Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Marianne Fellowes

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Trowers and Hamlins

PINS REF: EN010078 East Anglia Two Dear Case Officer I am writing to put in a formal complaint about the pre-application work and consultations carried out by Scottish Power & by SPR for National Grid. I have previously raised many of these issues with both The Planning Inspectorate and developer Scottish Power Renewables and separately with National Grid who appear to feel they operate outside of the realms of the Planning Act. I am aware some of these issues have been covered by the local group SASES but these are my own views which I hope PINS will also review and take into consideration. 1. Failure to effectively assess and explore connection possibilities It is not clear as to who majority blame lies with, but it is clear both National Grid & Scottish Power did not explore 'all options' when considering how and where to connect EA1N & EA2 projects to the grid. There was NO consideration of brownfield locations, there was a complete disregard for the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (protected landscape) and it appears virtually no 'on the ground' knowledge of the typography of the chosen location at Grove Wood for substation buildings infrastructure and grid connections. Subsequently cables are intended to land in one of the Suffolk Coast's most vulnerable sand cliff locations north of Thorpeness, the proposed cable route will plough up acres of AONB & Sandlings SSI landscape (possibly twice), the substations if located at Grove Wood are in undulating land that has ongoing problems with surface water 'run-off' which has contributed to flooding in Friston village twice in the month of October alone. 2. Failure to effectively engage, especially those residents living in Friston A key issue for residents living in Friston is that intentionally or unintentionally, Scottish Power failed to generate fair local awareness of the projects or the shortlist of 'onshore' development locations until well into Phase 3 consultation. SPR did not include Friston addresses in early leafleting in the lead up to phase 3, even though postal addresses in other parishes Knodishall, Leiston, Aldringham and Thorpeness were all sent leaflets, or leafleting was made available via the parish councils in these villages. Then, the projects were not effectively advertised SoCC advertisements published March 2018 (see attached image) in the local press contained NO mention whatsoever of onshore development requirements for either of the projects EA1N & EA2. Unless you have significant experience and knowledge of offshore wind projects, the majority of residents would have had NO idea from these advertisements of the significance & potential for these projects to have a major impact on their life and surroundings. I believe these advertisements failed 100% to achieve the necessary local awareness of the scale of EA1N & EA2's 'onshore' and 'permanent' development requirements. We now know the projects each require many acres (circa 35) for industrial buildings and unsightly electrical equipment, transformers etc. which if these projects move forward as intended by SPR will be built at Grove Wood, within in 200 metres of the nearest homes in the north of Friston village. 3. Muddled & confusing consultations, ineffective Public information Days (PIDs), poor local knowledge The consultations were muddled, the public has been confused by the nature of these 'dual projects' and by duplicate information released. It has been hard to assess propsals fairly as it has been unclear if these were one or two projects, or even three (if you take into account the National Grid substation). As the process has moved forward things have become more complicated and confusing. The so called experts on hand at PID's seemed to lack important information and were often unable to answer answer questions, especially about the National Grid substation and NG's requirements. It has and continues to be hard to work out if key details are specific to one project, or the other, or both. Fair and effective consultation for National Grid's substation/connection buildings etc has been virtually non-existent. 4. National Grid Substation - has not been consulted for in accordance with the Planning Act SPR have apparently been consulting for National Grid's Substation & requirements, however essential information has been lacking and at the PIDs no one from National Grid was available to discuss details or answer questions. Many questions raised with Scottish Power about the NG substation raised blank looks and a familiar response along the lines of "that's a National Grid facility.... we are not sure, details will follow". Recently it has been brought to the attention of Friston residents that National Grid's substation could be used for one or both inter-connector projects (Nautilus & Eurolink). The shady nature of Scottish Power & National Grids behind closed doors relationship, seems to be designed to provide National Grid with a new connection facility, that can be used to circumvent planning for future projects. Surely this is NOT legal or acceptable? National Grid appears to have offered a connection point in a questionable and wrong location in order to save money and obtain a new grid connection facility. There has been no consideration of cumulative effects of numerous projects directed to what is a small rural/coastal area just a few miles from Sizewell, which could be the location of one of Europes largest construction projects if plans to build Sizewell C (2 nuclear reactors) go ahead. There has been unacceptable consideration given to the damaging effects on the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and ecology of a supposedly protected landscape. Likewise the effects on the communities and vital tourism industry (the biggest employer in the area) appear to all have been ignored by National Grid and Scottish Power & EDF for that matter. I am aware that the Secretary of State Andrea Leadsom and Energy Minister Kwarsi Kwarteng will be facilitating an investigation into the environmental impacts of energy projects on the Norfolk & Suffolk Coasts. I am a local resident in Friston and a tourism business manager (Beach View, Sizewell), this area faces a real threat of decades of damaging projects and complete devastation of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB, all of which will lead to the questionable viability and future success of many business providers in our local tourism sector. I feel The Planning Inspectorate must reject these applications until environmental and community impacts have been fully and independently assessed, as has been promised by the Secretary of State at BEIS. Yours Sincerely, Nicholas Thorp
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. The comments you sent were, as you mention, also raised in correspondence from SASES and therefore were considered in making the acceptance decision. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Nicholas Thorp

Dear National Infrastructure Planning, 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 Offshore Windfarm. Firstly I must say I attended many of the Planning Inspectorate meetings for East Anglia One power cable 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 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 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 government MPs and Ministers 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 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
Dear Thomas, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Thomas O'Brien

Subject: Suffolk Coastal Energy Projects Letter attached to Andrea Leadsom but please be noted by the Planning Inspectorate. Christine Ive
Dear Christine, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Christine Ive

Subject: Scottish Power Renewables - Proposed Friston substations Please note my objections to the above proposals as set out in the attached copy letter. Tony Morley
Dear Tony, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Tony Morley

Subject: SPR East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm - Non-Technical Summary This document brutally exposes the injustice of the planning process for this and the accompanying East Anglia ONE North Windfarm. - The brutality is all on pages 33 and 34 of the Summary. This is the very first time that the vulnerable community of Friston have been shown the sheer scale and magnitude of the disfigurement of their landscape. - The landscape visuals seem deliberately to obscure the proximity of the site to the village. - There is not the slightest acknowledgment of the potential human impact on the community. - It is dismissive of the potential impact on tourism and employment. - It refers to scoping reports in 2017, yet the first Friston heard of the proposals was Spring 2018. - Since then we have been aware of discussions covered by confidentiality agreements with our local councils. - Alarmingly the Strategic Planning Committee of East Suffolk Council is meeting on 9th December presumably to formulate its recommendations to the full Council in the New Year. Meanwhile, the community is expected to wade through some 17,000 pages for each project to assess the real issues over Christmas and submit first representations by the end of January. At the time of writing physical copies of the documentation have not been delivered. Instead we have to rely on the PINS website which is not easy to navigate for such complex developments. Simon Ive Secretary and Treasurer, Friston Parochial Church Council
Dear Simon, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Friston Parochial Church Council - Simon Ive

Dear Secretary of State, Please find attached letter concerning the above. Nick Winter
Dear Nick, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Nick Winter

Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State I am writing to you both to draw your attention to the energy chaos affecting the Suffolk Coast. It is essential that some sense and reasoning is established concerning proposals for up to 7 NSIP energy projects in pre-planning, consultation, or, shortly to apply for a DCO. National Grid appears to have been directing all these projects to the Sizewell/Leiston area, whilst ignoring that the coast here is a designated AONB. These concerns have been highlighted many times by hundreds of people but National Grid, the network operator, seems complicit in causing maximum damage and destruction by ignoring the protected landscapes, the small vulnerable communities and pursuing the path they have chosen as network operator; one that damages the sustainability and viability of the Suffolk Heritage Coast and its AONB. This coast as a destination, is vital to the success of the tourism industry here, tourism is the biggest employment sector, the coast and tourism supports so many small & medium businesses here. National Grid are surely failing in their remit as network operator in what is increasingly being seen locally as a collaboration with energy companies to exploit and savage the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. National Grid and the energy companies are ignoring the clear damage that will be done to tourism, local businesses and the communities that live here. The energy proposals could include some of Europe’s biggest industrial builds, for example EDF propose to build Sizewell C, within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and Sandlings SSSI. In the case of Scottish Power’s EA1N & EA2 cable routes, these will run across the AONB landscape with 60m wide, 10km long cable trenches, en-route to the massive onshore substations they propose to build less than 500 metres from the small village of Friston. Not only blighting residents in Friston, but other communities with years of noise, dust, light pollution and increased traffic, and longer-term: constant noise from the moisture on the power-connectors; loss of recreational land; the ever-present threat that as more Windfarms are approved, the site could grow astronomically. I am a resident, who has recently moved to retire to the tranquillity of the Suffolk Coast: a coastline that has inspired Composers, Artists, Poets and Writers alike. However, it is clear that the cumulative effects of numerous energy projects will be too great for such a fragile coastline and its sensitive ecological location which also encompasses the RSPB reserve at Minsmere. If something is not done and fast, National Grid and your government could be responsible for a man-made ecological and localised economic disaster here on the Suffolk Coast. Residents, communities and local businesses have called for a thorough investigation and a full assessment and report on the ‘cumulative impact’ that multiple energy developments will have in this relatively confined rural/coastal location; nothing has happened. Scottish Power’s consultation and EDF’s Sizewell C consultation do not adequately assess each other’s proposals, let alone, the impacts of National Grid’s own massive convertor station and National Grid Ventures euro-connectors ‘Nautilus’ & ‘Eurolink’ bringing further concrete and industrial buildings. Please act now to ensure you are not labelled as the ministers, in a government that allowed National Grid and these energy companies to destroy the once beautiful Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and our peaceful communities living here. Therese Coffey our local MP has, on a number of occasions, called for the National Grid and energy companies to explore brownfield options and locations. Dr Coffey and others have questioned why locations like Bradwell in Essex or other brownfield sites have not been upgraded and used. – Why was Scottish Power not forced to connect these projects EA1N & EA2 at Bramford as originally planned? – Why did Scottish Power not consider a single brownfield site? – Why is National Grid not investing in existing gird infrastructure at Bradwell and other similar locations that are not AONB or protected landscapes? – How can this be allowed to happen without any form of alternative being explored like an ‘offshore ring main’ or developing brownfield locations? – Why destroy an AONB and greenfield sites here in Suffolk? – Who polices the decisions and actions of National Grid? – Why are the cumulative impacts not being assessed and acted upon now with 7 projects muted? National Grid make billions in annual profit but they are not investing in old redundant brownfield sites, they are complicit by encouraging Scottish Power and other energy companies to join them in systematic destruction of the Suffolk AONB and surrounding countryside. It seems hypocritical that Designated Land/Greenfield sites are even allowed to be considered as an option when planning to build a Green-Energy site? I am in fully agreement that we need to provide sustainable, low/non-CO2 generated source of power, however, it seems that we in Suffolk are going to have to pay the cost of this dearly in our everyday lives. Why should we be targeted with both Sizewell C and the EA1N & EA2 cable routes? To me it would make more sense to scrap the building of Sizewell C in Suffolk, and instead, if these substations really do warrant to be situated on the Suffolk coastline, build the substations on the 'brownfield' land intended for Sizewell C: - Minimum damage to the AONB; - Infrastructure is already there; - Important Agricultural land is saved (land that as we enter Brexit, we are going to need to rely on more and more for production of meat/crops); - Minimal effect on tourism; - And sets a precedence for future Green-Energy projects that Designated Land & Greenfield sites are not an option when considering their location for building. Yours Sincerely Robert Brundle
Dear Robert, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation. You have until the 27 January 2020 to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project website now: [attachment 2] For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 3] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Robert Brundle

Subject: PINS ref: EA1N / EA2 Substations PINS Ref: EN010077 + EN010078 Please find attached a copy of my letter to Dept of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regarding PINS ref: EA1N / EA2 Substations PINS Ref: EN010077 + EN010078. Thank you for your time. Nichola Winter
Dear Nichola, Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by East Anglia TWO Limited for an Order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The decision to accept the application was made on the 22 November 2019. The decision was published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] The following documents have also been published on the project webpage: • The application documents; • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. In order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2] If you wish to have your say on East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO you must register for each application separately. Kind regards, Liam

Nichola Winter

As there will be neither Government nor MPs as from Wednesday of this week, how might this affect the standard timetable for an NSIP application?
During the election period the Government retains its responsibility to govern, and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. The Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, has a statutory duty to decide whether or not to accept the applications for Examination within 28 days of submission. As you may have seen, our decision to accept the applications was issued on Friday 22 November. The Examination timetable, will not be affected by the General Election.

Paul Spendlove

Good afternoon I understand that the submission of this application by Scottish Power is imminent I think I am right in saying that you then decide in 28 days whether or not to accept the application I would submit that you should not accept this application for the following reasons - This is the first of a series of applications for bringing ashore the electricity generated by windfarms. Government has given permission for the construction of the windfarms but has not developed any strategy for how the power should be brought ashore. It is imperative that there is such a strategy otherwise each windfarm will act in isolation and the damage done to the countryside will be immense and uncontrolled. In this case, Scottish Power and National Grid have unilaterally decided upon Friston without reference to anyone else. They have not even considered a development that could be shared with the next windfarm to be completed. We need a national strategy for how best, and where, to bring power ashore taking into account all of the technical possibilities such as the offshore ringmain. And we need this fast. We all need the offshore wind power. - I am told by Scottish Power that once you have accepted their application then the public will not be allowed to argue that it is the wrong location. If this is correct then it renders the whole process meaningless. How else can the public have a say? We are supposed to live in a democracy. - The so called consultation process carried out by Scottish Power has been a farce. Many, many members of the public have commented and made suggestions. All have been ignored. I therefore ask that you refuse their application and ask the appropriate government department to put in place an urgent programme to develop a strategy in conjunction with the various windfarm developers and National Grid Thankyou David Gordon
Dear Mr Gordon Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate about the application by ScottishPower Renewables for an order granting development consent for the East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm. The Acceptance stage The application was submitted on 25 October 2019. The Acceptance decision must be taken on or before 22 November 2019. The decision will be published on the project webpage, here: [attachment 1] If the application is accepted, the following documents will also be published on the project webpage: • The application documents (if they are not already published); • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations submitted by relevant local authorities; • The Planning Inspectorate’s Acceptance Checklist. The Acceptance tests Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 states that an application can be accepted provided: • it is an application for an order granting development consent; • that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates; • the applicant has, in relation to a proposed application that has become the application, complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure); and • that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. The following must be considered when making the decision: a) The Consultation Report received with the application; b) Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee; c) The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance. If you have sent comments about the pre-application consultation, these can be considered in addition to the statutorily required Acceptance tests when making the decision about whether or not to accept the application. However, it will be for the decision maker (the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State) to decide the weight to give to the views expressed based on the individual facts of the case. However you may also wish to submit any comments you have on the consultation to your local authority as relevant local authorities have been asked to submit their views on the adequacy of the Applicant’s consultation to us by 8 November 2019. If you have sent comments about the merits of the Proposed Development (eg setting out support for or objection to the principle of the Proposed Development) these cannot be considered at the Acceptance stage. If the application is accepted for Examination, in order to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 2] Kind regards

David Gordon

Please see attached
Please see attached

Paul Spendlove

Please see attached
Please see attached

Alan Bullard

Dear sirs, We are writing to you 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 proposed siting of the Friston sub-station is going to have a devasting effect on our holiday cottage 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. We hope all involved are doing this. Yours faithfully Jan Packard and Mark Haines
The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 2].

Jan Packard

Dear Secretary of State & Minister of State, 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. Yours Sincerely Alan Hatfield References (1) National Grid Strategy Paper National Grid’s Strategy Paper to address Transmission Licence Special Condition 2K: Electricity Transmission Losses Reporting Period: 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2021 (2) Given that a typical DC resistance at 90°C of a 2500mm² copper conductor is 9.18µO/m and the AC resistance is 10.25µO/m it can be seen, by comparison with the DC resistance values in the table of section 3.2.2, that the overall resistances (and therefore losses) of cable conductors are generally considerably lower than those for overhead lines outlined in section 3.2.2. (3)The major sources of losses in HVDC converter stations are; the valves, converter transformers, ac filters, other reactive compensation plant, DC smoothing reactors and auxiliaries / station service losses. Typical converter losses are 0.7 – 0.8% of the transmitted power. (4)Over long distances, DC transmission losses (including conversion Losses) are lower than AC losses at higher voltages. A typical application for the preference of HVDC connections over AC circuits are where long cable circuits are required - for example the Western HVDC Link, which provides 2.2GW capacity at 600kV, via a 385km undersea cable connection8 . Transmission of power at DC overcomes the effect of capacitive charging current, which reduces the effective rating of cables in AC applications and makes the use of AC circuits increasingly impractical for long distances. In DC applications, there is no technical limit on cable length. (5) [attachment 1]
Dear Alan, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia TWO Windfarm (EN010078). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 20 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. Should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 3]. Please note that, should the applications for East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO be submitted and accepted, to become an Interested Party in each examination you must register for both applications separately. Kind regards, Liam

Alan Hatfield

Dear Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, Councillors, Sir/Madam, I am writing to express my ongoing anger and disbelief at the Scottish Power Renewable EA1N and EA2 planning proposals at Friston, Suffolk. I have written before for each consultation and will be registering as relevant representation with PINs at the relevant stage. I want to reaffirm my shock at the scale; threat to the village of Friston and surrounding area; and precedent to other huge energy developments. Renewable energy is a vital part of our ongoing national commitments to delivering carbon neutral energy supplies. However it is the lack of Government planning to this development and future developments that are destroying the East Anglian Coastline. The government have a duty to protect communities, the environment and wellbeing of residents from vast onshore infrastructures related to offshore wind farms. There are many brownfield sites that could be used for onshore infrastructure but energy companies are planning to destroy pristine coastal communities, AONB land and amenity land. The Government, OFGEM and National Grid have no accountability or interest in developing a sustainable approach to onshore developments for onshore infrastructure. Outlined below are the main concerns I have in relation to building the EA1N and EA2 substations in the village Friston: - flooding. The village is build around a watercourse that has had extensive flooding over the years with many properties flooded. The scale of the substations will turn high value agricultural land into a concrete development. The flood assessments by SPR are desk based, and unconvincing given the level of historic flooding in the village. Mitigation shows further amenity and agricultural land loss but shows little evidence of mapping and investigating the whole village to address the threats from flooding. -noise pollution. The PEIR shows that there will be permanent noise pollution by the substations. Given that SPR have not included the National Grid substation and future Nautilus Substations in their cumulative impact assessment I can only see that the noise will be greater than indicated. The substations are within 350metres of the village where there is currently no background noise. This cannot be mitigated against, there is no noise in the village. -damage to the landscape. At present the proposed site is a mixture of high agricultural land, public footpaths and woodlands. The 30+ acres of industrial development 15-18metres high cannot be mitigated against. The setting of the village, listed buildings and closure of public footpaths will be damaged irreversibly. The area also contains a number of important wildlife including skylarks and bats. The skylarks have only just started reappearing on the fields where the substations will be built. Mitigation will be over 25 years as tree growth will be slow and long lasting, given the life span of the substations, I will be over 100 by the time the trees are doing their job. It is also about the generations that are yet to come. Destroying parts of the AONB for cable routes, destroying amenity land and access, and ruining the heritage and archaeological of the village cannot be mitigated against. I hope you understand the damage these piecemeal approaches to energy developments will have on local communities, with particular damage to the village of Friston. Regards Rosemary Kersey
Dear Rosemary, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited for the East Anglia TWO Windfarm (EN010078). I am writing regarding your correspondence sent to the Planning Inspectorate dated 15 October 2019 in relation to the above proposal. The proposed application is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. From your email I can see that you are aware that should the application be submitted and accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 2]. Kind regards, Liam Liam Fedden

Rosemary Kersey

My name is Peter Fife and I live at (Redacted) . My telephone number is (Redacted). I am writing to Register my utter dismay about the proposal to construct a massive series of linked transformer stations covering many acres of beautiful farmland in Friston for Scottish Power Renewables and National Grid. When I first heard about the proposals, I thought, naively, that the organisations – just Scottish Power initially – were proposing to construct a transformer station about the size of a double garage or a modest farm building, but I have now discovered the enormous geographical extent of the proposed development on the edge of our ancient village. The whole project would alter, permanently, the character of the village and much of the local countryside in what is now largely unspoiled farmland. I have lived in Friston for nearly 15 years and my roots are in this area, having grown up nearby where my parents lived until they died. I am a warden of our village church, a Grade II* listed building which would be overlooked by the proposed development. We are now faced with many years of wholesale disruption to our lives. There will be enormous increase in traffic and associated noise, some of which would continue indefinitely. I have been told that no regard will be given to suggestions of alternative sites for these works and so I will not do so, but I will leave it to appropriate people and bodies, none of whom live in this area, to find those out for themselves. It will be no good saying, during the wholesale destruction of this area, that nobody thought of these things. Much work has already been done,but little thought appears to have been given to the effect these proposals will have upon the lives of ordinary local people. I have deliberately made this letter short because I am aware that you must be receiving many letters of this kind about the proposals, but I would appreciate an acknowledgement and any comments you may be able to make. Yours faithfully PETER FIFE
Dear Peter Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

Peter Fife

Dear Sirs East Anglia One & Two – Location of substations I wish to register my deep concern over the potential siting of the substations required in connection with your East Anglia One and Two projects. In particular, I see no rational reasons for locating one of the substations at Friston. This is unnecessarily close to the village of Friston and other small settlements. It would be a blot that would severely dominate this pleasant countryside. I believe that Sizewell is a much preferable alternative because: 1. It would be adjacent to the existing power station at Sizewell, so it would not alter the aesthetic environment in that region as dramatically as at Friston. The impact on Friston will be deeply destructive due to the visual impact and close proximity of the buildings and infrastructure, the severe damage caused by the roadworks and HGV traffic, and noise. 2. Sizewell is far and away our preferred option for the location of the buildings, etc. The great advantage of this is the already-established presence of the EDF power station, the simpler and less-disruptive adaptation of the road network and infrastructure and, above all, the minimised impact on the local communities in the entire area that is under consideration. 3. The land at Sizewell is right under the existing power lines of the National Grid, so it would be more easily and economically connected to the Grid. 4. A problem of flooding already exists in the village of Friston. Taking into account the contours of the region, and the clay substrata at the proposed site, I believe that the development at Friston is highly likely to exacerbate the problem and lead to severe and frequent flooding of the vicinity. This is not true of Sizewell. 5. The new road required to service Friston would have an even deeper impact on the communities and wildlife of the region than siting the substation at Sizewell. 6. Scottish Power raised an objection based on the AONB status that has been assigned to heathland at Sizewell. They are fond of referring to protecting the reptile population at Sizewell. As a local, I can assure you that the AONB is barely used by the public. In contrast, nearby Dunwich Heath is a large existing AONB and it would seem likely that the reptiles could be relocated from Sizewell to a section of the Heath. In short, I believe that Scottish Power are attempting to steamroller the development through for the benefit of their shareholders, with no consideration toward the interests of the community. Yours faithfully H.J. Turner
Dear Helen Thank you for your email regarding the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farms. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), for the proposed East Anglia ONE North project which is currently in the pre-application stage of the process. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The Developer ScottishPower Renewables has indicated that they expect to submit to The Planning Inspectorate a Development Consent Order application under the PA 2008, for the proposed East Anglia TWO project which is currently in the pre-application stage. If the application satisfies the tests, set out in PA 2008, the application will go through the process as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. During the pre-application stage of the process, the Developer may hold several rounds of consultation, not all of which are required to be statutory. The duties of the Developer during statutory consultation are set out in PA 2008. Any responses to pre-application consultation should be addressed to the Developer. If the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination. If the application is accepted to proceed to examination, there will be an opportunity for people to register to participate in the examination of the application. The examination period has a statutory maximum of six months, which is followed by a three month period for the Examining Authority to prepare their recommendation, and a three month period for the relevant Secretary of State to make a decision. If you would like more information about the examination process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice and guidance on the Planning Inspectorate website, here: [attachment 1] Kind regards Kate Kate Mignano Case Manager National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN Direct Line: 0303 444 5652 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] (National Infrastructure Planning) Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Privacy Notice before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

H J Turner

Dear Sirs As a permanent resident for over 10 years in peaceful Friston, I am writing to express my horror and disbelief at the proposal to build a huge industrial substation here. The site chosen is totally unsuitable and unacceptable, being far too close to residential properties (at I understand in some places 200 meters) and our beautiful 12th century church. Not only will we be forced to live for many years with the construction noise and dust, but also with the large amount of extra heavy traffic and ensuing road chaos along very small country roads. This is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. We have always enjoyed walking in freedom on the footpaths and fields surrounding the village and this too could soon be a thing of the past. Our community is close knit and we have many activities involving residents and holiday-makers alike. The tourist industry here is an important part of village life and income. Who would want to take a holiday next to a substation? Few people I imagine. Also of great concern to me is the risk of flooding in the village. Recent plans suggest a drainage pool on the left of the project. This is sited at the top of the hill which could add greater risk to the flood problems already in the village. Following heavy rain, water and mud pour down the paths from the hill regularly causing damage to properties, something which happened again this year. Some companies will make huge profits if this project goes ahead, and we who live here will have NO benefit whatsoever, just the legacy of large very unsightly buildings and a forest of ironmongery. Our peace and village life will be destroyed FOR EVER. Please THINK VERY CAREFULLY before you impose such devastating action on our village. Yours faithfully Margaret Fife (Mrs)
Dear Margaret, Planning Act 2008 (as amended) Proposals by ScottishPower Renewables for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind farms I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on the 25 September 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications on the 25 October 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] As the applications will be submitted shortly I would particularly draw your attention to Advice Note 8.2 which will be of use if the either or both of the applications are accepted for examination. I hope you find this information to be helpful. Kind regards, Liam

Margaret Fife

Meeting Note
Please see attached

ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited and Suffolk County Council

Meeting Note
Please see attached

ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.

Dear Sir/Madame, Further to my email sent on the 26th of April, there is one additional item I would wish to bring to your attention when considering the SPR application for EA1N & EA2 wind farms. There are two additional energy infrastructure project under consideration for this immediate area. One is EDF’s Sizewell C nuclear power station and the other is The National Grid Interconnector project (the later which may not be considered as a DCO). There is also talk of a requirement for battery storage units for when there is excess energy generated off shore. It remains unclear to us if the battery storage units will be under SPR’s or National Grid’s remit. While under construction the Sizewell C project will have an enormous effect on the local area for well over a decade. The interconnector project appears to have a direct relationship to the on shore wind farm infrastructure and will mean more cable trenching and further structures on shore to be located adjacent to SPR's sub-stations. Any proposals for batter storage units will also need to be located in the vicinity of the sub-stations. To be able to evaluate the EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS PROPOSALS you need to take into account all of the other proposal concurrently under consideration for this area. You will need to understand the magnitude of all these developments on the local area in order to evaluate SPR’s proposal. One can not pretend that they do not exist and view each proposal in isolation. I kindly ask that you urge central government in conjunction with the local authorities to devise a coherent and comprehensive energy strategy for the infrastructure developments required to serve the nation's future energy needs. If these projects are left to private companies to prescribe in a free-for-all manor vast sections of the countryside and local communities will be needlessly devastated. I trust that you will not be able to accept for Examination the SPR application, until the cumulative impact of all the projects proposed for this area have been understood. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
The energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to relevant policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Mya Manakides

Project Update Meeting
Please See attached

ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.

We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We respond to Phase 4 of SPR's windfarm consultation, objecting very strongly to proposals to site Substations for the windfarms in Friston. Our letter of objection is attached, together with our responses to earlier consultations. The most important points we make now are that the Planning Inspectorate should assess the cumulative impact of multiple energy related projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk, and that all developments should take place in Sizewell. We trust you will take our views and those of local people and authorities into account.
In reference to your e-mail of 20 March 2019. I draw your attention to Advice Note 17 ([attachment 1]) on the Planning Inspectorate website. This provides more information about cumulative effects assessment.

Louise and Derek Chadwick Chadwick

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.

The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Vivienne Saunders, Alison Norman, Gerard Linehan, James and Gihan Burch, Charles Courage, Susan Jackson, David Jackson, Anthony and Louise Fincham, Nick Matthew, Kevin and Joanna Hoffman, Ian Cook, Tony and Christine Munden, Rosamond Castle, Christopher Matthew, Michael Allen, Lesley Walduck, Lin Patrick, Richard Bertram, Ellen Nall, Linda Grover, John Brown, Emma Chichester Clark, Karen Flower and Amanda Churchill.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Various Enquiries - Anon - anon.

The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant between January and April 2019: Michael Mahony on behalf of Substation Action Save East Suffolk, Mark Saunders, James Kemp, Brian Roger and Mark Hopkins.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Various Enquiries - anon - anon.

The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Various enquiries - anon - anon.

The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate and to the Applicant, including comments on the standard of consultation, between January and April 2019: William Matthew, Leonard and Anita Johnson, Martin Cotter and John Grover.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note you have contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Various Enquiries - anon.

The following persons sent responses to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation to the Planning Inspectorate between January and April 2019: Mary Shipman, Tony Morley, Alan Bullard, Jan Bullard, Michael Shorrock, Elizabeth Clark, Josef Wondrak, Julie Tooke, Edmond Fivet, David Worrall, Nichola J Winter, Elizabeth Jarret, Nicholas Winter, Kay and Karl Moore, Jennifer Joyce, Andrew Bell, Jill Hills, John Walker and Kate Drayton.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Various enquiries - anon - anon.

The Planning Inspectorate Dear Sir/Madam, SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLE- EAST ANGLIA 1N & EAST ANGLIA 2 WIND FARMS I understand that you are not in a position to respond to our concerns regarding the proposal to build the required sub-stations for the off shore wind farms of EA1N & EA2 in the village of Friston until an application has been made. However, as you meet with SPR on a regular basis, there is certain information that I want to make sure you are aware of: 1. On the 11th of March the House of Commons discussed the fact that the free-for-all siting of these sub-stations causes needless damage to large swathes of the country side. Proposals for a strategic policy in order to coordinate a rational program for the siting of sub-stations are under discussion. You can listen to this session on George Freeman MP web site, link below. [attachment 1] 2. Phase 4 of the consultation period revealed that EA1N & EA2 may not be developed simultaneously the consequence being that the construction process could be extended from 3 to 6 years. Add onto this the interconnector projects and you could be talking about 9-10 years of construction and disruption from the coast to Friston. 3. Phase 4 consultation period presented the traffic plan for the proposal. This plan will have a seriously detrimental effect on the access roads into Aldeburgh, Snape and particularly Thorpness. These areas are the heart of and vital to the tourist economy of the area. SPR is not taking this effect into consideration. 4. The Friston site has received universal objection from all authorities. 5. The accepted Rochdale model allows for SPR’s proposals to remain vague until after permission is received. This opens up the potential for all sorts of changes to be made by SPR post permission. Exemplar to this is the change SPR made at Bawdsey. By changing the to the transmission system SPR rendered the cable routing facilities extremely limited in capacity and created the requirement for additional land fall, trenching and sub-stations site, hardly a non-material change. What could they get up to in and around Friston? Due to the DCO procedure you alone sit in judgement of SPR’s proposal. This is an arduous and unenviable position that is now being questioned by Parliament. As it stands the consultation procedure appears to be a box ticking exercise leading to a predetermined conclusion. I trust that this is not the case and that you are truly in a position to scrutinise SPR’s proposal. I have a few questions that SPR has not been able to answer. They are with regards to how the land-fall and on-shore site was chosen. I believe that it is important that you, too have answers to these questions. 1. Why did SPR decide that the sub-stations should be to the south of the pillions closest to the village of Friston as opposed to the north of the pillions and further away from the village? 2. What is the relationship between landowners in the Bawdsey area and Friston? 3. With regards to the initial search areas 1-7 what contact did SPR make with landowners in these zones and to what result? 4. How and when did they meet the owner of the property they are proposing to purchase in Friston? When was the deal made? 5. Who controls the site to the north of the pillions and what is proposed for this area? 6. We know in that in phase 3.5 SPR rejected the Broom Covert site because of what can be summarised as possible unacceptable commercial terms. The fact the area is deemed an AONB is not particularly relevant as permissible with-in the AONB are projects of national importance. The advantages of the Broom Covert site are well known: adjacent to a nuclear power plant & other sub-stations, road access, security facilities, very limited cable trenching required, etc. EDF obviously finds it difficult to ‘share’ the Broom Covert site but what has SPR done to secure land with-in their original zones 1-2? These too, have the advantage of the Broom Covert site but are not under EDF’s control. 7. The proposed Land Fall site is now in question. It was originally deemed by National Grid that SPR could make land fall at Sizewell. We now know that this is not Sizwell but the cliffs of Thorpness Heath and that access to this area is proposed through the holiday village of Thorpness. The stability of these cliffs are questionable. Throughout this process SPR has used the National Grid as an excuse for many of its proposals. To whom is National Grid accountable? Does the National Grid or SPR understand the effect that the construction traffic will have to Thorpness for a period of 3 - 9 years? Has there been a study to show how long it will take Thorpness to recover its reputation as a holiday destination once the works are finally completed? 8. I trust that before SPR submits its application in the 4th quarter of this year, that there will be a change in legislation and that a strategy will emerge for the location of the of sub-stations and items related to them that is not needlessly devastating to the country side. However, could you please make it evident to us how we register as an interested party once an application has been made, as I understand that there is a limited period for us to do so. I hope that part of your remit is to visit the area. It would be very nice for you to meet with the local community. Our concerns will then be very obvious to you. I attach my comments to SPR and our MP’s subsequent to the Stage 4 of the Consultation period. Kind regards, Mya Manakides
Dear Mya Manakides As you are aware the proposed applications by ScottishPower Renewables are at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2] Further information about Community Consultation, including who you should contact if you are not satisfied that the Applicant has or will take account of your comments (FAQ 2) can be found here: [attachment 3] As the applications have not yet been formally submitted at this time we are unable to consider your comments however please note that, should the application be received, the National Infrastructure Planning website will be updated accordingly and you may submit comments to us at that time. Should the application be accepted the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website during the Pre-examination stage. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: [attachment 4] Finally, I can confirm that should the application be accepted the appointed Examining Authority will visit the site of the proposed development in order to fully understand the proposal. Please see the link below to ‘Advice Note 8.5: The Examination; hearings and site inspections’ which provides further information: [attachment 5] Kind regards

Mya Manakides

Response to the Applicants 2019 consultation sent to the Planning Inspectorate with a request for comments.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. In reference to your point about cumulative impact, the energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out mitigation for cumulative negative effects by requiring the Secretary of State to consider accumulation of effects as a whole in their decision-making on individual applications for development consent. I would draw your attention to NPS EN-1 which provides more information in relation to policy, particularly chapter 4.2 Environmental Statement. And to Advice Note 17 on the Planning Inspectorate website, which is available with the other advice notes linked below, which provides more information on the legal context and obligations for cumulative effects assessment (CEA). As well as an overview of the CEA process the developer may adopt. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Mark Lowthers

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

Thomas Sweet

To whom it may concern. I copy below an email i have just sent to SPR with regard to their controversial planning process for on shore sub stations in East Suffolk. There is little point in me writing huge amounts about this as its a simple matter. This project will KILL this part of the country...which may not be of concern to some but it is to the people who live here. The cumulative effect of this and 6 repeat 6 other projects condensed into one region by dint of a combination of a cynical or disinterested private sector and Government inefficiency on a grand scale is beyond belief or tolerance of our society ( or should be !) I hope most sincerely that in the execution of your public duty you will find time to appreciate that common sense should prevail , and prevent what will be one of the largest destructions of our country since the Second World War- the difference here being that this will be permanent !! Yours sincerely
Advice given: I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

Graeme Murray

This is now my third response to the consultations. I do not feel any of my detailed concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. The consultation process is clearly regarded as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Furthermore, the Sizewell Cx2 phase 4 consultations are ongoing, adding a very concrete dimension to the cumulative impacts which have not been addressed. To be brief: 1. I do not agree with the landfall site at Sizewell / Thorpeness selected for connection to the National Grid. This must be urgently reviewed. 2. No brownfield sites have been proposed. National Grid must be held to account for their grid connection proposal. There appears to be absolutely no oversight of their role in these proposals. 3. No consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of the proposed new nuclear Sizewell Cx2. 4. There is a petition for an offshore ringmain to connect all North Sea windfarms to the grid. The original proposal in 2012 could not justify the cost for just a few windfarms. This has now dramatically changed and the proposal must be reconsidered and taken forward. 5. The Bawdsey to Bramford fiasco is a disgrace. SPR explanation of why this route was rejected is not satisfactory. 6. Scottish Power has not given sufficient consideration to all the responses that say Friston is not a suitable site. In conclusion I would like to say that the Government needs to take charge of the all the various energy proposals and provide a coherent strategic plan. It is simply not acceptable to allow rampant and uncontrolled industrialisation of our increasingly precious countryside and protected nature reserves. There are clear alternatives and in this area the costs do not justify any benefits. I sincerely hope that these proposals will be reconsidered.
I am writing in regard to your e-mail sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 26 March 2019. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I note that you have already contacted ScottishPower Renewables. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1] Of the advice notes linked above of particular interest to you may be “Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This provides a description of the legal context and obligations placed on an applicant, with respect to cumulative effects under national planning policy and the Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations.

Andrea Smith

response to the Applicant’s 2019 statutory consultation, including comments on the standard of consultation, sent to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 March 2019
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. If you have concerns about the way in which the developer is carrying out the pre-application consultation, you should let them know as soon as possible and allow them the opportunity to respond to any issues you raise. You can also make your local authority aware of your concerns. The Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the consultation at the point the application is submitted. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see: “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

E Thomas

Please see attached
Please see attached

Substation Action Save East Suffolk - anon.

Project update meeting with ScottishPower Renewables, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council
Please see attached

anon.

EN010012 - EDF Sizewell C/D EN010077 & EN010078 - Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 I am writing to request extensions to consultations for the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in East Suffolk All projects are in final stage consultation and all consulting February & March 2019. I am a tourism business manager (Beach View Holiday Park) and local resident at Friston. It is physically impossible to have fair consultation and fair feedback for these NSIPs as there is simply too much going on, too much to digest and too much to consider. Please advise how this request can/will be considered? These proposals and the stress of these consultations are making people ill. All this while the local authority is also consulting on a final draft Local Plan, which, by the way I have not had a chance to fully digest or comment on either. Please take this as a formal complaint on final stage NSIP consultations listed above.
Dear Mr Thorp Request to Extend NSIP Pre-Application Consultations Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2019 addressed to Sarah Richards, the Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive. Your email has been passed to myself for response, as I am part of the Planning Inspectorate’s case team. I apologise for the delay in our response. The Planning Inspectorate is aware that several Developers are currently undertaking pre-application consultation in the area. In respect of the duration of the consultation period, section 45 of the Planning Act 2008 prescribes that a Developer’s statutory pre-application consultation must run for a minimum of 28 days. We are aware of the following consultation periods: - Sizewell C: 4th January 2019 – 29th March 2019 - East Anglia One North: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019 - East Anglia Two: 11th February 2019 – 26th March 2019. In this instance we therefore advise you to contact the Developers directly with your request for an extension. Once an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted (following the pre- application stage), the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), has a statutory duty to invite comments from all relevant Local Authorities about whether a Developer has complied with its statutory pre-application consultation duties (see sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008). Responses received are referred to as ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’. All applications for a Development Consent Order must be accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’. The Consultation Report is prepared under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 and must give details of: a) what has been done in compliance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a proposed application that has become the application; b) any relevant responses; and c) the account taken of any relevant responses. In the Acceptance period (ie the 28 days following the formal submission of an application) the Planning Inspectorate will scrutinise all the application documents, including the evidence provided in the Consultation Report, applying the statutory tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. By the end of the Acceptance period the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) must decide, in accordance with the tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, whether or not to accept an application for examination. In reaching this decision, section 55(4) makes explicit that the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to the Consultation Report and any Adequacy of Consultation Representations made by Local Authority consultees. In this instance it is normal practise for the Planning Inspectorate to advise you to also provide your comments on the consultation undertaken to the Local Authority, to make them aware of your points, ahead of providing their Adequacy of Consultation Representation; however we note that you have already copied the Local Authorities into your email. I hope you find the above information to be helpful. Yours sincerely Kathryn Dunne Infrastructure Planning Lead

Nicholas Thorp

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited - anon.

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 17 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning
process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Elaine Hunt

Project update meeting 10 December 2018
See attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected]m and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

Jennifer Hall

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Peter Mayo

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Karen and Andrew Lewis

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Graham Noye

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact Scottish Power Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice, here: [attachment 1]

Michael Bowkis

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to Scottish Power Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Oka Last

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others, dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. The developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019, I therefore hope this addresses your concerns in relation to the consultation undertaken to date. I note you have also sent your comments to the local authority, who will have the opportunity to submit a representation on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation, once the applications are submitted.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Peter Chadwick

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 5 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your letter has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Ann Townell

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Deborah Bowkis

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your correspondence sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your e-mail has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
Until the applications are submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly ([email protected] and [email protected]). It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications to the Planning Inspectorate. As you may already be aware, the developer is proposing to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Nicola Turland-Noble

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 12 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Meg Amsden

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State and others dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

William Haward Patricia Davidson

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State.
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 10 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables (the developer), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Jenny Labbett

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 11 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered.
The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019.
I note you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables ( the developer ), this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019.
If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see the “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Bridget Barclay

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The Applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, they are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process. We note that the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. I therefore strongly encourage you to contact ScottishPower Renewables directly on [email protected] and [email protected] if you haven’t already done so, with your comments on their proposals. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

Andrew Plant

Enquiry sent to the Secretary of State
I am writing in regard to your email sent to the Secretary of State dated 8 November 2018 in relation to the above proposals. Your email has been passed to the Planning Inspectorate for response, as we administer the Planning Act 2008 process under which these proposals will be considered. The applications have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the proposals are currently at the pre-application stage of the planning process, the developer is expecting to submit the applications in Q4 2019. I note that you have already submitted your comments to ScottishPower Renewables, this is important to enable your views to be considered before their proposals are finalised and the applications submitted. As you may already be aware, the developer is intending to undertake further pre-application consultation in early 2019. If you would like more information about the Planning Act 2008 process, please see “Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others” which can be found, along with other advice notes, here: [attachment 1]

John Heald

Please see attached letter from Chris Wheeler (dated 01 August 2018)
Please see attached response from The Planning Inspectorate (dated 27 September 2018)

Substation Action - Save East Suffolk (SASES) - Chris Wheeler

Planning Act 2008 process meeting with Scottish Power Renewables
Please see attached

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Project update meeting with the representatives of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils (SC&WDCs) and Suffolk County Council (SCC).
Please see attached

Local Authorities - anon.

Query regarding selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your email of 4 July 2018 and the attached documents regarding Friston site selection process for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

As part of the pre-application stage in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.

The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects. Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.

I would encourage you to continue engaging with the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its comments on whether the applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Examining Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to publicise the accepted application and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

[attachment 1]

Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

Elizabeth Thomas

Dear Sir Re: Scottish Power Substations for East Anglia2 and East Anglia1 North Substations We live in Friston Suffolk. We attended a presentation by Scottish Power on 24th May 2018 which outlined their proposals for a revised land connection from that previously approved by the Planning Inspectorate at Bawdsey. This is currently under construction connecting the wind farm East Anglia 1 south to the national grid at Branford. The new proposed location for the land fall for the cables from East Anglia 2 and East Anglia 1 north is at Sizewell. The original connection for the three wind farms, EA2, EA1 north and south was approved by the inspectorate with land fall at Bawdsey extending via underground cables to Branford this has been well thought and considered to avoid villages and habitation but will no longer have provision for the cabling of EA2 and EA1 north. We do not understand why this approved cabling solution has required revising. We are being told by Scottish Power that the reason for the change of location has been dictated by National Grid. The proposals currently being entertained by Scottish Power will involve three substations connecting to your power lines on the northern edge of Friston within sight of the medieval village church. These substations will require an operational area of 30 acres plus areas for access they will have structures up 18 metres in height equivalent to a six-storey building. What is being proposed is a major piece of national infrastructure not just three simple substations as Scottish Power maintain. All this is proposed to be constructed in agricultural land and possibly in ancient woodland adjacent to a village which is currently surrounded by farmland with the highest structure being the listed church tower and windmill. We are extremely concerned at the scale and magnitude of this proposal and the way the site selection process has been carried out. The combined array of EA2 and EA1 north will produce 1600 MW and we are sure that you have an understanding of the scale of infrastructure needed to connect this to the grid, not something that should be dumped on the edge of village in the heart of rural Suffolk. We received today a reply from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in response to an e mail from us which is truly unhelpful. It suggest that the Government has no overall coordinated strategy for how electrical energy is to be generated and distributed across the nation but that it simply a free for all for the private sector to decide, without regard to its impact on local communities and countryside. These are projects that will affect the nature of villages and rural landscape in perpetuity consequently their cumulative impact should to be fully understood and scrutinised against a national masterplan. We strongly support the role of wind energy in reducing the carbon foot print of the nation, however there appears to be a serious lack of coordination in how it is being delivered and distributed with Suffolk its countryside and residents being asked to bear a truly unreasonable burden. We also would like to draw your attention to the recent article by Fiona Cairns, director of the Suffolk Preservation Society in the East Anglian Daily Times on Saturday 9th June 2018 which much more eloquently outlines the principle issues involved. Yours faithfully Luigi Beltrandi
Please see attached.

Luigi Beltrandi

Query regarding consultation and selection of Zone 7 Friston by Scottish Power for the EA2 onshore wind farm substation and grid connection.
Thank you for your letter of 20 June 2018 enclosing a letter addressed to Therese Coffey MP, also of 20 June 2018, in relation to the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is a government agency and part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for examining Development Consent Order applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State who will then make a final decision whether to grant or to refuse development consent. The SoS of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is the relevant minister in regards to energy projects. However, the Inspectorate has no remit in regards to creating planning Policies. It can provide procedural advice and in relation to these specific projects, any advice issued can be found here: East Anglia TWO and East Anglia ONE North.
As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Inspectorate, the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.
As part of the pre-application stage in the DCO process, an Applicant has a number of duties that they are required to carry out which include extensive surveys and consultations to identify, for example, any suitable areas for investigation and selecting the cable route corridors, and substations.
The Applicant, as part of its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), is required to set out how they intend to conduct consultation on a project and in relation to the East Anglia projects, phase 3 of their SoCC, included Public Information Days (PID), one of them being held in Friston on Friday 29 June 2018.
Whilst the Inspectorate cannot comment on the Applicant’s selections, more detailed information on the project can be found on the Applicant’s websites SPR - East Anglia TWO and SPR - East Anglia ONE North which also includes their reasoning for the choices of the Zone 7: SPR - Summary and Approach to Site Selection.
I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.
The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.
During the examination, the Examining Authority has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required. More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.
Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National
Infrastructure Website.

Nicholas Thorp

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Dear Mr White

I am assuming that as Infrastructure Planning Lead, you have overall responsibility for Planning Inspectorate's supervision of the statutory processes being undertaken by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) prior to its eventual submission of DCO Applications for the two proposed wind farms East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO.

I live in Aldringham which lies at the centre of the EA1N and EA2 designated 'Onshore Study Area'. You may already be aware that SPR's onshore plans for these two projects have given rise to considerable concern with local communities in and around Aldringham. I have myself expressed a number of local concerns to ScottishPower both at and following its recent Phase 2 Information Day events.

1. Omission of Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's formal response to Scoping Report following Phase 1 Consultation on EA1N and EA2 Scoping Reports

Aldringham-cum-Thorpe's Parish Council (a "Prescribed Consultation Body") responded to SPR's initial Phase 1 Consultation by letter dated 7 December 2017. This letter referred to both EA1N and EA2 projects and was clearly received on time.

However, it has been omitted from the Planning Inspectorate "Scoping Opinion" document re EA2 ref EN010078 (though included in APPENDIX 2: RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES in the Planning Inspectorate's "Scoping Opinion" document re EA1N ref EN010077).
Have our Parish Council's comments been overlooked as a consequence of this error?

Refs:
[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

2. Concerns re: "Draft" Statements of Community Consultation for EA2 and EA1N
SPR posted a formal "Notification of Statement of Community Consultation for EA1N and EA2" and wrote to me on 13 March 2018 inviting me to review these draft documents before midnight 3rd April 2018. I met this deadline and received acknowledgement of my letter on 17 April. I feel some of my comments may be of interest to yourselves:

• Approved SoCC’s were not in place before Consultations commenced – Phase One completed in December 2017 and Phase Two completes on 3 April 2018, but SoCC’s are dated March 2018 and Consultation on SoCC’s is still in progress.

• I was confused by receiving files named “EA1N” / “EA2 SoCC FINAL signed off.pdf” if these are still drafts and under review and the printed copies of Statement of Community Consultation (EA1N), dated March 2018 and available at the March Information Days would appear to be Final Versions. Therefore I have an impression that this is some kind of retrospective and fake consultation just for the sake of formality?

• Provisional decisions on where to locate Substations and tranches of cabling seem to be running ahead of the Consultation schedule. For example, although the two Projects are clearly already favouring the western Zones and have already informed our local parish councils that it is planning its preferred route crossing Aldeburgh Road near Fitches Lane, Aldringham, there has been no Consultation on any of this during Phase One or Phase Two.

• Re: Para 34 - Phase Two Consultation and Para 39 - Phase Two Consultation: these paragraphs should specify which aspects of Infrastructure are to be consulted on at each Consultation Phase. In practice, this has led to the illogicality of seeking Consultees’ views on Substation Zones in Phase Two and Cable Tranche routes in Phase Three. From a resident’s point of view it can be difficult to consider these in isolation from each other.

• The Phase Two Feedback Form is over simplistic, asks assumptive and leading questions (Questions 6 and 7) and provides no structure within which to comment on the merits and demerits of each of the seven potential Substation Zones. See attached example Feedback Form.

My full response to Phase 2 Consultation and Information Days held in Southwold, Leiston and Thorpeness

I feel SPR, as just one of a number of companies / consortia planning to connect offshore power lines into the coast between Sizewell and Thorpeness, is not in a position to address key issues regarding the placement of Substations and large tracts of underground power lines. Further, a number of apparently ill thought through constraints would seem to have been imposed on SPR forcing it to propose environmentally unacceptable power installations inland and well away from the already industrialised coast at Sizewell.

I feel the Planning Inspectorate should be aware that central coordination (probably at Government level) is desperately needed if Suffolk's inland landscape and environment is not to be for ever blighted. I would hope you agree that the Planning Inspectorate as the 'Planning Authority' (at least for EA1N and EA2) has a major part to play in that and in helping ensure that local as well as national interests are protected.

You can find a fuller explanation in my full response to Phase 2 Consultation (attached).
I hope this email and its attachments can be of some assistance, providing the local residents' viewpoint at this critical stage for these two major infrastructure projects.
Dear Mr Halford,

Thank you for your email and the attachments in relation to the above projects, and raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your email.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees’ behalf and we are therefore not in a position to supervise the statutory consultation process conducted by the Applicant.

I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being considered and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your Local Authority (LA) and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered when the LA provides its comments to the Inspectorate on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The LA’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process.

The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects, including the potential Substation Zones.

The process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes:

Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others

At the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially:

Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation

Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage you as an individual and/or on behalf of the Parish Council are in position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the local communities in and around Aldringham that you have mentioned in your email.

We have also published a document 'Section 47 - Community Consultation - Frequently Asked Questions' regarding Pre-application consultation which may address some of your queries. However, please note that it is for the Applicant to decide how to carry out non-statutory and statutory consultation, and there is no statutory requirement under PA2008 for the Applicant to consult on the content of a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC).

With regard to the Scoping Opinions issued by the Inspectorate on 20 December 2017, on investigating the matter I can assure you that the scoping consultation response was received within the time period and was taken into account on preparation of the Opinions. Unfortunately a clerical error has occurred on preparation of the Appendices to the East Anglia Two Scoping Opinion, meaning that Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council were not listed as a respondee and the ‘pdf’ file of the letter was not reproduced in the Appendix. We cannot amend a Scoping Opinion once it has been published; however, thank you for drawing this to our attention. We will of course take steps to avoid a reoccurrence of this error. Scoping is an early part of the pre-application process and hopefully my comments above are useful in explaining how you can be involved at pre-application and going forward should the application be accepted for examination.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

William R Halford

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Scottish Power Renewables - Scottish Power Renewables

Query regarding the pre-application consultation
Thank you for your letter of 10 April 2018 raising concerns regarding the pre-application consultation process for the proposed East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects.

As the projects have not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate), the Inspectorate has no formal powers to intervene on consultees behalf. I would therefore encourage you to again contact the developer directly to make your concerns heard as the Applicant has a statutory duty to take your views into account. However, if you feel that your comments are not being taken into account and you need further information, I would advise you to write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct is consultation properly. Your comments will be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes his/ her decision whether to accept the application for examination.

Should the application for the Development Consent Order (DCO) be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community and provide information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The Applicant has scheduled further statutory consultation in June 2018 as per their Statement of Community Consultation, and as part of the DCO process, the Applicant is required to have a regard to all consultation responses which should be later provided in the Consultation Report as part of the DCO application. During the statutory consultation period, the Applicant has said it intends to provide more detailed information on the proposed projects.

The process under the PA 2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications. During the examination of an application the Examining Authority (ExA) has a duty to take into account all matters assessed by the Applicant in the Environmental Statement and may ask additional questions as required.

Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process.

More information is provided in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice notes Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others, and at the current pre-application stage we would recommend especially Advice note 8.1. Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation and Advice Note 8.2. How to register to participate in an Examination.

By submitting a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage, the Parish Councils will be in a position to highlight particular planning matters such as effects on the road infrastructure that you have mentioned in your email.

A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will also be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and local authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation.

Giles de Bertodano

See attached query
See attached response

P Dorcey

Project update meeting 25 January 2018
See attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewables - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewables

Please see attached meeting note
Please see attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewable

Project update meeting
Please see attached note

Scottish Power Renwables (UK) Ltd - Mandy King

Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

Mandy King

Project update meeting
See attached meeting note

Mandy King

Evidence Plan Steering Group Meeting
See attached meeting note

Scottish Power Renewables - Mandy King

Inception meeting
Please see attached note

Mandy King