on inadequate roads Noise and light pollution"

Peter Wallis
"Wind farm technology is necessary and it must be implemented in such a way that it minimises ecological harm to the local environment. In this regard I am disappointed that the proposals to bring wind power onshore are failing to protect the east Suffolk coast from irreversible damage. The project is not using existing brownfield sites such as sizewell power station in preference for green field sites. Further more there seems little coordination and sharing of infrastructure sites between the various power generating companies. This project requires more central government coordination so as to minimise the environmental impact. It seems to me that the private companies involved are not looking to each other to share resources and reduce environmental impact for reasons of commercial interest. Government must step on and insist on a joined up project that minimises environmental damage"

Ramblers Association
"This Representation is made on behalf of the Ramblers (The Ramblers Association, a company limited by guarantee, registration number 4458492, Registered Charity number 10935), Suffolk Area. We consider that the siting of the substations is inappropriate. These should be sited on brownfield sites. Brownfield sites are said to be available near other points where the cabling for the windfarm could come shore, for example, Lowestoft. If the development is approved, we are concerned regarding the effect it will have on the public rights of way (PROW) network and the beauty of the countryside. Regarding the proposed temporary PROW diversions, we are concerned particularly about the trenching across Aldringham Byway 20 between points L-1 and L-2 on drawing EA1N-DWF-ENV-DRG-IBR-000428, At this point the Byway is a delightful sunken path between mature hedges and forms a magical “tree tunnel” during the spring, summer and autumn months. The destruction of the hedges would spoil this beautiful feature for decades. It is submitted that cabling crossing the byway should be done by horizontal drilling, as with the metalled roads. Regarding the proposed permanent PROW diversions, we welcome the new paths. We will also welcome the reconfigured Knodishall Footpath 7 near Grove Road. We are concerned about the course of the new footpath PERM35a where it runs NE along Grove Road. We need assurance that this path will be a field-edge path on the field side of the hedge and not along the carriageway of the road. We expect considerable planning gain to come out of the proposed development and have identified the following improvements needed to the PROW network in the district. The creation of new paths to give effect to these improvements should be financed by way of s. 106 gains. 1. The Sailors' Path. This path forms most of the section of the Suffolk Coast Path recreational route between Snape Maltings and Aldeburgh Town and is likely to become the route of the England Coast Path, a national trail being established under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. In addition to local amenity and an essential link in the Suffolk Coast Path this route also features in the East Suffolk Lines Walks project promoted by the East Suffolk Lines Community Rail Partnership. The whole Suffolk Coast Path route links Felixstowe and Lowestoft. Until very recently, there was no safe link at the Aldeburgh end between the small car park at TM443581 and the start of the pedestrian footway on the A1094 at TM448577. Walkers using the route were expected to walk in the carriageway. The A1094 is a fast and dangerous road for the walker after it leaves the 30 mph limit. The grass verges are narrow, sloping and uneven. They have regular drainage channels cut into them and are totally inadequate for walking. The problem has been temporarily rectified in that Suffolk County Council has secured a licensed path from the owners of the Aldeburgh Golf Course. However, this is understood to be a ten-year agreement only and a permanent right of way is required. The verges on the southern side of the road fronting the gardens between the Golf Club and the small car park also need dedicating and signage installed to warn motorists that people will be walking close to the carriageway. 2. The Aldeburgh-Thorpeness railway trackbed. This forms part of much-walked circular routes taking in Aldeburgh, Thorpeness, the Aldringham Fen and Aldringham Walks. It also presents for walkers and cyclists a safe alternative to the B1122 which is a fast and extremely dangerous road and the only other direct link between Aldeburgh and Leiston. Much of the track bed appears to be in private ownership but is open, presumably as a permissive path. Permissive paths are unsatisfactory because the permission can be withdrawn at any time. Again, proper Creation Agreements or Orders should be funded to secure the route permanently. An ideal solution would be for a bridleway to be created over the track bed as this would provide a multi-user facility for walkers, horseriders and cyclists. 3. River Wall - eastern side of Butley River. The path along the river wall needs to be added to the Rights of Way Definitive Map between the points TM393505 and TM396485. Its omission could simply be an anomaly as the route recorded on the Definitive Map as Chillesford Footpath 18 stops abruptly at the Chillesford/Gedgrave parish boundary which is absurd. The proper recording of this route would enable a fine circular walk linking Chillesford and the Butley Ferry. It is hoped that this path will become part of the England Coast Path. 4. River Wall - Butley Ferry to Tide Gauge (TM393481 to TM415484). This is another section where there is no apparent reason for the route not to be recorded on the Definitive Map. It is freely used (possibly on a permissive basis) but is another instance where a Creation Order or Agreement should be funded. 5. Alde River wall east of Iken Church (TM412567 - TM443556) - This is another section of river wall that should be opened to the public as a public footpath to link Iken Church with Public Footpath Iken 7. We are recommending to Natural England that it becomes part of the English Coast Path. 6. Cliff-top path Thorpeness to Sizewell (Aldringham-cum-Thorp footpath 31)- There are some serious incidents of erosion along this path which have caused the Suffolk Coast Path recreational route to be re-routed. The path affords outstandingly beautiful views. Strengthening work needs urgently to be carried out just to the south of the junction with footpath 32 (TM475616) where the path edge is falling away. Footpath 31 seems now to have been lost between points TM474599 (Old Homes Road) and approximately TM476604. The footpath below the cliffs (footpath 33) is also impassable at high tide in the vicinity of TM475601 where gabions have been installed. This part of the problem is eased by the fact that people have for many years been able to walk freely over the grassland between Thorpeness Common and the cliffs and along the existing tracks to reach Byway 20 or North End Avenue, Thorpeness. However, this area is not recorded as Access Land nor are there any public rights of way over it recorded on the Definitive Map. Creation of permanent rights of way over these tracks should be funded to enable signage to be installed and them to become part of the Suffolk Coast Path recreational route. 7. Reckford Bridge - Another short but very useful creation would be a path of 0.12 mile between Reckford Bridge (TM436677) and the start of Black Slough (TM438679). If a path were created inside the hedges of the farm land, that would provide a safe alternative to walking along the busy and dangerous carriageway of the B1125 between Public Footpath Westleton 25 and Bridleway Westleton 26 and enable valuable circular walks around Middleton, Eastbridge, Minsmere and Westleton to be walked safely. 8. Kenton Hills and Sizewell Belts - A small network of permissive paths north-west of Sizewell Power Station exists over this area and we feel that these paths should be dedicated and become permanent public rights of way. 9. Route from Eastbridge Road to Leiston Footpath 20. – Much of this route between TM454652, through Black Walks and Lower Abbey to TM458661 is believed to be in the ownership of EDF. It is believed to have been a freely available route for walkers historically. A PROW should be created along this route as a safe alternative to the Eastbridge Road between Footpath 20 and Bridleway 19 at the Round House. 10. Footpath crossings over the A12 on the Saxmundham by-pass. – There are several footpath or bridleway crossings over the A12 that are extremely dangerous for users. The road is a single-carriageway with mostly a 60 mph speed limit. It appears that little consideration if any was given to walkers, cyclists or horse riders when the bypass was built in the late 1980s. Traffic levels have increased steadily since then. There are no warnings to motorists of the crossings, there are no central refuges and in two instances (those at TM 376 644 and TM 375 636) the walker’s task is made even more precarious by having to climb over Armco-type barriers at each side of the carriageway. At TM 375 632 the path crosses the A12 at an oblique angle requiring the walker to walk some considerable distance alongside the carriageway in order to cross it at a right angle. These crossings should be made easier by speed limits, warning signs to motorists, provision of gaps in the Armco barriers and the installation of central refuges. The crossings are: TM 380 656, Kelsale Footpath 10 TM 373 646, Kelsale Footpath 38 TM 376 644, Kelsale Footpath 1 TM 375 639, Kelsale Footpath 3 TM 375 636, Saxmundham Footpath 5 TM 375 632, Saxmundham Footpath 11 TM 376 630, Saxmundham Footpath 13 TM 377 621, Benhall Footpath 22 TM 378 616, Benhall Bridleway 25 12. Pedestrian access between Aldringham and Thorpeness.– The B1353 is an important link between these two villages in the parish of Aldringham-cum-Thorp. However, it is a fast and dangerous road for those wishing to make the journey on foot. Adequate footways or footpaths alongside the parts of this section of road should be created where they do not already exist."

Rijkswaterstaat
"We have concerns with regard to the transboundary impacts in chapter 12.8 on offshore ornithology. We recently upgraded the Ecology and Cumulation Framework. The original methodology is described (also in English) at this site: https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/functions-and-use/offshore-wind-energy/ecology/ In the calculations, scenario’s for size and number of turbines are used for the different plans up to 2030. We would appreciate if in the EIA this information is used in assessing the accumulation of transboundary impacts."

Roberta Simpson
"The impact on the village of Friston & surrounding area, from Southward to Bawdsey, will be adversely affected by the proposed sub-station & associated cable runs. The primary income for this area is from tourism, day visitors, weekly visitors & those with holiday homes. The income from this provides work for pubs & restaurants, shops, for builders, painters & other tradesmen. The visitors & residents come to this area for the beauty, the openness, the walks and wildlife. All this will be gone. We have many narrow lanes in this area, mainly single track, totally unsuitable for heavy vehicles - construction traffic which will be around for many years will destroy the ability of residents, many elderly & vulnerable, to get about with ease. This whole situation fills me with despair."

Roger Lemon
"While I support the expanding use of wind power to replace fossil fuels (and nuclear), the East Anglia Two project has a major problem: although it needs very significant infrastructure for labour and transport over a long period it is actually located in a site with very poor infrastructure. The result will be a very severe impact on the local community. This includes me, since I live on Leiston Rd Aldeburgh, and will have to endure 3 years of very heavy trucks going past our door. More generally I am very concerned about the impact on this part of Suffolk's beautiful nature and heritage, and that if this is damaged, the economic impact on tourism, the region's main earner, will be massive."

Samuel Davies
"Suffolk, such a gorgeous county, rich in wildlife, demolished by human induced degradation, a wanton display of industrial power, surging the eventual blackout of a strong and independent holiday maker's dream, transforming it into a squalid and disregarded emotional war zone. The memorabilia that I have collected along the decades of this tranquil and beloved part of the country is soon to be disrupted by the heartbreaking divorce of coastline and rural villages, completely dislodging any hope of the continuity of the matrimony between holiday makers and memories made in the concerned area. It is a much beloved scene of mine; I cherish fond childhood memories of bike riding along Dunwich heath and playing along the clifftops overlooking the shimmering sea at Thorpeness. Due to the apparent lack of care for the families, residents and wildlife of the area, Suffolk will eventually denounce its place as one of Britain's coastal highlights all because of consumerist greed. This is unequivocally unacceptable."

Sheena Grant
"1. The fragile Suffolk coast has already 'done its bit' for the nation's power needs and cannot take more industrial development of a scale outlined in these proposals. 2. The damage East Anglia One North and its associated onshore development will cut through and devastate an area that is vital for tourism, wrecking livelihoods and jobs and quality of life. 3. The project will cause irreversible damage to an internationally important Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which contains the rare and fragile Sandlings heath habitat and supports a range of plant and animal species. Trashing this will set a dangerous precedent and send out the message that sacrificing environmentally sensitive and important sites is 'fair game' when it comes to the drive for energy. 4. Development at Grove Wood, Friston, will create a precedent that greenfield sites can be developed and destroyed when there are suitable alternative brownfield sites available. 5. The development of desirable renewable energy does not have to come at the expense of onshore habitat, quality of life for local people, tourism and livelihoods. The are alternatives to destroying greenfield sites which are not being fully explored - why, for instance, is an offshore ring main not being considered? This makes so much sense and would stop more land being swallowed up with 30-acre substations. Brownfield sites should also be considered before areas such as this are looked at. 6 Currently, there is no government strategy for development of renewable energy and the associated infrastructure, leading to a 'Wild West' approach that is damaging and lacks cohesion. A national strategy looking at all these issues needs to be formulated and any further development should be put on hold unless such time as this happens."

St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance
"This representation is made specifically in relation to registered Title Number SK276346 at Friston, there is no facility to upload a copy here but this can be provided if required. This land was sold by us on the 17th November 2010, subject to the following covenants: - 11.2 The Transferee to the intent that the covenants hereinafter contained shall bind the Property into whosesoever hands the same may come and for the benefit and protection of any neighbouring diocesan glebe church or parsonage land and each and every part covenants for itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors pursuant to Section 22 of the Endowments & Glebe Measure 1976 as follows:- 11.2.1 no act deed matter or thing shall at any time be done suffered or permitted in or upon the Property which may be or become a nuisance annoyance or disturbance to the incumbent for the time being of the benefice of which the parish of Friston forms part or his successors or which may tend to depreciate or lessen the value of any adjoining or neighbouring diocesan glebe church land and parsonage land. 11.2.2 no act deed matter or thing shall at any time be done suffered or permitted in or upon the Property which may be or become a nuisance annoyance or disturbance to the minister for the time being conducting or the congregation attending divine service in the parish church of Friston or the churchyard surrounding it. 11.2.3 not to use or permit the Property to be used otherwise than for agricultural purposes and in particular not to erect or carry out or permit to be erected or carried out any building or other development on the Property whether permanent temporary or otherwise. 11.2.4 not to sell or otherwise dispose or transfer the Property or any part of it without requiring the purchaser or other transferee to enter into a separate deed of covenant with the Transferor in the same terms as this covenant and without requiring every such purchaser or transferee to bear the Transferor’s solicitors’ reasonable costs and disbursements for the preparation and completion of such deed. We would wish that any planning decision have regard to these covenants and would object to any consent that permitted them to be breached. If you require any further details, please do make contact. Kind regards, Gavin"

Tessa Wojtczak
"(I am a tenant at [Redacted]. The construction site for the proposed Landfall at Thorpeness is the distance of an occupied livery paddock away on our left. According to the Book of Reference available to the public, it appears that that paddock may also be needed for construction. To the rear is the sea. The cable trench and haul road route will pass directly in front of and to the right of us. It appears from recent maps and notes in the Book of Reference that the access track in front of us may be blocked by the trench work and haul road; also that changes are potentially being sought for the only other remaining access route to the properties at Ness House, dramatically reducing access to the buildings at this location. As a tenant, my interest is only in potential impact of all these factors surrounding us. This same access route is used by other households at this site, and Wardens, a charitable trust providing services for elderly and disabled individuals, and vulnerable children ). 1.Landfall site and cable corridor. Major and extended industrialisation of an AONB. Landfall site, Thorpeness. Site selection entirely inappropriate. Extreme fragility of cliffs and sandy lands adjacent. Recent death on Thorpeness beach caused by landslide from the sandy cliffs already extremely vulnerable to pressures of tide and wind. Risks of HDD. ( drilling) causing instability through vibration in the long term. Area subject to sand storms in dry periods, causing reduced visibility, will be exacerbated by works, affecting health and contamination to adjacent properties . A vital telecoms cable, Concerto, owned by a Dutch firm was recently uncovered at high tides, showing the vulnerability of the area. 24 hour light and noise pollution severely affecting adjacent properties, wildlife behaviour, migrating birds, tourism, leisure and businesses and the local quality of life. Large numbers of personnel, infrastructure and activity on a tranquil AONB will extend to a period of 8 years if projects 1 and 2 are developed consecutively. Probability of permanent and increasing industrialisation destroying the AONB and wider area for good if, as proposed, Nautilus and Eurolink projects follow SPRs footprint. Justification for such industrialisation of an AONB should be only in overwhelming national interest, or if there are no other sites available. Inappropriate siting appears to be down to National Grid, whose accountability is limited. 2. Open trench Cable Corridor and Haul Road. A motorway sized construction work with haul road causing lasting damage to the maturely wooded approach to Thorpeness. Replanting will not be possible. Nightingales, Buzzards, Owls, Sparrowhawks, Lapwing, numerous species of bat, field and skylark will lose habitat. Proposed increased use and adaptation of Sizewell Hall Road from Sizewell Gap Road to Landfall site, with high volumes of HGV , outsourced contractors, and, in parts, Abnormal Indivisible loads, will cause severe obstruction to local traffic that uses the by-way travelling along Sizewell Hall Road between Sizewell, Leiston, Aldringham, Thorpeness and Aldeburgh for work, visiting liveries and livestock, and day to day purposes. Development of this by- way from Sizewell Gap Road, as proposed to mitigate potential problems at Aldeburgh roundabout and accommodate increased traffic during construction, will destroy the peace of adjacent conservation sites and result in widespread closure and obstruction of the interconnected lanes, tracks and bridleways used daily by residents. There will be Interference with Sizewell B escape route, delay to emergency services, Sizewell armed police, postal workers, servicing and delivery vehicles, delivery of oil and gas to many properties, as in our case, not connected to mains. Extensive proposed extinguished or suspended rights to interconnected bridleways and lanes will no longer attract horse riders, cyclists or walkers, both local and visiting. Long existing rights and vital local access will disappear. Trench and cable corridor is at the narrowest point of a wildlife corridor used by herds of deer feeding, breeding, and accessing the salt and magnesium they need from local foliage, disrupting and damaging their potential to thrive. Local impact will be disastrous and longlasting. Local benefits have not been demonstrated."

Thomas Sweet
"FAO Examining Authority, RE: East Anglia North One My objections which challenge the relevant SPR planning application are as follows: 1. There have been unreasonable, broad assumptions made by SPR and the absence of mitigating risks have resulted in a totally unsuitable set of development sites and locations. 2. SPR have continually failed to acknowledge the views, concerns and objections of the residents of the affected areas of development namely, the residents of Friston affected by siting of the substation and connection to National Grid and those along the areas of landfall, onshore cable corridor and road / routing alterations contained in these proposals. 3. Proposed changes to roads and environment to accommodate cable routes and large numbers of HGVs over a lengthy period of time will create immediate and ongoing danger and risks to the daily lives of residents, tourists and local businesses. 4. SPR have failed to adequately consider and identify the cumulative combined impact that this proposal will have when the other simultaneous overlapping developments for other SPR initiatives, National Grid, NGV Inter-connectors and Sizewell C are taken into account. The overall impact is a damaging, shameful industrialisation of the Suffolk Heritage Coast. 5. The onshore components of this proposal would not have had to be pursued if SPR had successfully managed the existing Bawdsey to Bramford cable routes and substations in such a way that additional requirements and capacity arising from East Anglia ONE North could have been absorbed and integrated within the existing infrastructure. SPR must be held accountable for this lack of foresight and planning and held to task by the Planning Inspectorate at the appropriate phase in the planning process for these proposals to be rejected on basis that that they need to be integrated within the existing land-based infrastructure. 6. In conclusion, from the information I have received from SPR and other relevant balanced sources, I believe this proposal displays SPR's opportunistic approach and lack of strategic planning of renewables projects showing total disregard for the local environment AONB and its residents, visitors and supporters."

Tony Hrizenko
"Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways"

Trusted Renewables Ltd
"Trusted Renewables Ltd operates from a registered office in Friston. The company has a global reach and the tranquillity of this historic village contributes to the international reputation of the company. My main objection is that the proposed development of more than 35 acres of industrial buildings and concrete in a greenfield site in the countryside just a few hundred metres from Friston Village is too close. This will affect villagers’ homes property including the setting of the Grade II* listed church which dates back to the 14th century and is regularly used for worship. The impact on loss of grade 2 and 3 agricultural land has also been understated. The substations will dwarf Friston village and will be visible from all routes into the village. The complex will permanently blight Friston village and the surrounding area, and will be detrimental to quality of life and the value of their property. The construction itself will be very disruptive and will leave an unacceptable legacy of negative visual impact, potential of anti-social noise and light pollution. Friston village already suffers from flooding, and because of the unsuitable nature of the site, risk of surface water flooding will be increased to an unacceptable level. This will have significant impact on residents’ homes in the vicinity. Furthermore the local field are full of rare wildlife including bats, badgers and barn owls which all keep us company Friston location. Destruction of their habitat is unacceptable. The same goes for loss of amenity, well used footpaths and village allotments which are valued by the local residents. Another significant concern is that this planning application only applies to East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO offshore windfarm. However it will set a precedent which would threaten other towns and villages in East Anglia. I consider site selection has been defective because it has not taken National Grid works into account. The biggest concern here is that the Friston site will be extended and further blighted by more installations. Most alarming is that National Grid will require further onshore infrastructure. This includes grid scale energy storage, needed to mitigate the effects of intermittency with wind power, as well as the proposed Nautilus interconnector project will provides high voltage under-sea cabling between Great Britain and Belgium. It is likely that East Suffolk will suffer disproportionately than other parts of the country. There will be few new jobs created in the region whilst at the same time tourism will be affected. In terms of loss of jobs, there has been no evaluation on the reduction of inward investment due to loss of amenity in the village. In conclusion, it is quite clear that this development should not be authorised and further technical solutions considered instead."

William Emes
"I am deeply concerned for the health and wellbeing of the Red deer in the local area and believe that an offshore windfarm would be a better option"

William Halford
"RE: East Anglia ONE North The headings below refer to National Policy Statements (NPS) for Overarching Energy (EN-1), NPS for Renewable Energy (EN-3) and NPS for Electricity Networks (EN-5). • I support the Relevant Representations being submitted by SASES and Friston Parish Council. Please consider my further objections to onshore components of this application for the following reasons. • The project will have great adverse environmental, social and economic impacts at local level, including long term and cumulative adverse effects. There also is a scarcity of measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for adverse effects (EN-1, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4) • I live at [Redacted]. Our primary concerns are with the impact on our lives of the Applicant having positioned the cable corridor unnecessarily close to our residential titles (house and garden) and also those of neighbouring residents in Aldeburgh Road and in Fitches Lane and the proposed destruction of a large area of attractive veteran woodland very close by on both sides of Aldeburgh Road, Aldringham. • My concerns relate to the Construction phases through to eventual post project Landscape Restoration. N.B. it is quite possible that construction of EA1N / EA2 will last up to a decade, depending on the two projects' eventual phasing and timetable if consented. 1. Landscape and visual amenity (EN-1, 1.7.2 and 5.9.6) 1.1 Site Selection – Substations • Applicant’s survey bias: The biased design of two questions in SPR’s Consultation Phase 2 Feedback Form was a critical factor in the Applicant’s flawed justification for its proposal to construct a Substations zone to the west of Aldeburgh Road, Aldringham. 1.2 Site Selection – Cable corridor • As a consequence of the flawed selection of a Grid connection at Friston, the DCO specifies a 9Km long cable corridor impacting numerous receptors including residential titles and Area Tree Preservation Order PO (SCDC/87/00030). • The proposed cabling/ haul road routes lie across the meadow at the bottom of our wooded garden, on the eastern side of the River Hundred. This meadow is a central feature of the (extant) “Aldringham R. Hundred Special Landscape Area (SLA)”, as designated by Suffolk Coastal District Council. • The Applicant proposes to position its cable corridors much closer to residential titles than previously specified, at a distance of only 25 metres at the closest point to our rear garden at Riverwood, 70 metres at the furthest. • DCO 4.9.2.2 Constraints Mapping and Engineering Feasibility, 171 states "Routeing across the woodland (and identified removal of trees) to the west of Aldeburgh Road as this is the only identified location where the cable route can cross Aldeburgh Road". 4.9.1.3.4 States at 146 that: "Following an engineering feasibility review, it was deemed feasible to cross Aldeburgh Road if woodland was removed immediately west of Aldeburgh Road, north of Fitches Lane." • We can find no evidence that the Applicant has properly considered the feasibility of other crossing points. No justification has been offered for its decision to destroy such a large area of woodland both sides of the Aldeburgh Road, Aldringham, contrary to its stated Cable Route Design Principle as listed in 4.9.1.2: "Minimise interaction with mature woodland". • The route proposed for the cable corridor crossing at Aldeburgh Road, Aldringham is sited unacceptably close to residential properties in Fitches Lane (only 5 metres from Fitches Lane), Gipsy Lane and in Aldeburgh Road. The southern boundary of Aldringham Court's Grounds is situated 46 metres north of Fitches Lane. The Applicant proposes a reduced width cable corridor (16 metres wide) north of Fitches Lane (or 32 metres wide should both EA1N and EA2 be consented). The southern boundary of the cable corridor Order Limit should have been sited at least 30 metres north of Fitches Lane (14 metres worse case if both projects are consented), thereby protecting a large area of woodland. • No justification has been offered for the Applicant's decision to deviate in a southerly direction from a straight line bearing drawn between the proposed Aldeburgh Road crossing at Access Id 5/6 and Thorpe Road at Access Id 3/ 4 (Cable Sections 3b and 2). That decision seems to have led to the cable corridor being so very close to our back garden. • The Applicant has failed to propose any mitigation measures for the protection of residents so close to the Cable Corridor to counter the negative impact of landscape, noise, dust and of artificial light during construction. 2. Cumulative negative effects and the extent of clustering of new energy infrastructure (EN-1, 1.7.3 and 4.2.5) • EA1N with EA2: a devastating 64 metres wide scar on land from Thorpeness to Friston, virtually the entire woodland landscape to be felled at Aldringham, Aldeburgh Road crossing point. • EA1N and EA2 with Sizewell C: the necessary assessment of cumulative impact has not been provided • EA1N and EA2 with other forthcoming NSIP Energy projects (Nautilus, EuroLink, Greater Gabbard extension, Galloper extension): Developers may well wish to run their cable corridors alongside EA1N / EA2. Those projects have not yet been formally scoped. Planning Inspectorate's insistence that the Applicant must not "sterilize" the cable route for other projects is evidence that regardless of the Applicant's refusal to take other Applicants' projects into account, PINS does appreciate that there are issue of Cumulative Impact along the onshore cable route. 3. Alternatives – an indication of main reasons for applicant’s choice, taking account of environmental, social and economic effects (EN-1, 4.4.2) • The Applicant has not included sufficient information in its ES on the main alternatives he has studied, as he is obliged to. • A notable omission is any satisfactory explanation as to why the Applicant moved landfall and Grid Connection for this project from Bawdsey to the “Leiston area”, through a post-consent “non-material change” to East Anglia ONE and without taking into account the environmental, social and economic effects of that decision as required by EN-1, 4.4.2. 4. Grid connection (EN-1, 4.9) • National Grid has assigned a new Grid connection in “the Leiston Area” for EA1N and EA2. It has allocated the same connection to National Grid Ventures for its forthcoming Nautilus and EuroLink Interconnector projects. • There has been no consultation regarding that decision, neither with key stakeholders nor with the general public. Only following repeated requests has National Grid released heavily redacted CION documents. These do not reveal quantified reasons for a connection at Friston or nearby. • Does PINS have the opportunity through EA1N and EA2 to consider the cumulative impact of having a multi-connection National Grid Substation located at a new Friston energy complex? 5. Health (EN-1, 4.13) • The cumulative impact during construction of noise, traffic, air pollution and dust on our lives and mental health at Riverwood would be highly damaging, [Redacted]. • The Applicant’s design does not address the need for EMF shielding for pedestrians walking along the roadside path near Gipsy Lane directly above High Voltage cables. (EN-5, 2.10.12) 6. Air quality and emissions (EN-1, 5.2) • The IAQM guidance (IAQM 2014) states that a Detailed Assessment is required where there are human receptors within 350m of the site boundary and/or within 50m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance(s). • The Applicant has not provided an assessment of the inevitably unacceptable impact on residences at Fitches Lane and Gipsy Lane of Construction Phase dust and fine particulate matter or HGV emissions from vehicles crossing or turning at B1122 accesses 5 and 6. • The Applicant has not provided an assessment of Construction Phase dust and fine particulate matter on our residential title (garden and house) [Redacted]. We note that top soil at the East Suffolk Sandlings has the finest granularity in the UK and is thus most likely to cause nuisance to human receptors. 7. Biodiversity, Woodland and veteran trees (EN-1, 5.3 and 5.3.14) • The Applicant has not been prepared to commit to replanting the areas of woodland north of Fitches Lane and east of Aldeburgh Road that are to be removed to facilitate construction of haul roads and other (non-cabling) purposes. • No account has been taken of the prevalence of nightingales and rare glow worms along the cable route from Aldringham through to Fitches Wood. • A large mature oak tree at map coordinates 52.1884110 N 1.5796390 E lies at centre of proposed path for cable corridor at Aldringham but is not identifiable as a Target Note Reference in the Environmental Survey. • Contrary to 175(c) of National Planning Policy Framework the Applicant does not seem to have proposed a “compensation strategy” for the loss of large number of veteran trees, both sides of Aldeburgh Road, Aldringham. 8. Dust, odour, artificial light, smoke (EN-1, 5.3.14) • The Applicant acknowledges that this rural area of East Suffolk is noted for its dark skies. • Artificial lighting for security and other purposes is not acceptable. The Applicant must be required to use alternative modern methods (for example infra red devices) for securing the construction sites including Cable Corridor CCS areas. 9. Noise and vibration (EN-1 5.11) Construction Noise (Cable Corridor) • The Applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that it has addressed how the additional noise generated during construction would relate to the existing sound environment and the effect of noise on wildlife. • Residents living close to the proposed cable route and haul roads must be able to continue to enjoy their homes and gardens during the construction period without perceptible noise intrusion. • The Applicant has refused to publish noise contours for cable corridor construction. • The Noise Monitoring Survey Sensitive Receptor Location CCR9 was set incorrectly on the west side of the sensitive receptor at [Redacted], though the main source of construction noise would be from cable corridor which is on the east side. • The Applicant’s actual baseline sound levels for CCR9 were measured on the busy Aldeburgh Road, not at the coordinates it specified, thereby invalidating the Base Level sound measurements for CCR9. • A British Standard 5228 ABC Method was adopted for categorising receptors. It states that CCR9 is a Category A receptor and predicts construction noise at CCR9 at 54.6 dBA (Daytime and Weekends). According to my calculations using the Applicant’s base data, this is a gross underestimate. • I estimate that ‘Construction Noise Impact Magnitude’ at all places east side of the house would be classified according to BS5228 as ‘HIGH IMPACT’, Impact Significance : ‘MAJOR’ (Day time and Saturday working), not ‘NO IMPACT’, Impact Significance : ‘NEGLIGIBLE/ MINOR’ as stated by the Applicant. • The Applicant has not complied with our request at Consultation Phase 4 that mitigation measures must be implemented for noise impacting on Riverwood, should the cable route be built on the route now specified. The Applicant must be required to provide noise and visual mitigation measures along that length of the Cable Corridor that effectively reduce Sound Pressure at all parts of the residential title down to at least 65 dBA (assuming BS5228 recommendation is adopted) and that meet the appropriate EU standards for sound mitigation in residential areas. 10. Socio-economic (EN-1 5.12) • The Cable Corridor route from landfall at Thorpeness through to Friston contains 26 Public Rights of Way, many across Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. This small area of heritage coast is probably unique in the whole of Suffolk in having so many footpaths and bridleways in such a small area of countryside. They are used by local people and visitors to the area, being a major element in the attractiveness of the area as a holiday destination. • The many closures and "temporary" diversions proposed are further reason that the cable route chosen by the Applicant is not acceptable. 11. Traffic and Transport (EN-1 5.13) • A comprehensive Transport Management Plan is required taking account of the cumulative impact of EA1N with EA2 and with the EDF Sizewell C project. . • The Applicant must be required to specify and implement effective control, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that contractors comply with the access routes specified for each section of the cable route. • The Applicant states an intention to build Haul Roads along the cable corridor for use by HGV’s and other traffic instead of the existing B-classification roads. That proposal is not explained or quantified in the DCO with any clarity. • I am concerned by the prospect of large numbers of such vehicles using a new haul road between Access Points 4 and 5 in Aldringham. These access points are in Aldringham village not as the Applicant states “south of Aldringham”. This haul road will be as close as 25 – 70 metres distance from our garden, probably much closer to residents Fitches Lane and Aldeburgh Road. The noise, dust and noxious fumes generated will be unacceptable. • HGV’s should be required to use the existing roads which already carry HGV’s, except when delivering to a particular section of the cable route. • The Applicant’s difficulties in making a decision on whether crossing points or road access at Access points Id 5 and Id 6 is indicative that the chosen Aldeburgh Road crossing point is not appropriate. • The Applicant must be required on completion to remove all Cable Route haul roads and to restore the land to its former state prior to their construction. END"

Alan Collett
"I wish to object to this planning application by Scottish Power Renewables for the following reasons:- • The irreparable damage to the countryside, the coastline, the local environment and to wildlife habitats is totally unacceptable at a time when we are being warned repeatedly about the impact on us all of the industrialisation and loss of such natural landscapes. • The impact on the local community is out of proportion to the benefits and is not an acceptable price to pay. • The traffic and noise pollution generated will damage people’s health and this in an area that is promoted by government bodies for health and recreation. • Years of investment in the tourism industry by the taxpayer and private individuals is at risk of being wasted as people stop coming to the area. This will damage the health, wealth and well-being of local people. • The assertion that this application will deliver ‘green energy’ is false as the associated destruction of the countryside and people’s way of life is not a sustainable or justifiable way to provide power to the UK. • There are alternative ways to deliver this energy that do not leave a legacy of damage to our countryside and way of life. Alan Collett"

Alan Thomas
"Residing in Friston, I am generally supportive of the move toward renewable energy sources. However, the approach adopted by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) in pursuit of what are wholly commercial objectives, is unnecessarily damaging this fragile area of East Suffolk. To this end I fully support the objections made by Friston Parish Council and several community action groups, to the DCO application made by SPR in respect of EA1(N) Windfarm. In particular, I wish to object as follows, as the areas of concern will directly and adversely affect my quality of life. I object - to the sheer size of the development. During the “Consultation” period no attempt has been made by SPR to minimise the visual impact by careful design. The EA1(N) substation requires an area of about 8-9 acres, to which must be added a further land take of about 65 acres to accommodate the EA2 substation, the National Grid substation, water run-off drainage ponds, cable sealing ends, re-alignment of OHL pylons plus a metalled permanent access to public road system. Given the close proximity of Friston which includes residential properties, listed buildings, a village pub, mediaeval church & graveyard, duck pond, bowling green and early 19C post mill, in all occupying about 30 acres, the development will be completely out of character and will totally dominate the village and its setting. I object - to the way that the development will deprive the residents of a much loved network of footpaths, providing circular walking routes across tranquil farmland with pleasing views of farmhouses, copses, wild life and the backdrop of our 12 Century Church and 170 year-old post mill. During build (a minimum of 4 years), the whole area to the north of the village will be shut off from other footpaths to nearby villages and churches. I object - to the irresponsible way in which the rural ‘soundscape’ will be blighted by a persistent and inescapable background noise, 24 hours per day and 365 days per year for perhaps 40 years. The level and tonal quality of the sound emitted by HVAC substations is dramatically different to that of farmed area we enjoy at present. I object - to the Noise and Vibration content of the Environmental Statement of the DCO Application, where there is no coherent justification for the imposition of a 34 dB(A) noise boundary at the nearest receptor sites. This shows a complete lack of understanding by SPR regarding the nature of sound propagation in a rural environment, especially at night and under conditions of temperature inversion and adverse wind direction, when the distance travelled by low frequency sound can be much greater than that predicted by simple computer models as used by SPR. I object - to SPR’s stated intention to use 24 hr security lighting, albeit triggered by motion sensors or in emergency conditions. Friston enjoys ‘dark skies’ at night and to have this taken away by a company in pursuit of profit is offensive. One cannot mitigate light pollution! AT"

Angela Skelcher
"I am greatly concerned about the proposed building of substations and associated infrastructure in my local area of Thorpeness and Friston because this is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the heart of a rural county. It should be protected from industrial and heavy development. There are up to 7 proposed energy projects coming up over the next 10-15 years, which would cumulatively seriously damage this environment. 1. The Thorpeness cliffs are fragile and not suitable for landing cables. 2. The substations will be large in area, and despoil the so far unspoilt countryside in Friston. 3. The noise, traffic and disruption will hugely affect the small villages and towns in this rural area that do not have the infrastructure such as large roads to cope with it. 4. Suffolk is famous for its night skies, which will be lost if there is major industrial works going on. 5. The county is also heavily reliant on tourism, which will cease once the AONB’s are spoilt. This will cause a reduction in income for many of our inhabitants. 6. I agree with wind farms as they will reduce our country’s carbon footprint, but it should not be at the expense of our precious unspoilt countryside. Brownfield and other industrial sites should be used, within a coherent, revised policy framework. I believe the current policy was drawn up several years ago and energy policy has changed since then. 7. Threats to wildlife, flora and fauna in the AONBs."

Anglian Energy Planning Alliance
"The Anglian Energy Planning Alliance objects to SPR’s proposals asset out in their DCO application on the following grounds. The AEPA works in support of many of the interested parties opposed to the intended SPR onshore development centred at Friston. We are therefore well placed to offer opinion on the cumulative impact of this and the 5 other associated energy projects including Sizewell C on the region , owing to our work with campaign groups, residents, local media and many other sources . The impact of a compulsory development in our Heritage Coastal region under the NSIP banner cannot be underestimated. This legislation when created was not intended as a way to concrete over large regions of rural Britain . Whilst it is accepted that offshore renewable energy is an exciting part of our future , this should not be at a disjointed irrevocable cost to the region chosen to host the onshore infrastructure. Whether from an environmental, social , economic ,or indeed practical point of view, it is beyond reasonable doubt that this region is an extremely sensitive area and not one which can easily absorb any kind of major industrial development without complete destruction of the existing harmony. The level of consultation and preparation so far shown by SPR has been derisably poor and they have failed on numerous fronts to address in their application the concerns and questions of the local population and authorities. There exist extremely serious concerns about many issues including for example : 1/ Socio economic. - Damage to tourism ( the major driver of employment in the region)/ no new jobs created on shore /possibly nett job loss scenario / destruction of the ability for the local population to live without major disruption for 12-15 years of consecutive construction as well as the permanent loss of our renowned landscape. 2/ Traffic - this is a rural farming and tourist area. The roads/ junctions are not designed for or robust enough to take the heavy traffic of such a major development such as envisaged. During peak tourist season and harvest there are already long delays at many pinch points, none of which seem to be of concern to the applicant . 3/ Environment - how is it possible to be considering destroying rare habitats and species by digging up miles of AONB/SSSI areas in these enlightened times , without even considering brownfield alternatives? 4/ Pollution - the scale of operation intended will create serious light and noise pollution, some of which will be permanent. 5/ the ability of the National Grid to be the common denominator of all these projects and be in effect creating an enormous energy hub in a rural area, and yet not be required to make their own individual planning applications, nor being subjected to some scrutiny as would be the norm under the usual planning process. 6/ lack of planning - it has been evident to Government ( and evidenced) for almost 10 years that some kind of major onshore infrastructure planning would be required to handle the supply of offshore wind power . There are many more windfarms planned in the coming decade - a number of them off the East Anglian coast, yet still no plan exists... It is time to address these issues and not make East Suffolk , the Heritage Coast , a thing of the past."

Anthony Lockwood
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution How can the road infrastructure, with the cancellation of Stratford, Glenham bypass, cope with the number of hgv movements?"

Carole Heath
"Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects Unsuitability of Thorpeness cliffs as site for landing cables Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for complexes the size of Wembley Stadium Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. Threat to wildlife and important Sandlings Heath. Severing the Suffolk coast and Heath AONB. Causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. Destruction of ancient woodland. Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic loads and more HGVs. Light pollution, Suffolk dark skies lost. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution. Trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard and health issues. Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and resident’s emergency services. Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income and jobs leading to social decline. Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Chris Askew
"My objection to this project are, Traffic on local roads. Air, light & noise pollution. Threat to wildlife and ANOB areas. Concertation of two many projects in one small area. Substations that will overpower local villages with possible flood risks."

Chris Buckton
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power planning application for the following reasons : It involves the destruction of irreplaceable ancient woodland It severs the coast and heathland AONB disrupting migrating species and the wildlife corridor It destroys more of the valuable rare habitat of Sandlings heath-nationally recognised for its unique bio- diversity"

Christopher Howes
"I object to this development for the reasons below. 1.It will have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of unspoilt Suffolk countryside. 2.The adverse impact of traffic,noise,pollution,loss of habitat on adjacent residential areas. 3.The increase in traffic on local roads is unacceptable to the community. 4.There will be an adverse impact on the the economic life of the area. The proposal diminishes the area's attractiveness for living,tourism and cultural activities. 5.The precedent created by this proposal will lead to further damaging infrastructure projects in the area. 6.This proposal should not be considered without examining alternative solutions for the delivery of offshore power which would alleviate the need for this proposal."

Christopher Wilson
"I am very much in favour of offshore wind farms, subject to them being located in the least environmentally damaging sites ie away from avian and marine feeding/nesting grounds, but my concerns here are:- - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as the site for landing cables as the cliffs are so fragile and facing the impacts of climate change - The cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects being undertaken in the same area and some at the same time - It is correct that the onshore infrastructure needs to be outside the AONB, but use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes needs to be reviewed and a brownfield site found - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity will be lost and replaced with noise and air pollution. This will cause a decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline"

David Briggs
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

David Villiers
"this proposal is completely inappropriate for the location as it is too big for the location disrupt an area of outstanding natural beauty destroy the landscape reduce tourist trade effecting one of the major incomes for many local people damage wildlife"

David Whiffen
"I am a regular visitor to the Suffolk Heritage coast staying with my girlfriend's family who live near Friston. I do not object to offshore wind farms what I object to is the onshore installations which will cause enormous irreparable damage to this peaceful and tranquil area. SPR plans to construct one of the largest substations complexes in Europe, the size of Wembley stadium, in the heart of a tightly constrained medieval community. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. I adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and in addition object for the following reasons: Environment: the choice of the unstable and fragile cliffs at Thorpeness as the cable landing site. The destruction of environmentally sensitive areas, the threat to wildlife, the loss of ancient woodland and the permanent loss of PRoW’s along the cable route and at Friston. Heritage: 5 Grade 2 AND 2*listed properties encircle the SPR/NG substation site dating from mediaeval times. Heritage impacts are significantly underestimated by SPR. Visualisations used are highly selective and do not include key views. Industrial scale infrastructure will be sited within 300 metres of listed buildings. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of some properties and the impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken of will destroy the peace for the much of the current residents’ lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. The view for some will be obliterated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms people will lose the amenity of their homes for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings will dominate the local landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith and will take decades for planting to mature. The increase in noise pollution will blight the rural peace and quiet and is significantly underestimated by SPR. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution and SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. Local area: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment. It will harm capital values of properties. It is already harming the mental health of those living locally."

Dr Rachel Herron
"We wish to object to the onshore works aspect of this Planning Application, specifically the proposed landfall at the holiday village of Thorpeness that has extremely fragile cliffs and the 11 km route for the cabling to the proposed substation site at Friston. This will destroy an area of open countryside and Outstanding Natural Beauty. The impact on the environment, wildlife and tourism locally will be significant and of long duration. The application should rather consider using a brownfield site for the land-based infrastructure and possible sites do exist. Alternatively, it should make landfall in the Bawdsey area further down the coast where the trench has already been dug to link power from existing windfarms to a substation. We attended several consultations on this project in the past and were told by a representative of Scottish Power Renewables that landfall could not be made at Bawdsey because of the cost that would be passed onto the consumer. The Government must be involved in this project to ensure short sighted profit motives of multiple independent companies do not take precedence over protection of the East Suffolk heritage coast and ANOB. We are gravely concerned that multiple applications by different organisations, we believe 7 in total, are being and will be made for Planning Consent in this part of Suffolk piecemeal when it is vital they are considered together and co-ordinated in a joined up way. For example, proposals have been made for an offshore ring main that would have just one landfall site, ideally one that already exists, which would save the disruption, destruction and blight of the multiple projects if enacted independently."

Edward Magee
"I fully support the representations being made by SAES and Friston Parish Council. The impact of this planning application will have a detrimental impact to village life, the peace and tranquility of our village will be ruined by the building of this site so close to the village and the other building works that will result in traffic disruption, damage to eco systems and also the loss of equity and value of my house. Living in Friston will be disrupted by noise and light pollution. Plans are unclear what future developments will take place on the site and there is a substantial loss of agricultural land in the area. Impact of the development has been understated and has no social economic impact on land and will only damage tourism in the are and result in job losses for the area. The design of the proposals are too big for the area and being adjacent to a residential community. Local infrastructure is a unable to cope with the predicted levels of traffic to build and develope the proposals."

Friston Parish Council
"INTRODUCTION The proposed developments (EA1N and EA2) will have a significant adverse impact on Friston and the surrounding area from the onshore elements of the schemes which involve the construction of a substantial and visually intrusive substation complex together with a new National Grid connection hub, and a five mile cable route partially through an AONB. The substation complex and National Grid hub would cover 12 hectares (30 acres) and be up to 18m (60 ft) high, in a tranquil rural area, next to the historic village of Friston. In respect of the cable route we support the representations of the parishes and residents directly affected by the cable route. Our case is that the impacts on Friston and the surrounding area are so severe that development consent should be refused, or alternatively granted only for the offshore elements. The proposals should be regarded as contrary to the relevant National Policy Statements and in any event there are compelling reasons to refuse development consent. The adverse impacts, including in respect of visual intrusion and landscape harm, heritage harm, noise and flood risk, cannot be mitigated to levels which could be regarded as acceptable. Our objections arise because of the impossibility of mitigating the impacts/the inadequacy of the mitigation proposed in respect of these projects. We will prepare expert evidence to support the principal issues set out below. 2. SITE SELECTION/NG NSIP The Applicant’s site selection process and the justification for a new grid connection in this location are fundamentally flawed. The National Grid substation/site/connection hub will be used for a number of projects and is an NSIP in its own right but NG’s decisions, including site selection, have not been subject to an NSIP process. The manner in which NG’s grid connection decisions have been made needs to be scrutinised. 3. LANDSCAPE • The site selection and micro-siting process is flawed with regard to landscape and visual effect. It is not transparent, contains unidentified assumptions and reasoning and no genuine alternatives have been considered. • As a consequence of a flawed site selection process, the substations would cause severe landscape and visual harm that cannot be mitigated. The harm is so severe as to justify the refusal of development consent. • Due to inappropriateness of location the substations would: o sever a substantial area of tranquil, open and deeply rural countryside; o conflict with the prevailing unified character of their surroundings; o permanently stop up PRoWs and substantially harm the wider PRoW network; o require an excessively long and wide access road, 1,700m long and 8m wide; o change completely the character of Friston; o harm the setting of Friston Church (Grade II*); o require a 9km long cable route which would impact on numerous receptors and the setting of Aldringham Court (Grade II). • Planting cannot mitigate development in the wrong location & given local soil and climatic conditions the assumed growth rate of mitigation planting is highly questionable. • The substations and ancillary infrastructure are arbitrarily and unsympathetically imposed upon the existing landscape framework. Micro-siting and mitigation do not minimise potential impacts. • Concerns regarding the LVIA include but are not limited to: o an absence of plans showing the scheme and Friston village together. o questionable judgements regarding sensitivity and magnitude of change. o the use of Suffolk County LCTs instead of more up to date LCAs from Suffolk Coastal and lack of justification for subdividing these LCTs. o lack of detail regarding significant infrastructure components e.g. the access road. o absence of viewpoints from the footpaths north of the site (e.g. showing relationship between the church and site). 4. FLOOD RISK • SPR has not adequately or accurately assessed flood risk impact to Friston which is prone to flooding. • The elevated baseline flood risk to Friston village from surface water is not given the same focus as other lower flood risks. • The proposed mitigation measures: o do not demonstrate that the increase in flood and sediment mobilisation risk to Friston, during either construction or operation, can be addressed; o are not demonstrated to be feasible. • These matters cannot be left to the subsequent discharge of requirements. The proposals need to be subject to full environmental assessment with regard to flood risk and to sequential testing. The application submissions are flawed in this regard. 5. HERITAGE • The project at the substation site will impact upon at least five Grade II and two Grade II* listed buildings. • The felling of trees on the cable route to the south of the Grade II-listed Aldringham Court negatively damages the setting of the building, as well as the landscape and residents close by. • Heritage impacts are underestimated significantly as is the cumulative heritage impact on the cluster of listed buildings which surround the substation site. • There is only a visual assessment of setting with little regard to wider identification and assessment of setting. • The viewpoints and visualisations are highly selective and do not include key views. • There is an historic parish/hundred boundary in the middle of the substation site. • The mitigation proposed does very little to reduce the heritage impacts. 6. NOISE • The Environmental Statement has many errors and omissions. • The proposed 34db LAeq 5min as a limit is unacceptable in a tranquil rural environment with a low night-time noise level and there is no evidence that it will not be intrusive in a tranquil rural environment. • Failure to apply a tonality penalty is unacceptable and unjustified. • There is no evidence that there will not be one off random noise events. • The overriding community requirement is for residential and recreational property (both inside and out) to be free at all times from perceptible substation noise. • Any agreed limit must be achievable and enforceable at any time under any environmental conditions. • Restricting noise testing to only two locations is unacceptable. • There is no analysis of the possibility of ground borne noise. • Compliance with all agreed noise limits shall be mandatory throughout the life of the projects because plant as it ages can become noisier. • Given the hours of working and the proximity of the substations site and cable route to Friston/residences, construction noise could be very intrusive. • These matters cannot be left to the subsequent discharge of requirements. The proposals need to be subject to full environmental assessment with regard to noise and to sequential testing and the application submissions are flawed in this regard. 7. SUBSTATION DESIGN • The focus is only on aesthetics not the best possible engineering/configuration of the substations to reduce their size, noise emissions etc to achieve “low impact”. An independent engineering authority should verify any design proposed (including the land requirements) meets these criteria. • National Grid’s developments should be subject to the same design criteria/requirements as SPR’s. 8. LAND USE There is a significant loss of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land, over 30 hectares. 9. ONSHORE ECOLOGY • The projects will involve the loss and disruption of habitat for badgers, bats, owls, great crested newts, adders and other wildlife. • Four active badger setts will be destroyed at the substations site. • Bats are present at the site and along the cable route including the rare lesser horseshoe bat. • All wildlife will be disturbed by noise and light pollution both during construction and operation at the substations site. 10. TRAFFIC • The A12 / A1094 junction is an accident black spot. The mitigation measures are inadequate. Further any introduction of a roundabout will cause serious congestion on the A12 with slow braking and accelerating HGVs. • There is a risk to the journey times of emergency vehicles. • Only Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) traffic will be monitored. No monitoring commitment is given regarding the passage of all other types of vehicle, particularly on local minor roads which could become “rat-runs” A pre-construction access is proposed to the development from the junction of Church Road (single track road) and Grove Road. This could have significant impact upon the residents of Friston, walkers and cyclists. 11. HUMAN HEALTH • There is little in the way of an objective assessment of the human impact of the projects upon the local population a significant proportion of which is elderly and/or retired. • SPR dismiss anxiety as a “perception”. Anxiety is very real to a person suffering from it. • SPR has not carried out a survey of the actual demographics of Friston or those living near the cable route, so its assessment of human impacts is not reliable. • Anxiety will arise from: o the traffic and the noise, air, light pollution and disruption associated with a potential construction period of 5/6 years even before the impact of other projects o the permanent loss of amenity (footpaths etc), tranquillity, landscape/heritage damage, and noise and light pollution o financial uncertainty 12. FOOTPATHS • The proposals will necessitate the permanent closure of a well-used footpath leading north from the village of Friston causing a major loss of amenity. • There are a further 26 PROWs throughout the onshore development area, which will be temporarily closed or diverted for unspecified amounts of time with a major loss of amenity. 13. TOURISM AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS • Onshore development elements contribute very little to the local economy during construction and nothing post construction. • The loss of amenity etc. both during construction and thereafter will damage tourism and there has been no assessment of cumulative effects. • There has been no analysis of damage to “inward investment” as a result of the area being a less attractive place to live. 14. LIGHT POLLUTION • There will be significant light pollution given the “dark skies” of the present rural environment both during construction (particularly at construction compounds) and operation. • During operation there will be security and car park lighting which even if “movement sensitive” will be frequently triggered by wildlife. 15. SAFETY • No safety case is provided for the substations. Fire and explosion are not unknown at substations. There is no quantification of the risk including in respect of gas insulated switchgear. • The safety and security of all residents and workers within a 30km radius of Sizewell B is secured by an evacuation plan in the event of a nuclear accident and no consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposals on that plan. 16. CUMULATIVE IMPACT SPR has not properly addressed the impact of the developments with 5 other major energy projects in the same area, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper expansion, Greater Gabbard expansion and Sizewell C. There is a direct link between the proposals and elements of those projects in light of their likely grid connections. 17. PROJECT DOWNSIZING A number of wind farm projects (including Scottish Power’s) have been built with a substantially reduced generating capacity post DCO. SPR has not addressed how any reduction in generating capacity will reduce the scale of the onshore development. 18. FUNDING ISSUES SPR’s funding position is not clearly established in light of the contract for difference regime 19. DCO The DCO contains inadequate provisions for securing mitigation of the adverse impacts of the proposals and would grant excessive flexibility to the developer to determine the form of the development after consent."

Gabriel R O Lange
"Dear Examining Authority at the Planning Inspectorate, Re: East Anglia One North: While supporting the principle of renewable energy, I am apalled at this Scottish Power Renewables planning application and wish strongly to object for the following reasons: - A process of up to 7 mooted energy projects in this area would have a serious and very negative impact on local communities and must not be allowed to start. - The proposed cable trenches would destroy environmentally sensitive areas, threaten wildlife and destroy important woodland. In addition, homes near trenches and haul roads would be seriously affected. - The proposed huge substation at Friston would destroy the countryside there and be an apalling imposition on the residents. - If this work goes ahead, light and noise pollution will impinge severely on Suffolk's rural tranquillity. -Footpaths and other public rights of way used by the community would be closed. Altogether this is a VERY BAD IDEA, as we, Suffolk residents, have been trying to point out for months. Please do not allow this to go forward. There MUST be alternative solutions which are better for the environment and better for people. Yours sincerely, G R O Lange ( Lange-Kent ) ( Mrs )"

George Mabey
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Georgina Fitzherbert
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) Yours sincerely, Georgina Fitzherbert"

Gillian Harris
"I note the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and support and personally agree with all the issues raised in their submission. The temporary loss of year old views and the negative visual impact on rural views. The likelihood of further projects to utilise the National Grid facility in Friston The destruction of habitat to an area of agricultural landscape. The worry that noise impact will affect the area. Proposed lighting will affect local fauna. The disruption of the whole area during construction and pre construction stages with increased traffic of heavy commercial vehicles and unregulated private vehicles during the construction. The whole area will change from a quiet peaceful place to an industrial area with heavy traffic blocking the roads and with high noise pollution. There does not appear to be any benefit to local people and it is unlikely that there will be jobs for locals workers. Already the price of houses has dropped greatly in the area, and it is becoming almost impossible to sell houses in Friston and the surrounding area."

Graeme Murray
"I object to SPR’s proposals as expressed in their DCO application for the following reasons: As a resident of the village of Snape I can confirm that there has been no consultation by the applicant with the village ( except for an information evening arranged by the Parish Council ). Snape is the gateway to the intended location for all these on shore infrastructure plants and as such should have been at the forefront of any consultation process. This was not the case and SPR have not ever tried to rectify this. A lot has been said about the cumulative impact of this and other known projects which are earmarked for the same location, and I understand that under NSIP planning rules a lot of associated information can not be taken into account, however at some stage a degree of common sense surely has to prevail. The size of this project alone is way more than the area can absorb on so many fronts it is amazing that the process is still being undertaken. Economically the region will suffer - the DMO ‘s report shows that the region will likely experience a 17-20 pct drop in tourism which will have a devastating effect on the regions economy and employment statistics. This area is internationally known for its rare habitats and species of wild life and has large areas of AONB/SSSI designated to protect the same. However this project will devastate and threaten these same priceless pockets of nature which we spend so much time trying to save. The traffic figures as put forward by SPR are not sustainable in a small rural area with roads only designed to take local and agricultural traffic . In peak season with tourist load added the road systems are already unable to cope so this project will break the traffic flow to an unacceptable level and affect peoples ability to subsist. Pollution is a major issue as SPR are not taking into account the thousands of people who will be affected by light/noise/fumes from the works. This will fundamentally change the area and put major stress on the inhabitants. It is clear , insomuch that the National Grid are not being asked to put their name to any planning application under any guise , that they are nonetheless planning to turn Friston into a major energy onshore distribution hub. This is surely against the intent of the NSIP ethos. It has been evident for nearly 10 years that there has been no planning for onshore infrastructure to deal with the offshore generation of power. With some degree of foresight all this could have been properly planned to the benefit of all. Destroying East Suffolk due to lack of said planning should not be an option and thus be stopped."

GreenSnape
"GreenSnape is an environment and wildlife conservation group based in Snape, Suffolk. We object to the proposals, and agree with the representations being made by Snape Parish Council, by Friston Parish Council and by Substation Action Save East Suffolk, for the reasons stated therein. We have particular concern that in relation to the extensive damage and disruption to landscape, wildlife, natural ecology and quality of community life that would result from approval of this application, the mitigations proposed are wholly inadequate, unrealistic and often dismissive of evidence-based criticisms expressed during consultation. We draw attention to two fundamental omissions from the application: 1. The applicant must provide a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects (CEA) of other developments within the whole area affected by the DCO. An adequate and detailed CEA has not been provided relating to EDF's Sizewell C nuclear power station and National Grid's Nautilus interconnector, both in Tier 2 of PINS hierarchy of certainty. Nor has appropriate effort been made to include in the CEA known Tier 3 projects including the Eurolink interconnector and the expansion of Galloper and Greater Gabbard windfarms. Sufficient information is available on all the above projects to support detailed CEA analysis. 2. The applicant must state clearly in its site selection report what alternative sites and transmission routes have been considered, with detailed reasons for rejecting each alternative in favour of the selected site. This has not been done. In particular, the applicant has offered no acceptable explanation for its arbitrary downgrading and abandonment of the Bawdsey-Bramford cable route already permitted for EA1N. Selection of this option would have made the present application redundant. In the absence of compliant answers on these two matters, approval of the application would be open to legal challenge."

Historic England
"PINs Registration and Relevant Representation Form Section 56 Planning Act 2008 Date notified: 25 November 2019 Response deadline: 27 January 2020 Project: The Proposed East Anglia North ONE Offshore Windfarm Response made by: Dr Will Fletcher Our ref: PL00088303 PINs Ref:EN010077 Telephone:01223 582710 The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (HBMCE) is better known as Historic England, and we are the Government’s adviser on all aspects of the historic environment in England - including historic buildings and areas, archaeology and historic landscape. We have a duty to promote conservation, public understanding and enjoyment of the historic environment. HBMCE are an executive Non-Departmental public body and we answer to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Digital Culture, Media and Sport. In addition to our remit for the conservation of the historic environment the National Heritage Act (2002) gave HBMCE responsibility for maritime archaeology in the English area of the UK Territorial Sea. Representation: The applicant has provided a full Environmental Statement and Historic England’s full written representation will comment on aspects and concerns that we have established with regards to the impact of the scheme upon the on- and offshore historic environment. In relation to the off-shore historic environment, the large number of geophysical seabed anomalies recorded within the PDA highlights the potential for significant historic environment features to be present. Our concern is therefore to ensure that the Outline Offshore Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation considers how the construction can be designed sensitively to take into account known and potential heritage assets. In the event of the project being consented, we are concerned to ensure the appropriate depth for a continuous stratigraphy is incorporated into the planning of the geotechnical survey. With boreholes and vibrocores stored and maintained to maximise archaeological objectives. This is to mitigate impacts on archaeological deposits of high potential. We have identified that the resulting proposals of embedded and additional mitigation - through schemes of investigation - have the potential to successfully mitigate impacts to the historic environment through avoidance, but these present opportunities to better reveal the significance of the heritage assets found within the proposed development area (see ES Chapter 16). We consider that the projects potential contribution to new knowledge arising from such investigations (EN-3, paragraph 2.6.142) can be linked to additional socio-economic beneficial effects, such as the provision and enhancement of educational facilities for the community (EN-1, paragraph 5.12.3). Given the scale of the development and the cumulative impacts within this region of the southern North Sea, we feel these outcomes should be included as part of the mitigation. On-shore, our principal concern is in relation to the proposed development of the sub-station and the cumulative impact of this new infrastructure on the significance of the grade II* listed Church of St. Mary at Friston. Dating from the eleventh century, the phases of building illustrate ecclesiastical design and patterns of worship, and show the significant role of the church within the community. It lies on the northern edge of the village and is appreciated in a rural and largely open landscape setting enabling views from the south and north. This enhances its prominence and adds to the appreciation of the building. The scale and appearance of the development would significantly change the character of this rural landscape setting. It would compromise and completely obscure views to the church from the north and from the church looking northwards. It would also greatly impact on key views of the church from the south, which would be seen against a backdrop of the sub-stations. We consider this would result in a very high level of harm to the significance of the grade II* church. We are aware the proposal includes screening and mitigation planting, however we have also considered this aspect of the scheme and have concerns that this will also bring about further changes to the setting of the church. We intend to expand on this more fully in our full response, and it is likely we will consider wider impacts of the proposed sub-station infrastructure and the on-shore cable route on designated and non-designated heritage assets. We have however concluded that although we do not object to the scheme in principle, we will consider an in principle objection to the location of the sub-station on historic environment grounds. Dr Will Fletcher [email protected]"

Jane Mcneill
"We do not object to offshore wind farms. We object to the onshoring of such capacity which causes despoliation to the countryside. SPR will construct one of the largest substations in Europe in the heart of a tightly constrained medieval community. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. We adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. [Redacted]:Our property is an Elizabethan (1550s) three story (tall) house and is one of 7 Grade 2 listed properties encircling the SPR/NG site. It was constructed within the curtilage of an older 13th century dwelling and is crossed with ancient paths to the Church. It is surrounded by very old moats and ponds. The property and environs harbour birds (owls/birds of prey), toads, stoats/ ferrets, occasional otters, muntjac/deer, etc. SPR/NG site: The site extends to the boundary of the House. Components of the NG works will be circa 30-50m from the fence. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of the property. The impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Green energy risks becoming dirty green energy. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken off will destroy the peace for much of our lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. Our view will be decimated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms we will lose the amenity of our home for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings (eg harmonic filters) will dominate our landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith. In any event it would take decades for planting to mature. We already hear humming and crackling from the pylons and the inevitable increase in noise will blight the peace. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution. The vibrant wildlife in our enclave will vanish. We will be cut off from the village and lose the tranquil views across to the church which we value. SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. The locality: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment (who will wish to live near Friston?). It will harm capital values of properties."

Janette Redshaw
"Why do areas become listed as areas of AONB to protect them, then suddenly this will be ignored it makes a mockery of legislation The horrendous effect this will have on the Human population : noiise, dangerous levels of traffic ,loss of tourism & farming incomes, loss of leisure activities The Harm done to the wildlife & environment is far greater & may never recover with Birds never returning on their migratory routes, delicate ecosystems disrupted to name but a few issues . The disruption caused by the building of this enormous eyesore substationin the rural countryside seems a poor solution & appears to be for finacial gain of a few rather than a holistic approach to an energy policy that should be much more "joined" up & for this reason I am very against the present plans & would ask for more thought & discussions to prevent destruction of our AONB costal region."

Jemima Tindle
"I am writing to you with regards Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) planning application EA1N- PINS DCO application with regards the Friston Substation and register as an interested party. I wish to object to this application on the following grounds. The building of the SPR substation and National Grid inter connector is a major construction project that should not be placed in the middle of an unspoilt rural location. The reasons being. The planned site is far too close to Friston, a small thriving village with great historical interest. (Three Lord Mayors of London) are buried in the church yard. In effect it will blight the village . The local footpaths will be destroyed and local wildlife such as Badgers and Bats will be displaced. SPR has shown little concern for any of these issues. Noise pollution. There will be a constant loud hum from the the site that will blight all the surrounding areas. Light Pollution. There will be constant 24/7 lighting of the site which will cause major harm to both humans and nocturnal wildlife such as owls and bats. Destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. Flooding. SPR has shown very little concern over the risk of flooding to the village and surrounding areas. The impact that this will have on the village is enormous. The potential for home owners in the village not being able to get flood insurance or to have to pay much higher premiums has not been addressed. Traffic and Transport. The whole road network around the site and along the pipeline route from Thorpness to Friston is rural and unspoilt and is a major part of the charm of the area along the Suffolk coast. It is totally inadequate for this this size of construction project and the vast increase in traffic movements that will be required to service this construction. This traffic increase will blight the area for miles around and will severely damage the main industry and employment in this beautiful area which is based on tourism. SPR have tacitly shown that they are aware of this by the amount of “Road improvements” that they accept will be needed. SPR has shown a complete lack of concern with how the increase traffic will affect the area or come up with any proposals as to how they will effectively police their contractors/employees, making sure they stick to the correct routes and not use local villages and back roads as “rat runs” or what sanctions would be imposed on contractors who do not follow their instructions. Landfall and Cable Trench. The choice of landfall for the cables at Thorpeness is flawed. Again the destruction of footpaths, ancient woodlands and wildlife along the route is unacceptable. The timescale for building the cable trench for the project does not fall into the category of temporary. Site Design. No attempt has been made to reduce the impact of the site by using more up to date technologies."

Jennifer Wilson
"I fully support offshore wind farms as long as they are not sited in an area which is detrimental to wildlife. However I believe in order to keep public support it is imperative that the onshore infrastructure is sited on a brownfield site. In the case of this application I believe there is the potential of an offshore ring main and this must be fully investigated. Thorpeness Cliff is unsuitable for landing cables and Friston as the home for the sub station is unacceptable."

Joanna Jastrzembska
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

John Davies
"Scottish Power Renewables I am registering this objection to the Scottish Power Renewables application to construct a large electrical substation on land near Friston and connect this to the National Grid and to transmission cables that are proposed to be brought ashore on the rapidly eroding coastline to the north of the village of Thorpeness. Whilst being supportive of the development of offshore wind turbines to generate electricity as an alternative to the continued use of fossil-fuels I do not believe that sufficient consideration has been given to the adverse impact that this development and any subsequent proposals would have on the communities and sensitive, largely protected natural environment of the Suffolk Coast. I have listed below the principle reasons for my concerns: i) The Suffolk coastline is highly sensitive, largely unspoilt and is renowned for its tranquility, a very rare quality in lowland England. It is defined as a Heritage Coast, forms an integral component of the nationally important Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and incorporates a number of sites of national and international importance for nature conservation. The impact of this development alongside the hugely damaging Sizewell C/D proposals, and the likelihood of further onshore development proposals relating to potentially six other offshore wind farms such as the East Anglia 2 development are likely to result in irreversible losses, the implications of which have been given little or no consideration. ii) It is not clear what the overall impact on both noise and air quality would be resulting from traffic movements and the operation of on-site plant and machinery both during construction and operation. Does an independent assessment exist? If so, what measures would be taken to mitigate any adverse impacts on human health? iii) Nor is it clear what the overall carbon footprint for the development is, including not just construction but ultimately the decommissioning and removal of the substation and transmission infrastructure. This needs to be considered as the aim of these offshore developments is to contribute towards a national carbon-neutral target. iv) Tourism is a vital component of the local economy, the implementation of the proposed development along with the other proposed or anticipated developments mentioned earlier pose a significant threat to the future appeal of this area as a tourism destination. Has an independent assessment been made of the cumulative detrimental impact of the developments on this multi-million pound tourism industry? 24th January 2020"

John Dawson
"I object to the proposed construction for the following reasons. 1. The short and long term destruction of a beautiful and productive landscape is excessive as there are alternative locations and routes and designs that would be far less intrusive. They might cost more but over the life of the project and shared across the nation would be easily affordable. 2. We already have two industrial scale sites at Sizewell A and B and likely to have the extra burden of the construction of Sizewell C. Which adds up to too much for one small region to cope with. 3. The power companies should be made to accommodate one another and share land and routes to minimise cost and destruction of green fields. 4. Finally the economic impact and reduced tourism and trade in the area which will result if the present plans are followed is unnecessary and unfairly inflicted on the people who live here."

John Duke
"-- my major concern is the cumulative impact on the immediate area where I live, in Aldringham, of up to 7 major projects developing over a considerable periold of years. -- we live at the junction of roads to Thorpeness, Leiston and Aldeburgh where major cable trenches, haul roads would be very close to residential homes. -- we are already subject to disturbance from increasing farm traffic, lorry transport for house building and tourism, which causes vibration and unacceptable noise levels. -- the road is subject to flooding by the Parrot pub and the fields immediately adjacent over 100 m and 0.5 meter deep. -- the junction is already a traffic hazard, sight lines are poor. -- like many others we moved to this area for its access to wonderful landscapes and wildlife, both of which are threatened by these projects. -- the impacts of weather, high tides, and climate change are priorities for coastal management here, not further erosion of the terrain."

John Vandenberghe
"Dear Examining Authority Re East Anglia North One and Two I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons 1 Like many of our neighbours here in Aldringham we are very concerned by the proposal of Scottish Power to build two(and eventually possibly more) electrical substations in this area of Suffolk. The size of the substations would dominate and be much too close to the peaceful village of Friston with an adverse impact on property prices there. 2 Recently our local roads have been very badly affected by heavy rainfall and this further impact will not improve the matter. Our local small roads are totally unsuitable for the increased traffic of HGVs and transport equipment required for such a project. 11km of cable trenches would destroy our countryside and wildlife ,take years to complete and will seriously affect the local economy and tourism which (especially in Thorpeness) is a popular holiday destination 3 We have all seen how some coastal regions a little further north in this Heritage Coast have been lost to the sea and are alarmed that further incursions could seriously damage villages like Thorpeness, Aldringham , Knodishall and Friston which have little protection from flooding. 4 There are other concerns like the destruction of ancient woodlands and wildlife of which I am sure you will be aware and which concur with the other great debate of the day – climate change. We trust these and other objections will be given due consideration and aid in the rejection of Scottish Power application. END"

Jonathan Woolley
"1 The proposed route through Aldeburgh is totally unsuitable for large volumes of traffic. Pedestrians cross in numerous places. The road is narrow in parts, and traffic going in opposite directions cannot pass. The proposed traffic flow will cause significant congestion."

KWS Ashurst
"Dear Sir or Madam, I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: 1) The cumulative, deleterious impact upon local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over many years. 2) The unacceptable use of unspoilt countryside at Friston in particular for such proposed huge substation complexes. 3) The substations will be too close to and will dominate Friston a small village already liable to flooding. 4) The cable trenches (11kms) and haul roads will be too close to homes and will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. 5) Ancient woodland will be destroyed and the severing of the AONB will become a severe threat to wildlife and the 'corridor' of migrating species. 6) There will be an unacceptable degree of permanent and even temporary PRoWs. 7) The local road network is totally unsuited to the high traffic levels (HGVs in particular) incidental to the development. 8) There will be an appalling and totally unacceptable degree of light, noise and air pollution. 9) The hugely significant adverse economic impact upon tourism and upon local businesses. Yours faithfully, KWS Ashurst"

Lin Patrick
"I am concerned about this proposal for the following reasons: INCREASED TRAFFIC. The A1094, B1069, B1121 &B1122 are at best single carriageway roads or just narrow lanes or by-roads. All these will be seriously impacted by the proposal. THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT. Proposals include the permanent removal of large areas of wildlife habitat. There will be disruption and displacement for our wildlife (already under threat anyway) both during construction and once the site is operational. IMPACT TO QUALITY OF LIFE. Villages will become isolated due to the extra heavy traffic and loss of footpaths. The alternative footpath close to Grove Road is unsuitably close to the proposed site. There will be irreversible damage to our landscape; currently open, green and peaceful. FLOOD RISK.We already have frequent flooding problems after heavy rain. Proposed mitigation measures appear inadequate. CUMULATIVE IMPACT. Overall, the cumulative negative effect of this proposal on top of other large-scale developments in east Suffolk is very damaging on every level."

Lorraine Hubbard
"I wish to express my objections to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: • It is clear that such a development will badly affect both tourism and wildlife in the Sandlings as well as the quality of life of local people. • The placing of such a large and obtrusive development within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. • Serious damage will be caused to our fragile coastal environment. Wildlife areas and paths will be disturbed, just at a time when environmental warming requires a thoughtful and sensitive approach to habitat conservation. • The development will cause irreparable damage to our local designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. • There have been inadequate studies of the serious effect of the proposals on the landscape in the area, as well as the increased traffic affecting local infrastructure and the very size of the development itself. • The length of 12 to 15 years for the project and the disruptions caused are likely to have an adverse effect on tourism, which is a major source of work and revenue in the area. • These disruptions will in turn have a serious impact on local businesses, leading to serious economic decline in the area."

Marine Management Organisation
"Dear Sir/Madam, East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is an interested party for the examination of Development Consent Order (DCO) applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in the marine area. The MMO has an interest in this project because all construction (including alteration and improvement of works), dredging and maintenance and decommissioning activities associated with the proposed scheme that are within the jurisdiction of the MMO area are considered to be licensable. The DCO application includes a Deemed Marine Licence (DML) under Section 65 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA 2009) and should consent be granted for the project, the MMO will be responsible for monitoring, compliance and enforcement of DML conditions. The MMO is unable to submit its comments in full via the PINS website. Instead, a copy of the MMO’s full representation will be submitted, on or before Monday 27 January 2020, to PINS via email ([email protected]). Yours faithfully, Ellen Mackenzie"

Mark Hopkins
"Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to vehemently object to the current development proposals because of the location at which the cables are currently proposed to be brought onshore i.e., at the Thorpeness cliffs. The movement and operation of heavy plant and machinery, drilling, vibration and construction activities in general will adversely impact the stability of, and will cause damage to, the Thorpeness cliffs, thereby significantly exacerbating and increasing the already existing threat of further coastal erosion (and ultimately the future of the village of Thorpeness itself). This simply cannot be in the interests of either the Environment Agency or East Suffolk Council. I therefore implore you to take account of my objection - as an owner of a beachfront property in Thorpeness and someone who has observed the Thorpeness cliffs and coastal erosion for over 50 years. Rather than solely being an objector, I would like to bring forward the suggestion that if indeed cables are to be brought onshore, then this be done at Sizewell or, as a fallback, south of Thorpeness, between Thorpeness and Aldeburgh, where there are no cliffs. This would not only eliminate damage to the Thorpeness cliffs (and ultimately Thorpeness) as a result of the development project, but also would have the benefit of being considerably less costly due to the reduced extent of drilling that would be required. Thanking you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, Mark Hopkins."

Michael Doy
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons. 1)The cumulative impact of having six of these sequential industrial energy developments running in parallel with a proposed Sizewell C development, which will devastate the local environment, economy and the health and well being of all those who live and work in and visit our parishes and towns over many years. 2) IN EVENT OF A NUCLEAR incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered."

Michelle Keane
"I strongly object to the construction of a substation in Friston which will damage the whole area from the seashore to the substation. Why can't the substation be built in the sea?"

Mr A Noble
"Re East Anglia North One I wish to object to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons ; a. Clearly the application will be disasterous for the Suffolk coast and its wildlife b. This part of the country has always been somewhere people can come and unwind and relax. This will no longer be the case if the application is agreed resulting in anxiety and an increase in mental health problems c.The coast here is very fragile any development increases the risk of flooding particularly at times of torrential rain and rising sea levels' d. This is an area of high levels of tourism . This application is bound to have bad effect on businesses in the area and beyond; such as Aldeburgh and the international concert hall at snape e. At a time of global warming the application includes the destruction of an ancient woodland f.This area is known for its wildlife and includes a nature reserve of international importance ;RSPB Minsmere. Migratory birds also use this corridor,All will be affected"

Mr Feetham
"Dear Sirs, Re: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE I object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: This part of East Suffolk depends very heavily on its tourist industry. Apart from farming there is no other industry in the area which provides a substantial source of income and employment. Visitors come to enjoy the unspoilt countryside. The extended construction period of up to 15 years together with the end result, massive industrial facilities covering huge areas of previously unspoilt land, would so degrade the landscape that current and potential tourists would be permanently deterred from visiting. The knock-on destruction of businesses involved in tourism and the resultant loss of jobs and income would turn this part of the county into a deprived and economically depressed area. At a time when the urgency of reviving depressed parts of the country has become a political priority it cannot make sense to do the opposite. In purely logistical terms the existing infrastructure of the area is incapable of withstanding a construction project of the nature proposed. The local road network is not capable of coping with the number and weight of the HGVs which will be needed to carry out the project. The likely figure of 150 construction vehicles a day is simply unsustainable both in terms of safety for other road users and the ability of the roads to withstand such heavy use. There is simply no logic in developing renewable power sources, which we are all in favour of, if the benefit of so doing is cancelled out by massive environmental destruction in delivering the energy. Yours faithfully, Piers Feetham"

Mr Thomas O'Brien
"Dear Sirs, I am a resident from East Suffolk and I am opposed to the planned windfarm electrical distribution centre and underground cabling in Friston for the East Anglia Two and and One North offshore windfarms. Firstly I must say I attended many of the Planning Inspectorate meetings for East Anglia One power cable from Bawdsey to Bramford, and sub station works at Bramford a few years ago. I was bitterly disappointed by the outcome. The project planning process seemed rushed through, the windfarm power developers seemed to control the agenda, the Planning Inspectorate adjudicators had little influence, and their final report did not comment on any requirement of mitigation for the local population and only small mention in passing of the concerns of local people. Further to this, right at the end of the process when the project had already been rubber stamped, the power in the cables was changed from DC to AC, giving little time for discussion and comment. Given this lack of visibility and chance to comment I believe this final change was implemented illegally. The whole process (or shambles) set an unfortunate precedent which has resulted in the proposals now under discussion. During the earlier EA1 planning process it was made to look like enough cable ducts would be provided underground to Bramford for all further Scottish Renewables windfarm requirements. But now I realise that this wasn't true. So how can we believe anything Scottish Renewables says about future plans. So what is next on the agenda? I agree with the comments stated by local MPs and the government Minister responsible, that the development of windfarms in the North Sea are being implemented in an ad-hoc fashion with cabling and substations being implemented all over East Anglia, each causing distress and annoying people who live all over the region. A proposal has been made to route all windfarm power to Bradwell power station in Essex which I agree is the correct way to go. In any case since Friston is squeezed between areas of natural beauty I would have thought that any areas not designated as such would be better preserved for developments which are associated with the local communities themselves. Not massive national infrastructure projects. Yours sincerely Thomas O'Brien"

Mrs Hilary Thorby
"As a frequent visitor to East Suffolk for RSPB Minsmere & the Suffolk coast in general, Snape Maltings & the village of Friston where I have close friends, I am appalled & horrified by the DCO applications for EA1N by Scottish Power Renewables. I understand the need for renewable energy, but the cumulative impact of EA1N, & what could be in total up to seven energy projects running together, spells destruction & devastation to such a small geographic location. The impact on the landscape, which includes an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & two sites of Special Scientific Interest, wildlife, the local population & tourism would be catastrophic. Not to mention the increased risk of flooding to the village of Friston where the drainage infrastructure is already inadequate, the loss of footpaths & rights of way, light pollution, noise, & volume of construction traffic. I strongly object to EA1N & urge you to listen & act to save the peace & tranquility of this outstandingly beautiful area."

Mrs Rosemary Fleet
"I am writing to support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council . The proposed project will completely dominate Friston and our peaceful, rural idyll will be lost forever. The site extends much closer to residential properties than previous such developments and with the haul road, cable runs, etc, a large area of the district would be affected. Friston is within the Sizewell exclusion zone and should evacuation be advised, the road network would not cope now. Jobs might be available in the construction phase but more would be lost without tourism and its supporting businesses. Flooding eg from field run off is a major concern in Friston - the proposed 'ponds' if released could prove devastating. Noise and light pollution will be constant once development begins, affecting residents and wildlife. Traffic - it will be impossible to leave Friston without encountering construction and associated traffic. Around Friston several footpaths will be closed or diverted diminishing the enjoyment of our neighbourhood. The site at Friston is good agricultural land and at a time when the country needs to become as self-sufficient as possible, to use this land for industrial development is not good practice - Brownfield or lower grade land should be used. Everyone in Friston will be severely affected by the proposed development both during and after the construction phase - the increased traffic, noise and light pollution [especially during 24 hour work periods] together with disruption to daily life will be intolerable."

National Grid
"Dear Sir/Madam REPRESENTATION BY NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION PLC (“NGET”) TO THE EAST ANGLIA ONE NORTH OFFSHORE WINDFARM AND THE EAST ANGLIA TWO OFFSHORE WINDFARM DCOs NGET wishes to make a relevant representation to the above DCOs in relation to the matters set out below. Support for the Proposed Development Firstly, NGET would like to confirm that it does not object to the proposed development, indeed, the DCOs seek consent to deliver infrastructure that will be owned and operated by NGET. That infrastructure includes a new NGET substation and the DCOs include flexibility for either a AIS or a GIS substation to be implemented should the DCOs be approved. NGET supports this flexibility as, the ability for NGET to choose which type of substation to implement will to assist NGET in complying with its statutory duty under Section 9(2) of the Electricity Act 1989 to “develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission”. Duty to Protect Existing Assets In addition, as a responsible statutory undertaker, NGET’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. As such NGET has a duty to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the Order Limits of the proposed development. NGET’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order Limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. NGET can confirm that it is liaising with the applicant in relation to the protective provisions included within the DCOs to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET will continue to liaise with the applicant in this regard with a view to concluding matters as soon as possible during the DCO Examinations. SuDs Ponds/Basins As per Table 20.3 of the East Anglia TWO Environmental Statement (document reference 6.1.20), and East Anglia ONE North Environmental Statement (document reference 6.1.20), we note that the applicant retains the option to install further attenuation measures along the existing surface water flow route during the detailed design phase. The Applicant has committed to providing an additional ‘surface water management SuDS basin’ (currently identified as concept within Chapter 29 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, and in the OLEMS (document reference 8.7) to reduce water in-flow rates to the substation area and potentially reduce flood risk for the village of Friston, in addition to the Surface Water Drainage Strategy currently proposed. Confirmation of the size, volume and location of this additional ‘surface water management SuDS basin’ will follow establishment of an appropriate catchment hydraulic model and the detailed design of the onshore substation and National Grid substation. As a result, the additional attenuation and wider catchment benefit associated with this proposed additional ‘surface water management SuDS basin’ is not therefore incorporated within this chapter and is therefore a worst-case scenario. NGET will contribute to the design of these further attenuation measures which must ensure that the operation of the proposed NGET infrastructure being consented is not compromised. NGET reserves the right to make further representations as part of the Examination process but in the meantime will continue to liaise with the applicant with a view to reaching agreement on all matters raised. I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Spencer Jefferies Town Planner, Land and Acquisitions."

Nicholas Hubbard
"I wish to express my objections to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: • It is clear that such a development will badly affect both tourism and wildlife in the Sandlings as well as the quality of life of local people. • The placing of such a large and obtrusive development within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. • Serious damage will be caused to our fragile coastal environment. Wildlife areas and paths will be disturbed, just at a time when environmental warming requires a thoughtful and sensitive approach to habitat conservation. • The development will cause irreparable damage to our local designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. • There have been inadequate studies of the serious effect of the proposals on the landscape in the area, as well as the increased traffic affecting local infrastructure and the very size of the development itself. • The length of 12 to 15 years for the project and the disruptions caused are likely to have an adverse effect on tourism, which is a major source of work and revenue in the area. • These disruptions will in turn have a serious impact on local businesses, leading to serious economic decline in the area."

Nicky Corbett
"Good afternoon It is with great sadness that I see plans to decimate an area I have lived and grown up in all my life. I understand the need for renewable energy but I am at pains to understand why the future of our energy needs in the UK is falling largely in the lap of this tiny corner of east Suffolk. The prospect of the turmoil from the combination of wind farm, nuclear expansion and interconnectors from the continent will all be forced onto this coastal community which relies on tourism and its natural beauty for a large a lion’s share of our economy. At a time when we are losing species daily, we should be guarding our habitat not destroying it. We have seen the effect to the landscape of the cable route from Bawdsey to Bramford and do not understand why this cannot be the route for the two new wind farms. This kind of wholesale trashing of the countryside would through ancient woodland west of Thorpeness. The combined traffic for all these major infrastructure projects will make living in and visiting this area uncomfortable, noisy, dirty and congested. It is our own precious East Suffolk and that’s why people love it so much. Please respect our home. To add to this, the coastline between Thorpeness and Sizewell is a fragile one. The last 50 years have seen great changes to the beach landscape and it is bewildering to understand why it is deemed suitable for the onshore cable route. I do not live in Friston but I understand the light and noise pollution this scheme will have on the village. There are many individual properties that will be changed forever. Making living in some untenable. It is therefore without any hesitation, that I am contacting you to raise my objection to this scheme. I speak for many people when I ask for PINs to give this application extra careful consideration. At what cost to our Suffolk countryside and our way of life will the proliferation of wind farms in the North Sea turn out to be? There has to be a better solution."

Nigel Strutt
"Dear Examining Authority, Re: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: The cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7energy projects occurring over 12 to 15 years. Substations dangerously close to and dominating a small village liable to flooding. The local road network unsuitable for projected high traffic levels and more HGVs causing hazards for cyclists and residents. Its impact on businesses, trade, visitor income and jobs , leading to social and economic decline."

Penny Robertson
"I am so saddened & shocked by this application & the plans for the area I have lived in for the last 25 years. * The unsuitability & fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as a site for landing cables * The utilisation of productive farmland & unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium * Substations dangerously close to a small village that is liable to flooding * 11Km of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas * Cable trenches & haul roads close to residential homes * The consequent threat to wildlife in general and to the Sandlings Heath and the Minsmere Bird Reserve; the severance of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths areas of outstanding natural beauty will cause problems to migrating species * The destruction of ancient woodland & ancient habitats  * The local road network unsuitable for high traffic levels & heavy goods vehicles  * Light and noise pollution  * Increased traffic on roads, destroying rural tranquillity, increasing air pollution & representing a danger to cyclists and local residents * Major detrimental impact on tourism with loss of visitor income, trade & jobs leading to social and economic decline  * Both permanent and temporary closure &/or destruction of public footpaths, bridleways, byways & cycle paths, including peaceful & attractive dog-walking areas."

Peter Pledger
"Whilst I am very much in favour of wind farms, and other forms of renewable energy, I object to the onshore element of this Scottish Power Renewables planning application. • It seems to be completely wrong to locate such a massive substation (really an industrial site) in such close proximity to human habitation. It will extend almost up to Friston village church. • Many people have chosen to live in this beautiful area of Suffolk in order to enjoy the peace, tranquillity and landscape which will be destroyed if this project, in its current form, goes ahead. • The visual, noise and light pollution will have a huge impact on Friston for both residents and visitors, affecting their physical and mental wellbeing. • The increased traffic along narrow, twisting country roads will have a detrimental impact in and around Friston and in the areas adjacent to the cable corridor during construction, resulting in increased road traffic accidents, air pollution and noise. • The economy of the area relies on tourism, the proposed onshore development will cause serious damage to this industry and result in job losses. • Friston already has serious flood problems, this proposal will only increase the risk. Scottish Power Renewables have not adequately addressed the issue. • There will be a detrimental impact on the wildlife and wildflowers in the area to the north of Friston and along the cable corridor from the coast, loss of habitat, light and noise pollution. • The 9km cable route, with all its problems of disruption and ecological damage, would be unnecessary if the substation was located near to the landfall."

Simon Ward on behalf of Petula Ward
"Dear sir,Concerning the substation at grove road friston. My parents petula [Redacted] live at [Redacted] If this goes ahead( no doubt minds have been made up by now anyway) the values of the properties that my parents and also good family friend [Redacted] also living and have lived for 45 years will be devalued, privacy will be lost, road congested, not to mention the nature effect this monstrosity will have negatively for the next 15 years while building.. plus in the future.. surely if this monstrosity is going ahead my parents [Redacted] should be compensated very generously as this is impacting their lives massively!!"

Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that: With respect to Registration of Interest documentation, we are reassured that earlier comments raised by us on 6th December 2017 and 26th March 2019 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues that could significantly affect public health. We are satisfied that the wider determinants of health have been adequately assessed, using a suitable methodology. On the basis of the documentation provided we have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."

Rachel Minto
"I have major concern with windfarm project EA1N. My concerns are: 1. The damage which will be caused to Thorpeness cliffs which are fragile and unsuitable for landing cables 2. The threat to wildlife and Sandlings Heath 3.The destruction of ancient woodland 4. The severing of wildlife corridors which will have a huge impact on migrating species 5. The permanent and temporary closure of footpaths in the area which will impact tourism and simple pleasures such as walking one's dog I love the peace, quiet and beauty of this part of Suffolk which is where 3 generations of my family have lived and I see this under threat because of Scottish Power Renewables planning application."

Richard Hunter
"I support the representation being made by SASES and the Friston parish council. We are subject to flooding in Low Rd already before the Sub stations are built. Loss of landscape & foot paths. Loss of wildlife habitat. Server impact on future generations. Impact on road users & near villages. As a productive allotment user the drainage plans will effect me"

S Sherwell
"It is not acceptable to desecrate large areas of rural Suffolk in this way. There are better places to do the onshore construction that will have less impact on our beautiful countryside."

Sally Sibley
"I wish the following points to be considered by any planning body in respect of EA1N proposals: -marine damage and economic impact on fishermen. - damage to water courses for endangered wildlife and human habitation for pullution and waste management. - destruction of rare eco-systems. - impact of protracted development on tourism, agriculture, health, local infrastructures, including health, education and housing. -the impact on health from many years of light, vibration, noise and heavy plant noise."

Sara Keene
"While I support offshore wind energy, I cannot support these plans for the onshore constructions that will destroy one of the most beautiful parts of our coastline and with it, for sure, a large part of our essential tourist industry. I believe firmly that these first buildings are just the tip of the iceberg and that more will follow - and that once these are in place, it will be impossible to refuse permission for further widespread destruction of the area. The Suffolk Heritage Coast is a national treasure and should be left unspoilt for all of us to enjoy. There must be other less beautiful places to put these electrical substations. Please."

SASES Substation Action Save East Suffolk
"These are the relevant representations of SASES (sases.org.uk) and Friston Parish Council. 1. INTRODUCTION The proposed developments (EA1N and EA2) will have a significant adverse impact on Friston and the surrounding area from the onshore elements of the schemes which involve the construction of a substantial and visually intrusive substation complex together with a new National Grid connection hub, and a five mile cable route partially through an AONB. The substation complex and National Grid hub would cover 12 hectares (30 acres) and be up to 18m (60 ft) high, in a tranquil rural area, next to the historic village of Friston. In respect of the cable route we support the representations of the parishes and residents directly affected by the cable route. Our case is that the impacts on Friston and the surrounding area are so severe that development consent should be refused, or alternatively granted only for the offshore elements. The proposals should be regarded as contrary to the relevant National Policy Statements and in any event there are compelling reasons to refuse development consent. The adverse impacts, including in respect of visual intrusion and landscape harm, heritage harm, noise and flood risk, cannot be mitigated to levels which could be regarded as acceptable. Our objections arise because of the impossibility of mitigating the impacts/the inadequacy of the mitigation proposed in respect of these projects. We will prepare expert evidence to support the principal issues set out below. 2. SITE SELECTION/NG NSIP The Applicant’s site selection process and the justification for a new grid connection in this location are fundamentally flawed. The National Grid substation/site/connection hub will be used for a number of projects and is an NSIP in its own right but NG’s decisions, including site selection, have not been subject to an NSIP process. The manner in which NG’s grid connection decisions have been made needs to be scrutinised. 3. LANDSCAPE • The site selection and micro-siting process is flawed with regard to landscape and visual effect. It is not transparent, contains unidentified assumptions and reasoning and no genuine alternatives have been considered. • As a consequence of a flawed site selection process, the substations would cause severe landscape and visual harm that cannot be mitigated. The harm is so severe as to justify the refusal of development consent. • Due to inappropriateness of location the substations would: o sever a substantial area of tranquil, open and deeply rural countryside; o conflict with the prevailing unified character of their surroundings; o permanently stop up PRoWs and substantially harm the wider PRoW network; o require an excessively long and wide access road, 1,700m long and 8m wide; o change completely the character of Friston; o harm the setting of Friston Church (Grade II*); o require a 9km long cable route which would impact on numerous receptors and the setting of Aldringham Court (Grade II). • Planting cannot mitigate development in the wrong location & given local soil and climatic conditions the assumed growth rate of mitigation planting is highly questionable. • The substations and ancillary infrastructure are arbitrarily and unsympathetically imposed upon the existing landscape framework. Micro-siting and mitigation do not minimise potential impacts. • Concerns regarding the LVIA include but are not limited to: o an absence of plans showing the scheme and Friston village together. o questionable judgements regarding sensitivity and magnitude of change. o the use of Suffolk County LCTs instead of more up to date LCAs from Suffolk Coastal and lack of justification for subdividing these LCTs. o lack of detail regarding significant infrastructure components e.g. the access road. o absence of viewpoints from the footpaths north of the site (e.g. showing relationship between the church and site). 4. FLOOD RISK • SPR has not adequately or accurately assessed flood risk impact to Friston which is prone to flooding. • The elevated baseline flood risk to Friston village from surface water is not given the same focus as other lower flood risks. • The proposed mitigation measures: o do not demonstrate that the increase in flood and sediment mobilisation risk to Friston, during either construction or operation, can be addressed; o are not demonstrated to be feasible. • These matters cannot be left to the subsequent discharge of requirements. The proposals need to be subject to full environmental assessment with regard to flood risk and to sequential testing. The application submissions are flawed in this regard. 5. HERITAGE • The project at the substation site will impact upon at least five Grade II and two Grade II* listed buildings. • The felling of trees on the cable route to the south of the Grade II-listed Aldringham Court negatively damages the setting of the building, as well as the landscape and residents close by. • Heritage impacts are underestimated significantly as is the cumulative heritage impact on the cluster of listed buildings which surround the substation site. • There is only a visual assessment of setting with little regard to wider identification and assessment of setting. • The viewpoints and visualisations are highly selective and do not include key views. • There is an historic parish/hundred boundary in the middle of the substation site. • The mitigation proposed does very little to reduce the heritage impacts. 6. NOISE • The Environmental Statement has many errors and omissions. • The proposed 34db LAeq 5min as a limit is unacceptable in a tranquil rural environment with a low night-time noise level and there is no evidence that it will not be intrusive in a tranquil rural environment. • Failure to apply a tonality penalty is unacceptable and unjustified. • There is no evidence that there will not be one off random noise events. • The overriding community requirement is for residential and recreational property (both inside and out) to be free at all times from perceptible substation noise. • Any agreed limit must be achievable and enforceable at any time under any environmental conditions. • Restricting noise testing to only two locations is unacceptable. • There is no analysis of the possibility of ground borne noise. • Compliance with all agreed noise limits shall be mandatory throughout the life of the projects because plant as it ages can become noisier. • Given the hours of working and the proximity of the substations site and cable route to Friston/residences, construction noise could be very intrusive. • These matters cannot be left to the subsequent discharge of requirements. The proposals need to be subject to full environmental assessment with regard to noise and to sequential testing and the application submissions are flawed in this regard. 7. SUBSTATION DESIGN • The focus is only on aesthetics not the best possible engineering/configuration of the substations to reduce their size, noise emissions etc to achieve “low impact”. An independent engineering authority should verify any design proposed (including the land requirements) meets these criteria. • National Grid’s developments should be subject to the same design criteria/requirements as SPR’s. 8. LAND USE There is a significant loss of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land, over 30 hectares. 9. ONSHORE ECOLOGY • The projects will involve the loss and disruption of habitat for badgers, bats, owls, great crested newts, adders and other wildlife. • Four active badger setts will be destroyed at the substations site. • Bats are present at the site and along the cable route including the rare lesser horseshoe bat. • All wildlife will be disturbed by noise and light pollution both during construction and operation at the substations site. 10. TRAFFIC • The A12 / A1094 junction is an accident black spot. The mitigation measures are inadequate. Further any introduction of a roundabout will cause serious congestion on the A12 with slow braking and accelerating HGVs. • There is a risk to the journey times of emergency vehicles. • Only Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) traffic will be monitored. No monitoring commitment is given regarding the passage of all other types of vehicle, particularly on local minor roads which could become “rat-runs” A pre-construction access is proposed to the development from the junction of Church Road (single track road) and Grove Road. This could have significant impact upon the residents of Friston, walkers and cyclists. 11. HUMAN HEALTH • There is little in the way of an objective assessment of the human impact of the projects upon the local population a significant proportion of which is elderly and/or retired. • SPR dismiss anxiety as a “perception”. Anxiety is very real to a person suffering from it. • SPR has not carried out a survey of the actual demographics of Friston or those living near the cable route, so its assessment of human impacts is not reliable. • Anxiety will arise from: o the traffic and the noise, air, light pollution and disruption associated with a potential construction period of 5/6 years even before the impact of other projects o the permanent loss of amenity (footpaths etc), tranquillity, landscape/heritage damage, and noise and light pollution o financial uncertainty 12. FOOTPATHS • The proposals will necessitate the permanent closure of a well-used footpath leading north from the village of Friston causing a major loss of amenity. • There are a further 26 PROWs throughout the onshore development area, which will be temporarily closed or diverted for unspecified amounts of time with a major loss of amenity. 13. TOURISM AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS • Onshore development elements contribute very little to the local economy during construction and nothing post construction. • The loss of amenity etc. both during construction and thereafter will damage tourism and there has been no assessment of cumulative effects. • There has been no analysis of damage to “inward investment” as a result of the area being a less attractive place to live. 14. LIGHT POLLUTION • There will be significant light pollution given the “dark skies” of the present rural environment both during construction (particularly at construction compounds) and operation. • During operation there will be security and car park lighting which even if “movement sensitive” will be frequently triggered by wildlife. 15. SAFETY • No safety case is provided for the substations. Fire and explosion are not unknown at substations. There is no quantification of the risk including in respect of gas insulated switchgear. • The safety and security of all residents and workers within a 30km radius of Sizewell B is secured by an evacuation plan in the event of a nuclear accident and no consideration has been given to the impacts of the proposals on that plan. 16. CUMULATIVE IMPACT SPR has not properly addressed the impact of the developments with 5 other major energy projects in the same area, Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper expansion, Greater Gabbard expansion and Sizewell C. There is a direct link between the proposals and elements of those projects in light of their likely grid connections. 17. PROJECT DOWNSIZING A number of wind farm projects (including Scottish Power’s) have been built with a substantially reduced generating capacity post DCO. SPR has not addressed how any reduction in generating capacity will reduce the scale of the onshore development. 18. FUNDING ISSUES SPR’s funding position is not clearly established in light of the contract for difference regime 19. DCO The DCO contains inadequate provisions for securing mitigation of the adverse impacts of the proposals and would grant excessive flexibility to the developer to determine the form of the development after consent."

Scott Munt
"- Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects - Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations destroying environmentally sensitive areas, cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVS Light pollution. Suffolk's famous dark skies lost - Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution - Trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil blows causing visibility hazard/health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents Emergency Services. - Decline in tourism, loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent/temporary closure of PROWS (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths)"

Scott Tindle
"I am writing to you with regards Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) planning application EA1N- PINS DCO application with regards the Friston Substation and register as an interested party. I wish to object to this application on the following grounds. The building of the SPR substation and National Grid inter connector is a major construction project that should not be placed in the middle of an unspoilt rural location. The reasons being. The planned site is far too close to Friston, a small thriving village with great historical interest. (Three Lord Mayors of London) are buried in the church yard. In effect it will blight the village . The local footpaths will be destroyed and local wildlife such as Badgers and Bats will be displaced. SPR has shown little concern for any of these issues. Noise pollution. There will be a constant loud hum from the the site that will blight all the surrounding areas. Light Pollution. There will be constant 24/7 lighting of the site which will cause major harm to both humans and nocturnal wildlife such as owls and bats. Destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. Flooding. SPR has shown very little concern over the risk of flooding to the village and surrounding areas. The impact that this will have on the village is enormous. The potential for home owners in the village not being able to get flood insurance or to have to pay much higher premiums has not been addressed. Traffic and Transport. The whole road network around the site and along the pipeline route from Thorpness to Friston is rural and unspoilt and is a major part of the charm of the area along the Suffolk coast. It is totally inadequate for this this size of construction project and the vast increase in traffic movements that will be required to service this construction. This traffic increase will blight the area for miles around and will severely damage the main industry and employment in this beautiful area which is based on tourism. SPR have tacitly shown that they are aware of this by the amount of “Road improvements” that they accept will be needed. SPR has shown a complete lack of concern with how the increase traffic will affect the area or come up with any proposals as to how they will effectively police their contractors/employees, making sure they stick to the correct routes and not use local villages and back roads as “rat runs” or what sanctions would be imposed on contractors who do not follow their instructions. Landfall and Cable Trench. The choice of landfall for the cables at Thorpeness is flawed. Again the destruction of footpaths, ancient woodlands and wildlife along the route is unacceptable. The timescale for building the cable trench for the project does not fall into the category of temporary. Site Design. No attempt has been made to reduce the impact of the site by using more up to date technologies."

Sizewell Residents’ Association
"Sizewell residents are gravely concerned about these plans because 1). They involve drilling on an already fragile and eroding coastline. The corraline crag has been shown to be a hugely stabilising feature of this particular area. It is also an important traditional ground for lobster and crab potting. 2) The lorry route to Thorpeness is identified as the Sizewell Road/LoversLane - this is not the existing lorry route to Thorpeness which could and should be used ..the Sizewell Road/Lovers Lane is the only road in and out of an operational nuclear site (SizewellB) and this includes any access for emergencies, whether accidental or deliberate. This is a serious concern and one which has been dismissed as irrelevant in these plans. The use of this road could easily be avoided. It is also the only road for residents, visitors, and businesses which include a Conference Centre, and two caravan sites, as well as pub and cafe. Tourism now plays an important part of the economy, as well as being important for the well-being of the many dog-walkers, birdwatchers, and Park Runners using the beach. It is also the only access to a decommissioning nuclear site(SizewellA), and a highly likely further nuclear site (SizewellC) certainly in the initial construction phase. 3) The cable route should not come via Sizewell at all, since there is a much less intrusive more direct route that could be taken - the ‘planned’ rote has come about through fault-ridden initial enquiries, and which ignore the issue of it passing directly adjacent to permanent homes..not second homes..and dismissing the possibility of using underground routes in sensitive locations. 4) Residents and industry have maintained a balance here which meets the needs of all, including tourism and leisure pursuits, and this has been hard won through good communication, consultation and negotiation, none of which have been shown by this Company. The project jeopardises this balance, and indeed need not involve Sizewell at all. 5) Sizewell surely has enough upset to deal with as a main provider of energy without further projects being foisted on us. This project does not even offer long-term employment opportunities, badly needed here. 6) We surely must take a strategic view of plans, plans which must treasure our AONB’s, coastlines, and greenfield sites, and especially as we now recognise the importance of mental and physical health. The current plans are based on poor and superficial initial investigations, and have come about through poor handling of the Company’s own plans for Bawdsey etc in their EA1/EA3 work. There changes were made only in the Company’s interests, not for the good of electricity supply, nor the good of the nation. This current Application (and the many other suggested energy plans ) should not be rushed through in this ad hoc way, and should be thoroughly thought through."

Suffolk Local Access Forum
"The Suffolk Local Access Forum is a statutory body set up under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to advise the County Council and other bodies with regard to public access to the countryside. In the past we have been statutory consultees for Sizewell C and Network Rail so at our recent meeting we were dismayed that Scottish Power had not engaged with us regarding their proposals for bringing power from EA1N and EA2 ashore at Thorpeness to a new substation at Friston. As the onshore works associated with the cable route will affect 26 public rights of way (PRoW) in the locality during construction, and whilst the substation works will also require the permanent stopping up of a section of PRoW to the north of the village of Friston; around the area the access network will be severely compromised by the construction of the substation and residents and visitors will suffer both temporary disruption and permanent loss of a key public footpath. SLAF would therefore expect any disruption to the PRoW network is minimised and where impacts cannot be avoided, appropriate and timely mitigation needs to be provided. The fact that many PRoWs along the cable corridor and substation site will only be closed temporarily does not mean that they are preserved as a local amenity when the ability to derive any enjoyment from them is severely reduced. We understand that the application does not recognise or mitigate for this loss of amenity. Scottish Power has also failed to acknowledge the effect these works will have on designated long distance routes that are widely used by walkers. These are the Sandlings Walk, and the Suffolk Coast Path (soon to be part of the National England Coast Path) which will be affected by the landfall site north of Thorpeness. The latter will be the first National Trail in Suffolk and is anticipated to bring economic benefits to the region The permanent stopping up of the public footpath north of Friston village will remove a historic, tranquil and attractive walking route in a rural landscape and replace it with a much longer circuitous route that is not wholly screened from the new industrial landscape, running adjacent to the open road in parts and possibly in a ditch. During construction of the substation, there will be physical disruption, noise, a loss of tranquillity and severe visual impact which will continue following its construction. SLAF is concerned as to the impact of the closure of so many PRoW’s to enable the cable route and substation to be constructed. We would require more detail as to the phasing and duration of any closures, particularly where several PRoW’s are close together and at the substation site as we are concerned that there could be closures and disruption of a network of PRoW all at the same time, leaving walkers with very limited or no access at all, particularly if similar closures and diversions were occurring around the Sizewell C construction site."

Susan Seabrook
"1) [Redacted] was purchased by myself in October 2017. At that time there was no planning application by Scottish Power Renewables that could be discovered in the Searches relevant to my new property. Had I known that the immediate Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which I now live was going to be decimated by the activities of Scottish Power Renewables, I would not have purchased the property in the first place. Having downsized to this smaller property, I was looking forward to spending my retirement in a peaceful and restful environment in a property that would eventually pay for care in old age. I now find that this will be far from reality and am now living with the daily stress of knowing that my plans have failed completely through no fault of my own. 2) For many years now, the County of Suffolk has worked ceaselessly to create a vibrant and successful tourist industry for the well-being of inhabitants, trade and visitors. There is a very good level of employment and income from all those facets of a thriving tourist industry. East Suffolk does not need and would not benefit from the massive amount of disruption that Scottish Power Renewables will create with the work they envisage. 3) The East Suffolk coastline, especially in the area designated for the onshore delivery of cabling is extremely fragile and disappearing at an alarming rate. Further man-made disruption will only add to this problem, including the disturbance of the sea bed. 4) The road system in this coastal area is totally unsuitable for the amount of heavy traffic movements that would be involved in construction of the proposed sub-station at Friston which is a small, historic village situated within valuable agricultural land. The roads involved are mainly B and C roads and nowhere wide enough or strong enough to withstand the weight and volume of the intended traffic movements. Our roads are already peppered with a massive amount of potholes which the Suffolk County Council are unable to deal with. Who will pay for all the road improvements and widening that will be required by Scottish Power Renewables. 5) Who has the right to completely ruin our beautiful environment with such a monstrosity, especially as the company responsible is Spanish and the power produced will be for Countries other than the British Isles. 6) Instead of creating innumerable similar disruptions across one of the most beautiful parts of Britain, use an offshore ring-main, similar to the way in which the Dutch deal with the issue."

Teresa Newton Newton
"I do feel that if this construction has to go ahead in Suffolk that it would be lost at Sizewell and not so noticeable as it would be at Friston where it will stick out like a sore thumb on virgin land. This is a beautiful part of the world. It has a subtle beauty not majestic like Scotland. It needs to be preserved and conserved. I worry about the impact on the landsape and on the local flora and fauna part of the charm of Suffolk is its comparative inaccessibility and the winding ancient roadways. Please read Julian Tennyson's book Suffolk Scene the 1930's version not the one that someone has recently updated. I think these plans are short term as new technologies are being developed. Small substations would be a better option for the very sensitive habitats in this area. It may create a few jobs but at the loss of tourism, hotels and road access for the local people."

The Woodland Trust
"The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity to register a representation to the following project. For the purposes of clarity, our concerns described below are with respect to both applications (East Anglia North ONE and TWO), but as requested by the Planning Inspectorate the Trust has submitted the same response separately for each application. We hold concerns with regards to the potential impact to Grove Wood, designated as ancient on Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory. The scheme boundary directly borders the woodland, but it is not clear from the mapping provided as to the nature of the works proposed. It is therefore difficult to assess the impact the works will have to the adjacent ancient woodland. As such, the Trust would like to highlight Natural England’s Standing Advice regarding development bordering ancient woodland. It states: “For ancient woodlands, you should have a buffer zone of at least 15 metres to avoid root damage. Where assessment shows other impacts are likely to extend beyond this distance, you’re likely to need a larger buffer zone.” Once further information is submitted, the Trust can provide a more detailed assessment of the impacts posed. Furthermore, the Environmental Statement within the applicant’s submission for both projects refers to the presence of veteran trees (Chapter 22; Onshore Ecology). The Trust requests that an arboricultural impact assessment is provided to allow the Trust to assess whether these veteran trees will be impacted by the proposed scheme. In summary, the Woodland Trust objects to the proposed development on the grounds of impact to ancient woodland. We hope our comments are of use to you."

Thelma Cramb
"I have been a regular visitor to Friston for over 20 years spending long holidays with my daughter and son in law and their family in their home in the countryside outside the village. I do not object to offshore wind farms. I do object to the onshore installations which will cause enormous irreparable damage to this peaceful and tranquil area. I adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and in addition object for the following reasons: Environment: the choice of the unstable and fragile cliffs at Thorpeness as the cable landing site. The destruction of environmentally sensitive areas, the threat to wildlife, the loss of ancient woodland and the permanent loss of PRoW’s along the cable route and at Friston.  Heritage: 5 Grade 2 AND 2*listed properties encircle the SPR/NG substation site dating from mediaeval times including my family’s property. Heritage impacts are significantly underestimated by SPR. Visualisations used are highly selective and do not include key views. Industrial scale infrastructure will be sited within 300 metres of listed buildings. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of some properties and the impact will be devastating.  No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage.   Cumulative impact:  SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures.  The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment.    Construction: The lengthy periods spoken of will destroy the peace for the much of the residents’ lives. There will dust noise and light pollution.  The views from the family home will be obliterated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms people will lose the amenity of their homes for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively.  Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings will dominate the local landscape.  Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith and will take decades for planting to mature.  The increase in noise pollution will blight the rural peace and quiet and is significantly underestimated by SPR. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution and SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction.  Local area: SPR’s plans bring no short or long term benefit to Friston or communities along the cable route. The toll already taken on local residents should be underestimated. Many are older like me and the uncertainly around and the scale of what is planned is already having an effect on the mental and physical health of those living locally."

Tim Rowan-Robinson
"RE: EAST ANGLIA ONE NORTH Whilst being supportive on the development of offshore wind farms, I strongly object to this application from Scottish Power Renewables for the following reasons: 1. The cumulative effect of all the energy projects being planned in the area over the next 12 years has not been adequately considered. 2. The destruction of wonderful countryside (some in the AONB), wildlife and ancient woodland is totally unacceptable. 3. Alternative strategies and locations, albeit at additional cost, for linking to the grid have not being adequately considered. 4. The effect on the local economy through reduced tourism would be fatal to many businesses and jobs. The area is dependent on the tourist economy. See The Suffolk Coast DMO research. 5. Air, noise and light pollution in an area known for its dark skies, tranquillity and fresh air. The Suffolk Coast is the antithesis of an industrial area and its economy is built on this strength. 6. The risk to the village of Thorpeness through the undermining of the cliffs and the extent of development in a very small village. 7. The road network is totally inadequate for these projects. This applies to the A12 and all roads that would access the development sites. I object most strongly to the way developers are making individual applications for their projects without addressing the cumulative effect on an area which is currently dependent on the assets which these developments would destroy. The Government should agree a new energy strategy to meet the country's needs for the next 50 years. Offshore wind may, rightly, play a major role in this but the economic argument should not be biased by using the cheapest way of linking to the grid. Consideration should certainly be given to the development of a network under the sea to link different projects and bring the power back to a location much more suitable than Thorpeness/Friston."

Valerie Simper
"The beautiful East Coast so important to the tourist industry and the many jobs that it provides could be seriously challenged by hotchpotch planning for cheaper green energy. A considered 10/20 year plan is vital. It must be properly thought out and must involve local residents and businesses. Please DO NOT squander our great heritage here in Suffolk. Indeed remember it is a most valued PRIZE to be preserved and not desecrated willynilly through lack of planning. Surely our AONB is a National Treasure like a painting by Constable and Turner. Future generations must not be denied the real experience of the Suffolk countryside. They will howl with derision if it is lost forever. PLEASE STOP AND THINK OF IMPLEMENTING A SENSIBLE CONSIDERED APPROACH TO THIS SITUATION"

Victor Smart
"This project is ill advised and will blight local communities. High House Farm, a listed building, will be especially harmed. So will the wildlife. The site itself is unnecessary as a ring main could be organised for offshore wind farms with better planning. SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. The lengthy construction periods will destroy the peace for much of local people’s lives. There is no protection against noise. There is no protection against light pollution. Views will be blocked and the area will be blighted by traffic congestion."

Victoria Bennett-Hall
"I wish to object to the ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: Impact on tourism Impact on local economy, loss of trade leading to social and economic decline Threat to wildlife, especially to Sandlings Heath and AONB Cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas Destruction of ancient woodland Light pollution Noise pollution Air pollution Increased traffic potentially dangerous Local road network unsuitable for more HGVs Closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) Site at Friston too close to a small village"

William Rickett, C.B.
"I wish to object to those parts of the application that relate to onshore infrastructure. This infrastructure will have a serious impact on the economy and environment of the area, by damaging landscape and the tourist industry it attracts. My principal objection is that inadequate consideration has been given to mitigating this impact by reconfiguring the offshore transmission cabling so as to reduce the requirement for new substations onshore and to enable the landfall of the offshore cabling to be located in a less environmentally sensitive area."

Alexander Green
"We do not object to offshore wind farms. We object to the onshoring of such capacity which causes despoliation to the countryside. SPR will construct one of the largest substations in Europe in the heart of a tightly constrained medieval community. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. We adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council. [Redacted]: Our property is an Elizabethan (1550s) three story (tall) house and is one of 7 Grade 2 listed properties encircling the SPR/NG site. It was constructed within the curtilage of an older 13th century dwelling and is crossed with ancient paths to the Church. It is surrounded by very old moats and ponds. The property and environs harbour birds (owls/birds of prey), toads, stoats/ ferrets, occasional otters, muntjac/deer, etc. SPR/NG site: The site extends to the boundary of the House. Components of the NG works will be circa 30-50m from the fence. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of the property. The impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Green energy risks becoming dirty green energy. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken off will destroy the peace for much of our lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. Our view will be decimated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms we will lose the amenity of our home for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings (eg harmonic filters) will dominate our landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith. In any event it would take decades for planting to mature. We already hear humming and crackling from the pylons and the inevitable increase in noise will blight the peace. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution. The vibrant wildlife in our enclave will vanish. We will be cut off from the village and lose the tranquil views across to the church which we value. SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. The locality: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment (who will wish to live near Friston?). It will harm capital values of properties."

Annabel Gault
"Dear Sir/Madam, Scottish Power's planned substation at Friston is an act of vandalism on our precious countryside. It will destroy the lives of most people living in this area particularily the elderly. There are sensible alternative solutions in choosing brownfield sites or offshore hubs and ring mains. Please don't destroy a very special unique bit of countryside with its rivers, unspoilt coastal paths, musical heritage, fishing communities and thriving tourist industry. Please consider the alternatives. We can work together on this and bring wind power ashore to our country without the horrifying destruction of it you are considering."

Antonia Curtis
"I am a regular visitor to the Suffolk Heritage coast staying with friends who live near Friston. I do not object to offshore wind farms what I object to is the onshore installations which will cause enormous irreparable damage to this peaceful and tranquil area. SPR plans to construct one of the largest substations complexes in Europe, the size of Wembley stadium, in the heart of a tightly constrained medieval community. This is unprecedented. It demands intense investigation. I adopt all the submissions made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and in addition object for the following reasons: Environment: the choice of the unstable and fragile cliffs at Thorpeness as the cable landing site. The destruction of environmentally sensitive areas, the threat to wildlife, the loss of ancient woodland and the permanent loss of PRoW’s along the cable route and at Friston. Heritage: 5 Grade 2 AND 2*listed properties encircle the SPR/NG substation site dating from mediaeval times. Heritage impacts are significantly underestimated by SPR. Visualisations used are highly selective and do not include key views. Industrial scale infrastructure will be sited within 300 metres of listed buildings. Construction work will occur on the very boundary of some properties and the impact will be devastating. No mitigation temporary or permanent mitigation could ever remedy the damage. Cumulative impact: SPR and NG plan a series of constructions at Friston which will be a hub or plug and socket for a series of ventures. The Authority must resist attempts by SPR/NG to argue that this is a one-off and determine the extent of these plans and assess impact cumulatively. There is no joined up Government thinking or strategy to protect the environment. Construction: The lengthy periods spoken of will destroy the peace for the much of the current residents’ lives. There is no protection against dust and noise. There is no protection against light pollution. The view for some will be obliterated. The area will be blighted by traffic congestion. In real terms people will lose the amenity of their homes for years. This devastation is multiplied if the Authority permits the developments to be considered consecutively. Post-construction: The vast scale of the sub-station with 18metre high buildings will dominate the local landscape. Mitigation through planting is futile. The planting of trees will fail to conceal this monolith and will take decades for planting to mature. The increase in noise pollution will blight the rural peace and quiet and is significantly underestimated by SPR. The ancient footpaths will disappear. The substation will be lit and will create permanent light pollution and SPR/NG have made no effort to reduce the scale of the construction. Local area: The substation will bring zero long term wealth to the area. It will blight tourism and will deter inward investment. It will harm capital values of properties. It is already harming the mental health of those living locally."

Barbara Jeffries
"I fear that if this is allowed to go ahead there will be an onslaught of at least six more substations and interconnectors following on in quick succession. There will be cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring over the next 15 years. Thorpeness cliffs are fragile and unsuitable as a site for landing cables. environmentally sensitive areas will be destroyed, where the cables are laid. Trenches and haul raods are too c lose to residential homes Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs which will lead to ec onomic and social decline. Traffic congestion and relates issues will deter tourism from coming to the area. Local bird reserve at minsmere will be effected as migratory birds will be disorientated Effect on wildlife. I wish to object to these ill-concieved plans to carve up East suffolks unique countrtyside from Thorpeness to Friston. If these are allowed to go ahead there will be a further 6 more substations in quick succession. The reasons are because of the threat to wildlife and the important sandlings heath, the destruction of ancient woodland. The local road network is unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. Light pollution, Suffolks famous dark skies lost. Noise pollutions Suffolks famous peace and tranquility lost. Air pollution from traffoic and trenches dug through suffolks light sandy soil which blows away causing visibility hazard and health issues. Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents. Emergency services will be delayed, endangering lives. I n the event of a nuclear incident routes would be severely hampered. Permanent and temporary closure of public rights of way eg footpaths and bridleways Impact on businesses, loss of trade, visitor income and jobs leading to social and econo mic decline.; Effect on migrating birds and the effects on minsmeres famous bird reserve loss of wwisldlife , tourism woodland migrating birds roads unsuitrable light noise pollution emergency services effected trade topurism c losure of footpaths"

Carol Bizzell
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council opposing the siting of the substations at Friston and set out below my comments: • The village has a history of flooding and cannot take any more hard standing. The village drainage infrastructure is inadequate. I live in [Redacted] which has suffered flooding and am very concerned that SPR have not taken this risk seriously. • Noise levels – Harmonic Filters are not now to be screened and tonality correction not undertaken. SPR have given no adequate information about the level of noise we will be subjected to; any noise is unacceptable in such a small peaceful village. • Light pollution – There will be 24 hour security lighting which was not mentioned at the Information Days and the impact of this is understated. • SPR has not considered a low impact design such as at Rampion in West Sussex which has nothing above 8m. • There will be severe visual harm to the landscape and the character of Friston will be lost forever. • There will be destruction of large areas of woodland and SPR have made no commitment to restore them. • Agricultural land will be lost and the total removal of 30 acres of wildlife habitat. There will be a permanent effect on birds and wildlife due to light and noise pollution and the displacement of wildlife along the cable route. • Traffic impact - the local roads were not built for, and never intended for, heavy loads and simply will not cope. To bring these roads up to a standard to be used by construction traffic will cause immeasurable disruption over many years and the impact on local people is unimaginable. • Traffic routes – Mill Road has no pavement; Grove Road has no pavement and is already heavily used as a cut-through. These local roads are not suitable for heavy construction traffic and will be a hazard to walkers and cyclists. If drivers seek alternative routes in the locality, they in turn will become rat-runs. Traffic flows and speeds have not been sufficiently addressed. • The impact on emergency vehicles has not been adequately considered and the Sizewell Evacuation Plan has been ignored, putting lives in danger. • Jobs and Tourism – the area relies heavily on the tourism industry which will be damaged irreparably from these developments. There will be no jobs created from the onshore development. • The landfall at Thorpeness poses severe risk from the fragility of the cliffs and the proposed cable corridor passes far too close to residential properties. • I regularly use the footpaths in and around Friston and some will be permanently closed and 26 other Rights of Way temporarily closed for unspecified periods. An unattractive alternative footpath is proposed alongside Grove Road; next to the noise of the substations. • The cumulative impact of the SPR substations, together with the proposed National Grid Ventures Interconnectors for Nautilus and Eurolink, and expansion of the offshore windfarms of Galloper and Greater Gabbard will destroy the area of the Suffolk Coast which will NEVER recover."

Catherine Judith Pinnekamp
"CUMULATIVE IMPACT • Sizewell C - DCO Application 2020? • National Grid Ventures Interconnectors • Nautilus - Public Consultations in 2020 • Eurolink - Plans to follow • Expansion of offshore windfarms • Galloper • Greater Gabbard HUMAN IMPACT • Vulnerable and ageing population • Uncertainty • Loss of footpaths and visual enjoyment • Loss of equity and financial implications • Quality of life damaged by noise and light pollution • Damage to air quality • Severance of village due to traffic impacts LANDSCAPE • Severe landscape and visual harm that cannot be mitigated. • Severs a substantial area of tranquil, open and deeply rural countryside. • Changes the character of Friston. • Highly questionable assumptions of mitigation planting. HERITAGE • Site is ringed by listed buildings – five grade