The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.
East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm
Received 24 January 2020
“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.”