Olivia Brown
"Scottish Power Renewables have not undertaken sufficient objective research for their application in respect of the following 1. Locating all supporting infrastructure 'offshore' to prevent the destruction of the Suffolk countryside The technology exists to do this and the seas are shallow enough to facilitate. 2. Where, on technical grounds NOT cost, it is not possible to locate developments offshore they have not fully investigated brownfield sites such Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft both of which would benefit substantially from investment and regeneration. If the Planning Inspectorate does not reject this application. they and Government will be presiding over legacy of destruction in Suffolk."

Robert Browne
"Dear Sir's My interest in these projects is in the fact that I live very close to the proposed development area. According to drawings I have seen this would be not more than 20 meters. My primary concern is that Scottish Power Renewables has failed explore the possibilities of working with other players in the wind farm industry. There by reducing the need for numerous cables and substation littering an area designated as being of outstanding natural beauty, and saving considerable cost. I support renewable energy but there needs to be much more joined up thinking."

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

Karen Mountford
"I understand that we will be having a large number of heavily laden lorries using the B1122. I walk along part of this road and back twice a day. THERE IS NO FOOTWAY AND AS I AM (Redacted) I CANNOT USE THE STEEP VERGE. I have to walk along the roadside and I am VERY concerned about my safety."

Michael Barnard
"Impact of the development on visual and ecological issues"

Theresa Tollemache
"There must be a review of a more sustainable strategy for on shore connection from the off shore Wind Turbines off the east anglian coast and indeed any coastal sites. The environmental disruption of building gigantic Sub Stations on open agricultural land adjacent to a village with cable dug over AONB land, as is the case at Friston, totally undermines the benefits that off shore energy brings. Norfolk and Suffolk have the most beautiful and recognised scenery embracing wetlands and coastal habitats and should be preserved for ever. Not only for the habitat that thrives but also the people who live in these areas and benefit from our most prolific industry, tourism which brings 8 million tourists a year to our area around Aldeburgh and Snape. The disruption of 700 construction lorries a day will clog our small country roads and make a simple journey into a nightmare traffic jam for years to come. The off shore Ring Main or Brown field sites should be the considered way to bring cables to their destination. I am writing to object to the SRP Planning application for several reasons. It is wholly unacceptable to build a structure the size of Wembley Stadium next to an ancient village in unspoilt countryside on agricultural land. the noise will be unbearable to live with. 11 klm of cable trenches to reach this site have to be dug over AONB land and the whole complex will destroy the local fragile environment including the passage of migrating birds as well as the indigenous population of flora, fauna and birds. The narrow country roads will not be able to sustain the heavy traffic, 700 lorries per day. Locals, tourist (who provide hugely to the local economy), emergency services will be disrupted hugely by blockages and traffic jams for years to come. This is absolutely the wrong site for up to 7 sub stations and the disruption for up to 12 years will ruin the area and the lives of those who live in the vicinity. Brown field sites and or the Ring Main must be considered."

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

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

Tony Morley
"SPR received permission go use the new Bawdsey to Bramford cable route and SPR should be instructed to use that facility instead of destroying a large area of Suffolk. The Consultation process has been seriously flawed with no representation from National Grid - or information on their plans - and a complete lack of information on noise, pollution, building works etc. The consultations did not include any mention of the proposed sub stations for National Grid Ventures or the additional cable excavations required. It now appears that our village of Friston could be completely encircled by the construction of cable routes for up to 7 years! There is no justification for choosing a site right next to a village. The proposed buildings would completely dominate and overlook our small village - a development as large as Wembley stadium right next to a medieval church and a village of 150 houses! The proposed site is on prime agricultural land whereas there are plenty of alternative sites on poor or brown land - such as the Bentwaters airfield which could easily accommodate all the current and future onshore installations. Any substation would produce a very disturbing humming noise affecting all residents as well as considerable light pollution in a quiet and light pollution free village. Friston already suffers from flash flooding. The area, of over 30 acres for just the first phase of the proposed development of buildings and concreted hard standings, would considerably increase the risk of more serious flooding, The proposed holding tanks would not be sufficient to contain all the water after very heavy rainfall. The village suffered flooding with damage to homes in both October and November 2019. The construction and traffic noise and air and dust pollution during the long construction periods for the cable laying and building the substations will damage health. SPR's choice of the Friston site did not even take into account the adverse effects on the local population. The road infrastructure to and from Friston and the surrounding villages is completely inadequate for the large number of HGVs that would be required and this would seriously affect local residents, the farming industry, local industry and business and could decimate the vital holiday trade during the 10 years or more forecast for the construction of the various projects. In response to the protests about the wholesale destruction of East Anglia by proposed onshore substations and other buildings the UK Energy Minister has announced that BEIS will consider the proposal to install an Offshore Ring Main to avoid building onshore installations. THERE SHOULD THEREFOR BE A MORATORIUM ON THE CURRENT FRISTON AND NORFOLK SUBSTATION PROPOSALS UNTIL AN OFFSHORE RING MAIN HAS BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED. THE DUTCH HAVE SUCCESSFULLY OPERATED SUCH A RING MAIN SINCE 2013 SO THE TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS TYPE OF FACILITY ARE ALREADY PROVEN"

Trudy Klauber
"I want to ask how many lorries will use the Leiston Road between Aldeburgh and Leiston because the road is narrow and not sufficiently strong, and the traffic will be a considerable hazard for cyclists, ramblers and local residents walking dogs. There is no continuous pavement for pedestrians."

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

NATS
"NATS has assessed the proposal and anticipates an impact on its infrastructure; specifically that the turbines will be detected by NATS’s Cromer radar. It is anticipated that the radar detection of the turbines will lead to substantial “clutter” appearing on Air Traffic Controllers’ displays. Accordingly, the anticipated impact is deemed to be unacceptable to NATS’s operations and at this time, NATS objects to the application. Notwithstanding the objection however, NATS has been and remains positively engaged with SPR (UK) around the need for and identification of an acceptable mitigation scheme. While a solution has not been identified at this time, through its work with its stakeholders and the Applicant, NATS believes that a solution will be forthcoming in order to address the impact of the proposal and thus mitigate the effect of the turbines. NATS will continue to work on the identification of a suitable mitigation scheme, and once a tangible solution has been identified and agreed with the Applicant, it will submit a further representation. I trust this clarifies our position and is acceptable to the Inspector. Should there be any queries at any time, do not hesitate to contact us."

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

Pat Dorcey
"I would like to register my interest as since Nov2017 my life has bee in turmoil. Firstly to stumble across a project of this magnitude whilst attending a parish council meeting on a simple planning issue is in itself showing that the company are not engaging with the public in the correct manner. Surely there should be engagement at the onset to allow interested parties to become familiar with the impending development. I and many others received a communication on the 9th Dec 2017 from Savills which content was alarming and in fact they were removed by SPR shortly after,again SPR were not showing due diligence to have allowed this to happen. All through to the present time there has been shortfalls and I am going to be hugely impacted by this development should it take place. The cable route that is also a haul road will be approx 16 metres from my property and used for the entire time of the build which will pose a huge threat to health as the land to be used is of a very sandy medium and my husband and two other neighbours suffer with(Redacted). The area is AONB and we are privileged to have red deer ,turtle doves, nightingales, sky larks all will be badly affected by the disruption. The project is now set to be brought forward by three years which has only been announced this week ! To my mind SPR are not consulting in a correct matter and therefore should not be allowed to proceed"

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

Michael Jones
"The area of Suffolk coastal and Friston in particular is totally unsuitable for this proposal being in attractive rural countryside which is a major tourist area. The site proposed next to Friston will require large trench excavation over a very long distance causing huge disruption and spoiling of a large area of Suffolk The site regularly floods the village which will become worse when built upon. The village church, which is grade 2* listed, is among the nearest buildings. Next to the church are three grade 2 listed thatched cottages dating from 15th century. There will be noise generated by the transformers. The substations are huge and will dominate the village. The rural road network is unable to handle the heavy major traffic. An offshore ring main is a much better option as I believe there will be many more projects. Site is totally unsuitable destroying attractive countryside and a major tourist area. Grade 2* and grade 2 star buildings very close. Major village flooding in Friston Noise from the transformers Major excavation needed over long distance. Roads unable to cope Many more projects to be in the area"

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

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

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

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

Suffolk County Council
"Representation to be submitted separately due to length of representation as discussed."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carole Morley
"This proposed development would completely destroy the village of Friston, it would tower over the village, the noise would affect all residents, the current flooding problem would be hugely increased and the narrow roads would not support hgv's or the construction and running periods. The buildings would face a medieval church and a number of historical buildings. The proposed site is valuable and beautiful farmland that should be protected."

Simon Flunder
"I am a resident of Southwold and I am concerned about the visual effect of the Wind farms on the seascape from the top of Gun Hill.Southwold and the immediate area has benefitted from a clear horizon and in the ANOB it has created an important tourist industry. The height of the proposed 300 m turbines are higher than the Shard in London and they are only 20 miles off the coast.The impact of the wind farms will have an adverse effect on the tranquility and wilderness of the magnificent natural views.I am also concerned about the effect of building the substations in Friston and the congestion of the traffic on the A12."

Simon Elwell
"I am a sailor based out of Harwich harbour, frequently sailing through the area of the new windfarms. Sailing vessels are not fast (we plan passages at 6.5knots but can frequently be slower if winds are light). A detour around a windfarm of 2-3 miles can add 30 minutes to a passage - so my representation is to please: 1. Ensure that simple through passage is available for leisure craft 2. Ensure that during construction work safe passage up and down the coast is available 3. Ensure that windfarms both under construction and working are well lit 4. Ensure that guard boats communicate clearly with non-professional leisure boat sailors"

Sarah Courage
"I strongly object to this application because of the massive industrialisation that will desecrate this beautiful, unspoilt area of East Suffolk. No account has been taken of the cumulative impact on the environment, and heavy HGV traffic on the local roads. The proposed plans for a campus for 2,400 workers close to Minsmere and Eastbridge will bring noise, air and light pollution and a massive increase of traffic. Soil heaps up to 10 storeys high will cause serious dust pollution affecting the AONB, Minsmere and Sizewell marshes. This must not be a road led transport strategy but a marine led strategy to avoid up to 900 HGV daily clogging the roads making it impossible for local residents, agricultural vehicles and emergency vehicles to use the roads. I object to the size of the proposed sub station at Friston. It is too big and too close to the village and the grade II church and Grade II War memorial. It is too damaging for the environment producing years of dust, light pollution and noise and ending rural tranquility. Massive cable trenches from the coast to Friston resulting in thousands of HGV movements daily. These HGV's will make normal life impossible for local residents, emergency vehicles. and agricultural traffic. The thriving tourist industry would be adversely affected causing loss of jobs in local pubs and hotels. Yours sincerely Sarah Courage"

Corporation of Trinity House
"Dear Sir / Madam We refer to the above application for development consent in respect of East Anglia TWO Offshore Wind Farm. Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development would have on navigation within Trinity House’s area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order throughout the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [email protected] and to Mr Steve Vanstone at [email protected] Yours faithfully Russell Dunham Legal Advisor Corporation of Trinity House Trinity House Tower Hill London EC3N 4DH"

Mary E Gwynne
"It is impossible to believe that your proposition to destroy the beautiful area of Suffolk that has the lovely village of Friston in it, is actually a viable idea. Where on earth did this completely crazy idea come from? How many people's lives are going to be ruined in pursuit of energy, yet again. Has Suffolk not borne enough of a burden for energy provision? There are sites that are infinitely more suitable - and Friston could not be any less suitable - such as the site at Sizewell, which is currently doing nothing at all, except waiting to be developed into the site you propose. Our roads are small, and driving difficult, how on earth are we going to take any more traffic, the size of which beggars belief. This isn't a wealth county and reliant on tourism. How many tourists are going to come to a massive building site? Please reconsider this barmy idea."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vivienne Saunders
"I am an independent who objects to SPR plans to carve a 7km cable route from Thorpeness to Friston, and to destroy the Woodland in Friston with an unsightly Substation. The fragile coastline in Thorpeness is an unsuitable area to bring the cables ashore. The area is a designated AONB, and a tourist area, which creates jobs and businesses for the local community. It is also a good wildlife habitat, which will be destroyed by the construction and drilling of the proposed cable route. The whole area from Thorpeness, Aldringham,Knodishall and Friston is known to the Suffolk Flood Team as an area which is prone to flooding. Therefore, it is totally unsuitable for Electricity Cables to be buried in a flood area. The infrastructure around Thorpeness and Friston is unsuitable for large Construction Traffic, because the roads are rural single lane tracks or 'B' roads. They will become dangerous for local people, especially cyclists and pedestrians, if they are used to transport the heavy machinery needed for the proposed Substations and Cables which are required for SPR EA2 Windfarm. The creation of jobs connected to the EA2 Windfarm will be in Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Harwich. Therefore, the local jobs in Tourism will be destroyed by the construction of the cable route and Substations, but there will not be any benefit to the local area. The plans were passed in 2014 for the cable route to come ashore at Bawdsey , but SPR changed the transmitter. Therefore, it has become a problem which SPR has created. There must be Brownfield sites in Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Harwich which are more suitable. These areas will benefit from the creation of jobs, therefore it would be more appropriate for the construction to take place in those areas, rather than destroying Thorpeness and Friston. It is totally unacceptable to industrialise an AONB on the Suffolk Heritage Coast because of an error made by Engineers in SPR."

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

Debbie Klussmann
"I am deeply concerned about current plans for renewable energy in our region on greenfield sites. I want developements to take place on brownfield sites only."

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

Mrs B Strowger
"I OBJECT TO THIS AS I HAVE LIVESTOCK I HAVE TO GET TO ALONG THIS TRACK AT SIZEWELL WHICH I HAVE TO FEED AND WATER. I HOPE I AM NOT GOING TO BE PREVENTED IN GETTING TO THEM ALONG THIS TRACK AS HEAVY TRAFFIC ALONG HERE WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE AS IT WOULD BECOME CHURNED UP, THIS WOULD THEN BE A CASE FOR THE RSPCA AS IT WOULD CAUSE UNNESSCCARY SUFFERING TO ANIMALS AS THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE FED OR WATERED. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HORSE RIDERS AROUND THIS AREA AS IT IS A QUIET PLACE TO TAKE HORSES. I HOPE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BECOME A DANGEROUS PLACE FOR THEM TO TAKE HORSES. MY HORSES HAVE LIVED HERE OVER 20 YEARS AND ONE IS A RESCUE HORSE WHO IS VERY NERVOUS THE MAIN REASON IT CAME HERE WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A SAFE AND QUIET ENVIRONMENT. I HOPE THAT THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS ANIMAL IS NOW NOT GOING TO BE A WASTE OF TIME. THIS POOR ANIMAL HAS NOT HAD THE BEST START IN LIFE IT IS NOW STARTING TO TURN A CORNER WE DONT NEED MACHINERY AND NOISE AROUND HERE TO SET HER BACK. ALSO IT COULD BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR RIDERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IF THESE ANIMALS GET SPOOKED AND COULD CAUSE A SEVERE ACCIDENT OR EVEN A FATALITY. ALSO NO WILDLIFE ARE TO BE MURDERED. NO VANDALISM TO THE COUNTRYSIDE. ALL TRACKS TO BE MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN WORKING PASSABLE ORDER. THE AREA IS TO BE KEPT AS PEACEFUL AS IT IS NOW. NO RUBBISH TO BLOW INTO MY FIELD AND CAUSE MY LIVESTOCK ANY HARM BY THEM EATING IT. ALSO TRACKS NEED TO BE KEPT OPEN FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND VETS. ALSO FIELDS NEED TO BE CHECKED FOR WAR TIME AMMUNITION AS I HAVE FOUND LIVE TANKER BULLETS IN MY FIELD AND TO CHECK ALL WATER SUPPLIES AS MY WATER SUPPLY COMES FROM A WELL."

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

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

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

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

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

Guy Philpotts
"very little information has come to my attention other than that given to other towns/parishes. The first I knew about the latest submissions was on attending a council meeting about a housing planning application which might have affected me & one of your representatives was there! I knew nothing about the noise survey done here,yet caroline cottage,yards from my house was informed.On your latest plans courtyard cottage is mentioned,but there's no such place at Ness House where you appear to have it.How much other "information" is as inaccurate? Siting of the trenches in the Sizewell area will have a devastating effect on the wild life,especially summer visitors such as turtle doves,nightjars & nightingales,as well as resident skylarks & woodlarks & the 4 legged population.While fields may be returned to their original state fairly quickly after the trenches are filled in,it will take decades to reinstate woodland & hedges. How can you be allowed to concrete oover vast areas of what is supposed to be protected AONB?"

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

Louise Fincham
"We have lived at Clouting's Farm for 26 years. We wish to object in the strongest terms to SPR's plans to build the onshore infrastructure for its EA2 Offshore wind farm in the fields behind our house. We support the representations being made by SASES and Friston PC. The site that SPR have chosen is in pristine open countryside. Surrounded by Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings and the medieval village of Friston. SPR have paid no attention to the objections raised by residents, parish, town and local councils and our MP. No modern design techniques have been used to try to produce a "low impact" design. A substation in Rampion W Sussex was built to a maximum height of 8m. We have been frustrated by the lack of accountability of National Grid. National Grid decided that the power generated by EA1N and EA2 should connect in "the Sizewell area". National Grid then left it up to SPR to find a connection point apparently anywhere along the pylon route. A flawed RAG assessment ended with a decision to build near Friston. The RAG assessment was skewed to give the answer to a decision that had already been made, red warnings that were applied to buildings at other sites were not applied to the Grade II listed building near Friston. In the plans submitted to the planning inspector the village of Friston has been airbrushed out of the picture. Documents appear and then disappear on the SPR website making it very difficult for residents to keep track of what the plans are. The cumulative affect of at least 6 different energy infrastructure projects is not being acknowledged. Creating a 83 acre industrialised zone in the middle of open countryside cannot be the way to proceed with Green energy production. SPR have already carved a 30km long 50m wide trench from Bawdsey to Bramford but inexplicably downgraded the trench so it apparently cannot now house the cables from EA1N or EA2. The village of Friston and this whole precious area of East Suffolk is to be sacrificed because of flawed decision making and bad planning. Benjamin Britten would be turning in his grave. The well known and internationally renowned Snape Maltings concert and music school lies less than 3 miles from the proposed site. Visitors to seaside towns like Aldeburgh and Thorpness will be put off from by the traffic, noise and light pollution that will be produced. The coastline where landfall will be made is AONB land and is supposedly protected. AONB land will be severed, this cannot be right. In his autobiography "Master of None" published in 2009, Major Douglas Goddard described "life on the farm". Major Goddard spent his youth working at Clouting's Farm and described walking every Sunday from Clouting's Farm to the Methodist Church in Knodishall. He walked along the ancient footpath (P6) that forms the boundary of Knodishall and Friston parishes. It is a pilgrim way and it is to be destroyed by SPR's plans. The substations will cut right through the footpath and the path is to be re-routing looping around the substation and then running along parallel to Grove road. The contrast with the existing path that runs pleasantly from our house through fields to the village of Friston could not be more stark. The area is totally unsuited to major development. Quite apart from the rural nature of the site itself the roads are little more than country lanes, two cars cannot pass let alone HGVs and associated construction traffic. Mill Road and Grove road are both part of the national cycle route and are used by the annual Suffolk Churches "Ride and Stride" event which has now been running for 30 years. Cyclists are not going to be able to use these roads when they are full of construction traffic and even after construction no one is going to want to cycle past an industrial wasteland humming with substation noise. The village of Friston will be split in two, one side of the B1121 being an industrial site and the other side marooned and cut off from the Church and village hall. Friston is well within the Sizewell "evacuation zone" and yet no assessment has been made as to the safety impact of having narrow country lanes clogged up with construction traffic. There is also no consideration as to the security risk associated with having a large percentage of the nations electricity running through such a rural and remote site. Electricity substations are vulnerable targets and would be hard to protect in a setting such as Friston. SPR deny that the substation will emit a humming noise and yet the exact same design up and running at Bramford produces an audible and recorded hum. SPR make meaningless concessions like saying they will reduce the height of the harmonic filters from 21m to 18m, this is achieved by removing a noise proofing cladding so we simply swap a height reduction for more noise pollution. Everyone who looks at the site knows that this is a bad plan, it will provide nothing beneficial to the area. It will destroy our agricultural land and our tourist industry. The plans cannot be viewed in isolation. The inclusion of a National Grid interconnector shows that if permission is given to build on this site we will be turning this whole ancient and precious landscape into an industrial zone. Please come and visit the site and see for yourselves, there must be a better way of doing this."

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

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

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

Juliet Ballamy
"Put a ring main out at sea, DO NOT destroy our coastline."

Margaret Fife
"I have lived in beautiful, peaceful Friston for 14 years. With this proposed project not only will we be living far too close to a huge and ugly construction of ironmongery but we will be unable to enjoy the countryside and in particular walking across the fields and footpaths. We are told that there will be high security lighting on 24 hours a day which will be intrusive and unacceptable and there will be a dull tonality from the transformers and their cooling fans. There should be NO discernible noise from the substations in any form by day or night. With noise and light, nocturnal animals will be greatly affected and indeed some may disappear. Of great concern is our loss of equity and financial implications. Houses here have retained their value in recent years, but we fear that prices will drop considerably and arising from that financial plans for our ageing population will be under threat. At present there is inadequate drainage infrastructure in Friston and with the recent flooding we have experienced serious problems. The provision of "drainage pools" at the site will pose an even greater threat as their drainage route is right into the centre of the village. We totally support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and indeed some of these comments may have been made by them already. However, I do urge you to consider my views. Margaret Fife I have lived in Friston for 14 years and enjoyed a peaceful country life. I fully support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and doubtless some of the comments I make will have been made already. Friston is a lively village, full of community spirit and a great place to live. Walking the footpaths along or beside fields is now threatened and the visual impact of a HUGE construction of ironmongery will sever our tranquil and deeply rural countryside. Mitigation planting is questionable as it will take the minimum of twenty years for anything to grow substantially or indeed hide such a construction. We fear the security lighting (which may be motion sensitive) will not only obliterate the night sky but will disrupt chase away any nocturnal creatures. Similarly the tonality of the transformers and their cooling fans is a cause for concern. There should be no discernible noise or light from the substations or other buildings by day or night. At present there is inadequate drainage to cope with flooding in the village, and the proposed "drainage pools" give cause for major concern as their drainage route runs directly into the centre of the village. Please take note of all these comments in your deliberations. Margaret Fife"

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

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

Jane Linford
"Living close to the proposed development and enjoying walking and cycling in the area I am very concerned at the blight and disruption that could affect the area"

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

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

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

Colin Roxby
"The proposed siting of the sub-station at Friston is completely unsuitable for the following reasons:- Over 80 acres of very productive arable land will be lost. The loud humming noises (tonality) from the transformers, fans and harmonic filters will cause annoyance and health problems for residents. The construction 20 metres high right on the very edge of Friston will destroy the rural aspect from the village green, the Grade II listed church and homes. Light and noise pollution plus loss of habitat will damage wildlife. The access roads to the site are narrow, winding single track roads will few passing places and no pedestrian space and very tight corners. Widening or realignment is impossible owing to the close proximity of properties. This will make access for both construction and operational traffic extremely hazardous. The area is prone to flooding. The unsightliness of the sub-station will deter tourists, resulting in loss of livelihood tin the area. The cable corridor will cause irreparable damage to an AOPNB. The repositioning of footpaths will cause much inconvenience and danger to pedestrians Houses will become unsaleable and Friston will become a ghost village."

Iken Parish Council
"Iken Parish Council are concerned about large areas of outstanding and natural beauty being given over for industrial building; that our country lanes will not withstand the traffic and maintenance costs having to be absorbed by local councils; that building on the doorstep of homes will devalue properties; that the risk of flooding from the river will render the building of industrial units inefficient anyway."

Mrs C A Morling
"Regarding the application of EA2 I notice from the Environmental Statement of the DCO application that flaws are apparent. Living at (Redacted), (Redacted), I would like to point out that this property has not been cited as one of the nearest receptors for noise assessment. Our property is affected on all sides by various SPR proposals. I am concerned that the proposed Haul Road,planned to be built on the field next to us to the east, along with the cable route in the field to the south and used for the entiretime of construction will have serious detrimental effects on our health and wellbeing, with light, vibration , noise and dust from extremely sandy soil. I am concerned about the amount of heavy traffic coming along Lovers Lane to the junction at the northern end of Bridleway 28 which is access to our property.This will have serious safety issues and increased pollution, noise and vibration. I am concerned that Bridleway 28 situated immediately next, to the west of our property, which is our access and for part, is our responsibility to maintain, will be used for 'pre-construction vehicles' thereby surrounding us with more disturbance. I am concerned that the proposed CCS will be sited fairly close to where we live, in fact in the field at the end of Bridleway 28. This will bring with it additional issues. noise from the generators, light pollution, constant activity and security issues ti this quiet rural area. Finally I am concerned that Sizewell Gap Road is the only evacuation route. In the event of an emergency at Sizewell Power Station. the result could be utter chaos. More than anything else I am concerned that this property, along with us, its owners, seem to have been completely forgotten about and totally disregarded by SPR."

Nicholas Russell
"Firstly I should say that I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parsh Council Please listen to a sincere plea from someone who is sympathetic to the needs of the country to have more power from renewables in the future, so not just a NIMBY. The cumulative effect of all that is being planned is too much for any community to withstand, let alone one of rural beauty and designated an AONB. The only access road used by SPR and National Grid will be from Friday Street A1094 and then left on to the B1069 at Blackheath corner to Leiston. There will be 3000 HGV movements per six day week for a minimum of 3 years This does not include ancillary vehicles or work force traffic which will be in the region of 300 people per day. A significant proportion of this traffic will proceed into Aldeburgh and turn left on the mini roundabout to Leiston. . We are aware of SEVEN energy projects (six substations/ interconnectors at Friston and one giant nuclear twin-reactor at Sizewell C) constructed in a tiny part of East Suffolk over a period of 10-12 years will devastate and cause permanent damage to the countryside. . Cables landing on Thorpeness beach - a fragile, eroding and constantly shifting shoreline, where only two years ago a man walking his dog died from a sudden cliff collapse. · Miles of cable laid in wide trenches, which will be created by excavating pieces of unique heathland and AONB, one of the rarest natural habitats in the UK from Thorpeness through Aldringham & Knodishall to Friston. · Tourism is the main provider of local jobs. The tourism economy is fragile, like the environment it is not guaranteed. Traffic congestion may become so bad as to make other destinations more attractive. Why would visitors decide to come here if the roads are clogged with construction vehicles? Not just 'A' roads but rural lanes will be used as rat runs by contract workers. I am an engineer in the energy sector and have been astonished by the patronising attitude of the consultation process. Senior management from SPR and their clean energy consultancies have been “ticking all the boxes”, by carrying out the consultation meetings as required by Planning. Yet, these consultations are a sham, produce little or no significant change. They are designed to wear down the inhabitants till they don’t protest any more, but at the same time make each and every one of us feel that it’s a “done deal” – nothing will change. I have even made suggestions to lessen the impact of the substation at Friston, but have been told that they won’t put it forward even as a suggestion. Time and time again we point out the same fundamental problems as above but feel we are just “patted on the head” and told we don’t really understand….. well we do and it is completely shameful what is being suggested. This should not be allowed to be bulldozed through and there should be a Public Enquiry to ensure that the if this goes ahead, that it is done properly with the minimal amount of damage and the the substation should be sunk below ground level and screened. I understand there are even more windfarms to come. Where will their cables land and how will the substations not impact the environment? Regards Nicholas Russell"

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

Reginald Herring
"I support the representations made by SASES and Friston Parish Council and want you hm to be considered as part of my representation. I strongly oppose the building of ENO 10078 and its location next to Friston village and the other EA1N. I feel the two industrial scale installations will have a combined impact which will fundamentally change my life and village life forever. The main reasons for my opposition are summarised below: The scale of this site and the buildings are out of all proportion to our small rural village and the surrounding agricultural area. This development will overwhelm physically the local area and will impinge psychologically on myself. I choose Friston as a place to retire for its calm, quiet and physical beauty all of this will be destroyed by this industrial sized complex. The noise and light from the construction , over an extensive period, and its ongoing use will change the quiet and dark village completely. My use of the area around the site will be negatively impacted upon, walks disrupted, viewpoints spoiled and rural sounds drowned out. The huge increase in construction traffic will change my use of roads and access to local services, shopping and neighbours. The flood risk, already not well managed ,N.B. recent flooding, will increase with this significant change of land use. The change of the area from rural/ agricultural to one dominated by this industrial site ( and the other adjacent site) will impact on the value of my property. The removal of established habitats will lessen animal and bird life. The proposed mitigating measures are inadequate in terms of visual impact and noise reduction and must be seriously enhanced. The limited changes to narrow local roads for construction and future upkeep of the site will impact on my access and ability to enjoy the area. The scar that is the cable corridor from the coast the Friston will change villages and rural land use forever and must bring into the question the choice of a area so far from the coast into question. This will be a huge blot on our landscape and change all lives negatively forever. Please reconsider."

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

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

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

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

Mark Clark
"The connection to the grid has not been thought through properly. The connection to the grid should be made at Sizewell."

Dorothy Mary Walker
"Concerns about the impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty, the effect on tourism that is significant to the area's residents and workers and the need for strategic planning for the future"

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

Shauna Scales
"1. Light pollution - loss of dark sky 2. Noise and air pollution in the area 3. Increased traffic of heavy vehicles on small local roads 4. Damage to cliffs at Thorpeness 5. Disturbing natural habitat of birds - migrating and indigenous."

Southwold and Reydon Society
"Our Society has almost 400 members who are residents of Southwold and Reydon. The Society is concerned about the effects of the construction phase upon the locality and the long-term effects of the completed project upon the landscape and the environment."

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

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

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

Catherine Walker
"I am writing in support of the SASES & Friston Parish Council case regarding industrial development at Friston. The development would change a rural village in the Suffolk Coastal area into an industrial site. The quality of life in this area is exceptionally good, as evidenced by the number of people leaving the city to live here, and the longevity of those who live here. There are more industrialised ares that could be used; the existing plan to route wind power from Bawdsey to Bramford, around Sizewell or the Lowestoft area. The road system around Friston is totally unsuited to heavy lorries - the impact of HGV's travelling in both directions would be disastrous. Already there have been many crashes & near misses on the A12 bend at Farnham. With no dual carriageway roads north of Ipswich, apart from around Woodbridge, this area is not suited to industrial development. While I do not dispute the need for renewable energy, what is the point if it ruins the countryside?"

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

Josephine Beedell
"To object on the grounds of proximity to Friston. To object to the destruction of the Suffolk countryside To draw attention to the the unhappiness and effect on the mental and physical health of the residents living in this area To draw attention to the loss of tourism that is inevitable"

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

Luigi Beltrandi
"Dear Sirs Re: East Anglia 2 application (Redacted) I would like to register my objection to the proposals submitted for approval to the inspectorate by Scottish Power Renewables. Friston is a residential village with primarily an aging population surrounded by farmland and farming infrastructure devoid of industrial / commercial areas or brownfield sites. The proposed site is just outside, nestled between two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty with no discernible difference between the quality of its landscape and that of the two AONB’s. The proposals would bring a massive industrial complex /energy hub development within 250 metres of the village of Friston on agricultural land that has been farmed for generations, irreversibly changing the character of the village. Perverse siting of the development. It is positioned on the village side of ancient woodland, consequently it will be devoid of any mature screening. The position of this ancient woodland forces its siting in proximity to Friston. The development will be within the setting of several listed buildings. Given the proximity and scale of the development it will have an overwhelming visual impact on the village which cannot be mitigated by landscape design. Parts of the village of Friston are currently susceptible to flooding the development will have an adverse impact on the drainage system of the village The scale of the development similar in size to that of the existing village will bring unacceptable levels of light pollution in areas which are currently free from artificial light. The proximity of the development to the village will bring unacceptable levels of background noise decremental to the wellbeing of the residents. Their wellbeing has is and will continue to be adversely affected. The development will cut across historical rights of way which cannot be diverted onto countryside but onto roads. Proposed future developments are currently being considered for interconnectors and the development of Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station. The cumulative impact of these developments has not been considered or addressed in the application. The space requirements for some of these future developments will turn further farmland on the plateau between Leiston and Saxmundham into an industrial area irreversibly altering its character. Scottish Power’s proposals are being submitted as two separate DCO applications with an uncertain programme consequently a sequential delivery will cause disruption for decades. National Grid are also greatly involved in the selection of this site. Advantageous financial must terms have been offered to for the grid connection in this location, without any consideration to the impact on landscape, Friston or residents. The site selection process was flawed at the very last minute an alternative site was proposed. The alternative was not properly analysed it was purely brought in to pay lip service to the objections being received. The massive cable route will pass through an area of outstanding natural beauty and across a fragile cliff and coats line creating a permanent scar across an ancient landscape. Luigi Beltrandi"

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

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

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

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

Christine Munden
"I write to object to the proposed building of EA2 substation by SPR at Friston. I am in full support of the representations being made about this project by Friston Parish Council, Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) Groups. I accept that renewable energy is the way forward, but I do not agree that vast areas of our valuable countryside should be destroyed to achieve this. I live approximately ½ mile north of the proposed substation site, and I want to raise the following concerns of the construction at Friston: • Friston is a small rural village and the impact of this development so close to it will be devastating. In the village there are several grade 11 listed buildings as well as St Mary’s church which dates back to the 14th Century. • There will be a loss of over 80 acres of grade 2 & 3 prime agricultural land taken up by this proposal. • Friston suffers from flooding and drainage issues which I feel have not been addressed by SPR. • SPR propose to remove about 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the substation site causing untold damage to the birds and animals in the area. • The area at present is naturally very dark at night with no light pollution - the project will impact the area greatly during construction with 24 hr security lighting and during operation with security / car park lighting possibly being motion sensitive. • The Harmonic Filters that SPR show in the plans will be 18 metres high, causing damaging visual impact, which I think is unacceptable. The noise produced by them will impact greatly on local residents, SPR do not show that these will be screened at all and noise will carry a considerable distance. • Looking at the mitigation planting proposed by SPR I do question the assurances that they make re adequate screening of the site. It will take many many years for the trees / hedges to reach a suitable height to screen the buildings (see SPR Visualisation at 15 yrs), and of course during the winter months the trees will be bare! • I live on Grove Road, this road is a narrow twisting road with no pedestrian footpath, no lighting or speed restrictions. It is used as a cut through to the surrounding villages / towns and by farm vehicles and any increase in traffic will i.e.by access to the proposed site, greatly impact this area. • SPR have not as I understand been in contact with EDF regarding the Sizewell Evacuation plan relating any disruption caused by this project – whether this is in relation to road closures or increased HGV traffic. • I do feel that these proposed projects should be nationally coordinated."

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

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

Linda Bradbeer
"I have lived in this part of the world for many years and love the countryside and the wild life it contains. The plans set out will devastate the ecosystem along with the local economy. There are more suitable options available, such as brownfield sites but they are more expensive. However profits cannot come above protecting not only our countryside but also our way of life and people's livelihoods."

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

Michael Hall
"Whilst fully supporting the nation's needs for sustainable electricity generation I strongly object to the plans of Scottish Energy to bring ashore the electricity generated off shore at Thorpeness and to then destroy a very valuable countryside by cutting across country to Friston and there establish a vast transmission station. Clearly there has been a total breakdown by government and planning authorities in joined up thinking and we the residents of Suffolk are being asked to sacrifice our beautiful AOB because no one has thought through the fact that whilst the North Sea provides a perfect and cheap location for the windfarms HOW DO WE GET THE POWER THEY GENERATE TO WHERE IT IS NEEDED? I understand that there is already a similar problem in Norfolk and the government can expect further battles in counties further North as the demand continues to grow. This is not just a Scottish Energy problem and I submit that it is a Government and it's subsidiary the National Grid's problem which they should have recognised and solved BEFORE selling expensive development contracts with many more in the pipeline. There is also a rumour of plans for a new supply from the continent to come ashore in the same area to add to the misery for years to come. It is my belief that the only reasonable solution in the short term is for the Government to insist that Sizewell despite its protestations be made to make room for these developments and then to look at other 'industrial' landfall sites such as Bradwell where National Grid Power lines already exist."

Michael Marion
"This will have huge negative impact on Friston & surrounding villages altering the landscape, wildlife & the quality of life for the mostly elderly population"

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

Sarah Munden
"I write to object to the proposed building of EA2 substation at Friston by SPR. I am in full support of the representations being made about this project by Friston Parish Council, Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) Groups. I accept that renewable energy is needed, but I do not agree that vast areas of our valuable countryside should be permanently destroyed to achieve this. I want to raise the following objections to the project:- • The proposed site is very close to the rural village of Friston which has several Grade 11 listed buildings one of which is extremely close to the site, which will completely change the character of the village and the surrounding countryside. • Recently in 2019 Friston suffered from flooding due mainly to field run off which I believe will be made worse by this project. SPR state clearly that there is a flood risk due to the development however they take no account of surface water flooding. • The permanent removal of circa 30 acres of wildlife habitat across the site will cause significant impact to the animals and birds which live in this area. • In these times of global warming the removal of mature trees and woodland from the site and along the cable route caused by the project, has not been taken into account in looking at the carbon imprint of the project. • The harmonic filters at the substation that SPR plan will be 18 metres high they will cause substantial visual impact, and SPR do not show that these filters will be screened at all, and I also believe that the noise from these filters will carry a long way and cause an impact on both the residents and wildlife in the area. • SPR claim there will be no “humming noise”, however there should be no discernible noise from the substation inside or outside of residential buildings – this should be proven by measurement • The mitigation planting by SPR around the substation site is questionable as can be seen from the visualisation examples where the substation can be clearly seen on some examples in 15 years’ time. This will be especially so during the winter periods when the trees will be bare. • The impact on tourism / local businesses where demand for holiday lets / B&B’s along with walkers / cyclists are likely to suffer as a result of the disruption and visual impact on the area."

Steven Munden
"I write to object to the proposed building of EA2 substation at Friston by SPR. I give my total support to the representations being made about this project by Friston Parish Council, Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) Groups. I accept that renewable energy is of great importance, but it should not be done in such a way that permanently destroys vast areas of our valuable countryside and ruins the outlook for many in the village of Friston and the surrounding area.. I object to the proposed development by Scottish Power on following grounds:- • The close proximity to the rural village of Friston which has several Grade 11 listed buildings one of which is extremely close to the substation site, and a 14th century church which will not be seen from a distance once the substation impairs the views, this will completely change the character of the village and the surrounding countryside. • Flooding occurs in the village and SPR state clearly that there is a higher flood risk due to the development however they take no proper account of surface water flooding. • The permanent removal of circa 30 acres of wildlife habitat and valuable farmland across the site will cause significant impact to the animals and birds which live in this area and farming yield. • The harmonic filters at the substation that SPR plan will be 18 metres high they will cause substantial visual impact, and SPR do not show that these filters will be screened at all. • Other substation designs have much lower profiles i.e. Rampion substation in West Sussex has almost nothing above 8m in height. • SPR claim there will be no “humming noise”, however I believe that there should be no discernible noise from the substation inside or outside of residential buildings. In addition I do not believe that SPR have taken atmospheric / weather conditions into account when determining noise levels and how far it will travel. • The mitigation planting by SPR around the substation site is highly questionable as can be seen from the visualisation examples where the substation can be clearly seen on some examples in 15 years’ time. Trees take a long time to establish and gain sufficient height to work. • The site area is in a natural dip in the land, which would facilitate a lower visual impact but I understand that SPR are planning to raise the level because of the flood risk therefore worsening the visual impact."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brigitte D'Angelo Turnbull
"? Concern of cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for huge substation up to 18m high with complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. Flooding progressively worsening with climate crisis ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland which the woodland trust says councils are ignoring guidance issued in 2018 which states permission for development should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost forever ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents. ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) - I understand it is possible to have a ring main at sea which could take the power direct to brownfield sites. It is ridiculous that the countryside can be lost forever in renewable energy plans - where is the overall plan for the future?"

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

David Bell
"I have been to Aldeburgh on a number of occasions for holidays and each time have been overwhelmed but its uniqueness and its unspoilt views and welcoming vibe. I am very unhappy to hear that due to potential compulsory purchasing of land leading towards the access to the town and beach, I feel that this will impact drastically upon its current pleasant views. The potential of heavy work traffic will not only be a major disruption to locals but would also negatively impact upon visitors and tourists. Surely it makes more sense to find another route rather than the risk of the town becoming a less attractive place for tourism, affecting the town's economy."

Edward King
"The location chosen for the proposed development by SPR is in the middle of ancient and unspoiled farmland and will change the nature of the area in perpetuity. There are a number of sites elsewhere on the East Coast which are both more suitable from an impact point of view, in that they are already developed or partially developed, and from the point of view of delivering the power generated to the consumer. The location suggested by SPR has been selected purely from the point of view of convenience in that it is close to the offshore wind generators, but this does not take into account the environmental impact of the scheme, not the fact that there are sites further south along the East coast where a development of this type will have much lower impact on the environment, on wildlife and on people."

Gail Bell
"Why spoil such a beautiful town of Aldeburgh by talk of compulsorily purchasing land to have access for the wind farms. There are alternative routes across country which could easily be used and without impacting on the town itself. I regularly visit Aldeburgh and it remains one of my favourite places for making me feel relaxed and able to wind down from my busy job. Just the drive into the town along the 1094 Saxmundham Road gives me the feeling of returning to such a historic town with its lovely individuality - something you don't get in many places now. Why does yet another place potentially need to be ruined. Tourism will suffer and the town will be unable to sustain itself with the threats due to the wind farms and their traffic."

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

Jan Lovell
"I object to all the upheaval caused by building all that is required on land plus looking out to sea and just seeing propellers. Why cannot it be co-ordinates so at least all disruption is done at one time and then normality has a chance to return to the countryside."

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

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

Maryanne Nicholls
"The A1094 is simply not going to be able to handle the amount of construction traffic required for this project. The junction from A12 to A1094 is already congested and dangerous. The A1094 itself is too narrow for lorries to pass safely, it is a nightmare for the cyclists who use it and if there is heavy rain the water runs off the fields and collects in the many dips and the road quickly becomes even more dangerous and often impassable. It is the only link to the famous seaside town of Aldeburgh with it's important cultural heritage. The frustrating thing about the project is that there is a better and more sustainable way to bring this power onshore.. i.e. an offshore ring main.. but as usual with this country's infrastructure projects, money talks and things are done for profit, not for people."

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

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

Michelle Kelly
"I live over the back fence from Friston, will see the tops of the substation from my window, and will hear and see the extra influx of development from the widening of the roads, from the flood of traffic. I can imagine the impact the Substations will have. Initially we were told there was to be ONE substation, Now I hear there is to be three. This area of the county is impoverished as it is, we rely on income from holiday activity, and 'blow in's' who retire here from London and else where I fall into that category- although am 10 years off retiring) If this area is ruined by widened noisy roads, massive increase in traffic and noise, small impermanent villages for construction workers, the infrastructure to socially support them ( health, primary schools, shops) this corner of Suffolk Coastal will be affected permanently. We are a rural corner, with Minsmere bird reserve, and a wider area of AONB. If that appellation gives it protected status this development will ride roughshod over it- AONB is supposed to offer protection against this. In this age where we are beginning to wake up to the issues of extinction of species I would ask that our area is left alone. For the prosperity of the locals, and protections of both wildlife and the ecology of the area I would ask that you reconsider the plans, so that the impact is either much smaller, non existent, or restricted to the area around the existing ugly nuclear power station. Do not develop so that it is necessary to widen roads, and disturb the rural peace of the area. Anything that is not reversible should not be considered."

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

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

Phil Pearce
"I am only in favour of the wind farm if it does not spoil the beauty of the local area."

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

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

Valerie Simper
"I think it is essential to have a well thought out plan to consider in depth not only the gains to be had from off shore wind farms but also the long term consequences that will result from the ‘wanton’ destruction of the beautiful coast, productive farmland, assorted wildlife and the total disregard of the local human inhabitants. We need a comprehensive 10 or 15 year plan to be co-ordinated, properly set out and discussed and an understanding of the importance of the tourist industry to the East Anglian coast, an AONB. Surely this natural coastline and it’s hinterland is the equivalent of a Mona Lisa or a Constable! Surely we need to protect our most valuable assets.................."

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

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

Alan Gooderham
"Whilst fully supporting green energy initiatives, this SPR substation siting proposal will overwhelm our village and is just too close, extending fight up to the village boundary and thus much closer than previously established norms ( eg: Bramford ). As currently proposed, this proximity and proposed scale will permanently devastate the landscape, unnecessarily destroying huge tracts of prime agricultural land: and the heritage impacts will fore ever change the character of our village and surrounding area. We depend on “ hikers and bikers” who come here for the tranquility, countryside, footpaths and wildlife. And besides such permanent loss of tourism business, the loss of these same features will halt the established flow of incoming residents - refreshing the community and critically under- pinning all local tradesmen and retail businesses. The village is a known flood risk (as EA records will confirm). SPR proposals under this heading take no account of the wider flood risks ( beyond their site ), potential loss of existing field drainage or ( in)adequacy of our current, strained ditch /infrastructure. Current substation design shows some structures ( Harmonic filters ) at 18 m. high - dwarfing the nearby church and significantly higher than at other substation. Perversely, these high noise generators are also currently planned to be positioned closest to the village boundary. In short SPR’s site selection process has been flawed; the cumulative, permanent impacts have not been fully assessed and alternative sites have not been fully evaluated. It is hard to exaggerate the landscape, heritage and economic impacts of siting such a large- scale industrial complex on our village boundary. And no amount of surround tree planting or other cosmetic mitigation can disguise this. Substation siting closer to the coast has obvious advantages to minimise cabling and position away from any community. There are brown field site alternatives. It is essential that full consideration is given to National Grid’s role in all this - as SPR’s development partner they are responsible for determining grid connection ( thus substation siting ). They are also instrumental in the wider context of other” pipeline” infra structure projects ( Sizewell C, Nautilus / Eurolink inter- connectors, other wind farm expansions),resulting in cumulative impacts on a mega- scale that must not be ignored."

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

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

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

Colin Chamberlain
"-Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects taking place at the same time is unacceptable -the level of traffic will damage the tourism which is the basis of the local economy -the Friston substation would be inappropriately sited next to the residential village of Friston and should be sited in open countryside the other side of the A12 -the project will destroy environmentally sensitive areas"

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

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

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

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

Eva loeffler OBE
"As. Resident of Aldeburgh the proposed substations will ruin an area of outstanding beauty and a beautiful tourist attraction which has particular historical importance. The hideous large substations and the infrastructure will ruin this whole area, put thousands of people who support the tourist business in this area out of work as no one will want to come anywhere near."

Fiona Jones
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH ONE (and EAST ANGLIA TWO) I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) Many thanks, Fiona"

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

Gordon Merfield
"This is a small country with lose of farm land going to housing at an alarming rate, large amount in this are going as second homes and does nothing for homeless. Now you want to tear up the countryside and cover more farm land with concrete, when the power could come ashore at Sizewell. Sizewell is close to sea and it would be better use than building an unwanted power station"

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

James Latham
"Mrs Latham and I are both in our 80s and require frequent access to the A1094 from our driveway entrance. HGVs are gradually eroding the grass verge and our sight line has been seriously effected. I strongly oppose the proposed construction work on the grounds of safety. The continuing erosion of the verge has already partly destroyed the concrete surround to the BT/Openreach large inspection chamber. Erosion is particularly bad when 2 HGVs are passing in opposite directions. It will be essential for road widening before your construction work commences on the grounds of safety and the protection of Public services. James Latham."

John Askam
"I object to these rural settings being ruined by so called progress."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sally Walton
"I am concerned about the impact on local communities of the large number of energy projects occurring over 12 - 15 years. Unspoilt countryside will be destroyed to construct the substations which are dangerously close to and will dominate a small village. The cable trenches will adversely affect an environmentally sensitive area and threaten wildlife in an AONB, ancient woodland will be destroyed. The road network in the area is totally unsuitable for the volume and scale of traffic which will be required. This area of Suffolk is valued for its relative lack of light and noise pollution which will be adversely affected. The local economy depends to a large extent on tourism which will be badly affected by all of the above."

Sarah Parnham
"I object to this development on grounds of the damage that will be caused to Aldeburgh and surrounding areas. Noise pollution and negative impact on wildlife and countryside."

Sophie Whayman
"There are many reasons why this shouldn't happen, these are just a few..... • The destruction of the villages ancient woodlands • The threat to our wildlife • Landscapes and footpaths destroyed • The possibility of River Hundred flooding, the river is at the bottom of my garden so am extremely anxious incase this impacts it • Light, Noice and air pollution • Cable trenches and haul roads too close to houses, including mine! • Emergency service delays I could go on, please please don't do this to us.."

Tom Henrick
"Environmental Local wildlife Traffic dangers"

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

William Gault
"We are deeply concerned about this project, not only will it congest the roads but will completely up turn the lives of our neighbourhood, especially for those living with in sight/earshot of the site, especially in terms of noise, and value of their properties. This is a disaster for us. What I simply can not understand is why these Substations can not be built around the Sizewell power station site, which already has infrastructure in place to service the are (road etc) it has half the impact on the local residents since the sea is to one side."

Alister Clare Malim
"I am objecting to Scottish Power Renewables planning application for East Anglia Two. I was brought up in this unspoilt part of Suffolk and know it well. My parents lived in the area for over 50 years. -The Sandlings are an important ecological area and the impact on it will be terrible, decimating wildlife and flora and destroying landscapes. -Local routes are totally unsuitable for added traffic. residents of Snape find it difficult already to access the A1094 (running from the A12 to Aldeburgh at the Church T Junction. Traffic already backs up often to the village centre (0.7 miles) especially in the summer and other holiday times. -It will be bad for tourism and businesses and consequently jobs."

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

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

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

Donald Oates
"7 energy projects in 12-15 years unacceptable Friston substation entirely unsuitable in a rural area Cable trenches cause catastrophic damage to countryside: its like motorway construction-just look at Bawdsey Quay. Disruption to residents Damage to wildlife Destruction of woodlands Local roads entirely unsuitable to this scale of HGV traffic - danger to cyclists, pedestrians, horses etc etc Light and noise pollution Negative impact on tourism Closure either temporary or permanent of public rights of way."

Elizabeth Everett
"The infrastructure of this most beautiful area of Suffolk will be changed for ever if the planned development at Friston is allowed to go ahead. The coast at Thorpeness is eroding and very fragile. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty combined with a most wonderful tourist village. The village is unique and under no circumstances should be disfigured by the work planned by Scottish Power. The wood adjacent Fitches Lane in Aldringham is home to many species of birds, including jays, long tailed tits, spotted woodpeckers etc plus deer and squirrels. If the mature trees are cut down to make way for cables they will never grow again in tie to protect the wild life. This cannot be allowed to go ahead."

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

Graham Bagnall
"There will be a huge impact on the lives of ordinary people in many communities who have a human right to live in a peaceful way. The increase in the traffic and congestion will increase the probability of accidents and Health issues to the young and old. This nightmare will, last for at least ten years and beyond. Arable food land will be destroyed and the farmland used for livestock polluted. Also land used for the production of Pork will become polluted. This important home trade and export business will be lost as the land will be heavy with dangerous pollutants. The carbon footprint made for this massive development will not be eliminated , or carbon savings made to match it for over 50 years. Commercial gains for the Spanish owners of Scottish Power will handsome and short term."

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

Janey Blanchflower
"My representations for East Anglia Two are the same as for East Anglia North One - please see this submission. This development is far too large for this area which has national and local designations as an area of particular beauty and diversity of wildlife. Tourism is an important part of the local economy and the loss of natural attributes would cause severe damage. The road infrastructure is inadequate for this type of industrial development. SPR should use an offshore ring cable system to take the power down to the Thames estuary. The are far too many separate and uncordinated energy projects proposed for one of the most highly valued areas of natural beauty in England. The closure of footpaths and rights of way would be detrimental; these are one of this area's most important assets. The impact on the tranquility of the area is unacceptable."

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

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

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

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

Susan Thompson
"East Anglia Two Offshore Windfarm Planning Inspectorate Ref EN010078. This project is completely unnecessary and Scottish Power should be forced to join the grid at Sizewell rather than dig up the Thorpeness Cliffs, a fragile structure of great environmental importance. The impact on the local economy will be extremely harsh as it relies heavily on tourism and the area will not recover from this unnecessary development. The substation at Friston will cause environmental problems to all living close by both and should not be allowed."

C J Bushell on behalf of A Bushell
"The proposed development is too large. The construction traffic will be totally excessive for the local roads. The construction phase, due to its size will destroy the quality of life of residents and visitors for many years. A new location for these installations must be found which will benefit the area and not destroy it."

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

Anne Middleton-Smith
"I have a house in Thorpeness and have known the area for over 40 years. The area is an area of outstanding natural beauty with a huge diversity of wildlife including, flowers bird and animals. This natural environment is a peaceful beautiful area and the proposed plans would be detrimental to the area especially the construction works lasting many years, driving away the wildlife and bringing huge disturbance to the surrounding quiet areas"

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

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

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

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

C J Bushell
"The proposed development is too large. The construction traffic will be totally excessive for the local roads. The construction phase due to its size will destroy the quality of life of residents and visitors for many years. A new location for these installations must be found which will benefit the area and not destroy it."

Candida Woolley
"The Projected development is Too large for the fragile eco system around Aldeburgh and Leiston The roads are too narrow to support the large number of construction lorries required The cliffs at ThorpeNess will be further destroyed by the in coming pipework Light pollution and Noise pollution will destroy our peaceful environment Loss if nature reservesand habitats for endangered species ."

Carola Spence
"Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects. Use of unspoilt countryside at small village at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Statium Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Destruction of ancient woodland Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs Increased traffic on roads a danger to walkers, cyclists and residents Adverse impact on tourism. Adverse impact on businesses Permanent and temporary closure of footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths Adverse impact on locality where many local people have lived for a lifetime. Economic impact on value of properties."

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

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

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

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

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

Dr P A Hitch
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA NORTH TWO I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: I am supportive of offshore wind energy, BUT these plans for the onshore transmission infrastructure are brutal and would destroy the Heritage Coast and its tourist economy, WHILE there are better alternative solutions, brownfield sites and offshore hubs and ringmains."

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

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

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

Georgia Gaydon
"Dear examining body RE: East Anglia North Two I wish to reject to this Scottish Power renewables application for the following reasons: - light and noise pollution - in event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered. - Negative impact on tourism and therefore local business - increased traffic - threat to wildlife"

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

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

Hilary Mills
"Comulative impact on local communities.. Threat to wildlife and especially Sandlings Heath...causing problems to migrating species, destruction of ancient woodland... local road network unsuitable, delays to emergency services... impact on tourism and so businesses... all in all disasterous for a beautiful and precious part of England."

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

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

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

Jayne Bridge
"I am objection to this, for the following reasons:- 1) Damage that it will do to a rural village 2) Years of impact this will have on village life 3) Lost of valve in property 3a) Village will become a place that no one wants to come to 3b) Not able to sell properties 3c) Peoples lively hoods destroyed complete income 4) Road destruction, 4a) Wildlife habitat lost plus wildlife destroyed 4b) walks and bike ride now becoming not safe any more 5) How the village will cope with high volumes of HGV vehicles through narrow roads 6) Major Accident just waiting to happen. not only with, heavy vehicles, plant equipment, and materials being brought in 6a) what procedures does the emergency services have in place to cope with this, taking in to account the high volume of traffic that will be using the roads. 7) What plans and safety procedures do you have in place to minimise 8) What plans do you have in place if a major incident happens what evacuation plans do you have in place and how will this effect the village people 9) What about if there is an incident at Sizewell which are just up the road. 9a) How would you cope with the impact and the evacuation process that have My partner and I moved to Friston for the lovely village environment, peace and quiet, No crime, lovely county side surroundings and walks. we are now facing this eyesore being impacted on our county life and so close to our village I appreciate that we need to look to the further and help the environment but so close to a village there must be better industrial areas or better suited places"

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

Joey Gaydon
"Kilometres of cables destroying the countryside along with the fragile cliffs at Thorpeness which are unsuitable for landing cables. The roads around here are unsuitable for more HGVs not to mention the pollution they will cause. The list goes on .. it is an are of outstanding beauty, what are you thinking. I’m all for renewable energy but there must be another way."

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

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

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

Karen Hudson
"I wish to object to the Scottishpower renewables planning application for the following reasons: Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring over a 12-15 year timeframe Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes way out of proportion with surrounding area Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and HGVs Light and noise pollution, loss of dark skies and peace and tranquillity Impact on tourism"

Kim Monfared
"Dear Examining Authority Re: East Anglia Two I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium. Impact on Tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area."

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

Margaret Savage
"My friends and neighbours will submit detailed accurate and essential points which should leave you in no doubt to the unacceptability of Scottish powers plans for Friston. I would like to go back to more basic principles. Friston is not a picture book village. It has no major claims to fame apart from the highest post mill in the world and possibly the origins of friesian cattle in the uk. It is a very typical Suffolk village, there are not many left. Desecrate this village and the vandalism can never be reversed."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Clark
"Local roads are unsuitable for the frequency and size of vehicles and especially HGVs used during the construction. The village of Friston will be overwhelmed by a huge development larger than Wembley stadium. Many footpaths will be redirected or closed during and after the construction. Ancient woodland and beautiful country side which is part of an AONb will be destroyed or damaged. There will be an adverse and culmulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12-15 years in a beautiful part of the suffolk coast."

Sarah Wilson
"RE. East Anglia Two (and East Anglia One ) -We are so concern about our beautiful suffolk country side . -cable trenching and haul roads too close to residents home -Threat to our beautiful wild life and country side -Impact on businesses .Lossof trade ,visitors income ,jobs leading to social and economic decline. -Emergency Services .Inevitable delays endangering life. -Severing the suffolk coast and heaths causing problems with migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. -Local Road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and moreHGVs. -Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost. -Increase traffic on the roads, a danger to cyclists and residents. Holiday makers with young love cycling on our suffolk roads this would be a big danger too them . -Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ! -It would have such a devastating impact to our beautiful part of suffolk ,foot paths ,our wild life, trees etc ."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Turnbull
"1. The disruption and destruction entailed in an AONB with some SSSI’s is totally acceptable. 2. This disruption is not necessary as the power should be brought in at Sizewell which has the infrastructure in place and has already had its character destroyed by the power stations. 33. The social disruption is unacceptable when the power could be brought into Sizewell whichwpould have much less disruption."

Anthony Bone
"There has been no well thought through plan for all the activity planned to take place on this important piece of coast. I am concerned about the landfall on the cliffs at Thorpeness. The impact on local villages and the road network and overall effect on the economy. I am worried about impact on the AONB, impact on tourism, the severe effects on the village of Friston, doubts about the planting mitigation, noise and disturbance on communities and road networks. The traffic cannot be handled on the road network and I consider the whole application has not been holistically thought through."

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Robinette
"I object for the following reasons..negative impact on wildlife, local communities and road structure. Would result in noise and light pollution."

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

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

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

Elizabeth Matthias
"1. The plans will greatly alter our Suffolk Heritage coast to it's detriment. 2. There will be wide scale destruction of the nature in this area 3. There will be huge disruption during the building process. 4. Access to Aldeburgh,Friston, Aldringham and Knodishall will be severly affected. 5. Our countryside is very precious. We do not wish to see it destroyed. 6. Offshore wind energy is important but we do not think that this is a suitable area to desecrate. There must be suitable alternatives which would not cause such devastation."

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

Family Innes
"Following the presentation we attended in Snape Community Hall, and in the relevant literature we had read, we believe that the powers-that-be have ignored, or have not paid sufficient regard to, the following: A) The impact on the safety and well-being of the local population, the traffic flow and the state of the highways caused by the greatly increased volume of big lorries. B) The layout of roads and important junctions. Both are completely unsuited to the traffic flow associated with such a large and long-lasting building project. C) The detrimental effect on this part of Suffolk as a popular tourist destination. Not simply NIMBYISM but a genuine concern for the livelihood and futures of the many thousands of folk for whom this is their sole means of income and support. Inevitably this will mean economic and social decline. D) The many and varied environmental consequences of a major project such as this. E) There are other viable, and less damaging, alternatives. Thank you for your consideration."

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

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

Ian Roper
"I own, with my family, a holiday home in Aldeburgh. I am objecting to Scottish Power Renewable’s proposals and agree with the representations made by Friston Parish Council and Substation Action Save East Suffolk for the reasons given therein. In particular: 1. Poor site selection: Inappropriate use of unspoilt countryside for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium Failure to consider any brownfield sites No explanation for abandoning the Bawdsey to Bradford route which is where these projects were initially intended to connect. Massive industrial complex too close to a small rural village which sets alarming precedent for the future of other villages in East Suffolk. 2. Inadequate assessment of environmental issues: 6km of cable trenches from landfall to substation site pose a significant threat to wildlife and destroy environmentally sensitive areas including ancient woodland, rare sandlings and the fragile eco-systems that depend on them. Light and noise pollution - loss of East Suffolk’s dark skies and peace and tranquillity. Loss of hedgerows and arable farmland that support wildlife. Temporary and permanent damage to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB including SSSIs. 3. Inadequate traffic assessment in particular suitability of A12 and local roads to cope with increased traffic levels: A12 - Volume of HGV traffic, particularly in combination with other energy projects (see below) will cause major delays particular during holiday times resulting in rat running down narrow rural lanes unsuited to large volumes of traffic - danger to cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians A1094 which is to be the main HGV route for Friston site access is too narrow for HGV traffic. 4. Failure to consider the cumulative impact of the the 7 major energy projects planned for area over the next 15 years and the damage that they will cause particularly to: Tourism - East Suffolk is a major tourist destination. Main attractions - landscape, natural environment, wildlife, peace and tranquillity of the area, its big dark skies - will be destroyed by 12-15 years of construction and the legacy of massive industrial complexes. SPR has failed to assess the damage to tourism of its projects, particularly when considered with all the other energy projects to take place in the area. The Suffolk Destination Management Organisation’s recent independent report into the impact on tourism makes clear these plans pose a very real threat to a thriving economy (valued at £2 billion per annum, £210 million in the AONB alone). Many of the shops and businesses in Aldeburgh are dependent on tourism. A downturn in tourism would result in closures with a loss of jobs and loss of amenities for local communities. Transport - the A12 is the main route to East Suffolk. It is already congested during peak holiday times. The A1094 which is the main route to Aldeburgh, Snape, Thorpeness will be overloaded. The result will be to push more traffic onto rural lanes. 5. Wider Implications: By including the building of the National Grid connector station in the SPR planning applications for EA1N & EA2, National Grid is creating a new connection point at Friston. National Grid Ventures has already confirmed its intention to connect its interconnector projects at Friston as shown on the PINS website. If SPR’s projects go ahead the NGV projects will inevitably follow as they are inextricably linked. SPR’s 30+ acre site, plus permanent haul road, and other permanent structures, plus 24 acres for the NGV buildings, mean the site will grow to more than 80 acres. The extension of Galloper and Greater Gabbard will also require new onshore infrastructure nearby. Also to be considered is the Round 4 offshore wind farm projects for East Anglia. These will also require further onshore infrastructure. It is my view that SPR has failed to adequately assess the very considerable damage that would be caused by its proposals to the landscape and to the communities that live here."

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

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

Jonathan Franklin
"Dear Sir/Madam, I am in favour of wind power but not when the process here in Suffolk has been badly thought through. I support Friston Parish Council's objections. I live 500 metres away from the proposed Scottish Power substation site. This substaion will; - destroy rural life and in particular that of the elderly. - destroy wildlife for ever, - wreck not only the well being of the life in Friston but that of several other surrounding villages. Are we mad? Think again. I am quite happy to be interviewed, - wreck remote pristine rural countryside. All this when it is not necessary. There is a perfectly good site, to which nobody will object - and that is; leaving Leiston towards Sizewell, going just beyond the railway crossing on the right is a good sized field that is hardly used and has several shabby agricultural buildings. The only problem with this site is that it is just within an Area of Outsatanding National Beauty BUT it isn't beautiful AT ALL in fact it is ugly whereas the chosen Friston site IS beautiful. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Franklin"

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

Joy Robinette
"I object for the following reasons. Impact on communities, and impact on tourism. Road infrastruture inadequate for more traffic and HGVs. Noise and light pollution. Impact on wildlife"

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

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

Kathryn Meader
"I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston complexes the size of Wembley stadium. Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. Destruction of ancient woodland. Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. Local road network unstable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs. Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost. Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famouspeace and tranquillity lost. Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering live. In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered."

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

Mark Richardson
"I object to the East Anglia Two Offshore Windfarm project as currently proposed, primarily because of the planned construction of the enormous sub-station very close to the village of Frinton. The proposed sub-station (together with any others that might follow) is planned to be about 6 stories high and would be totally over-bearing to the village, dominating both it and the surrounding unspoilt countryside. Given the height and scale of the sub-station, the proposed "screening" in the Landscape Management Plan is likely to be almost completely ineffective - with native trees likely to take many decades to reach useful screening heights in Suffolk's low rainfall environment. if the project is to proceed without massive adverse environmental impact, the developer should be required to re-locate the sub-station."

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

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

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

Mr W Seale
"We wish to object to Scottish Power Renewables East Anglia Two planning application for the following reasons. It is evident that, not only SPR, but other similar projects will be brought to land in our Parish. For the next decade up to seven wind farms will attempt to make their way through a narrow corridor in a protected area of the county. It seems little forethought has been applied in this matter. SPR might complete its work in a couple of years only for another such company to go down the self same track the next year to site a massive substation in another small village. There is little or no joined-up thinking in this process and will only lead to years of misery for our local population and a permanent catastrophe for our landscape. Until such time when all routes and projects are finalised no such work should be started. What is the point of planning when there is evidently no forward thinking going on here. An answer would be to abandon the pointless waste of resources that is Sizewell C and land all of these projects and connect to the Grid there from an offshore ring main connecting these projects. Some thought needs to be applied here at the highest level of government here!"

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

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

Peter Minta
"I wish to object to The Scottish Power Renewables planning application for East Anglia Two. This, together with plans for East Anglia One has not been thought out. Not only would it destroy huge swathes of the East Suffolk Countryside, but the area simply cannot sustain a development of this kind, both in terms of infrastructure and the huge damage to the local economy. This area relies on tourism and agriculture as its twin pillars of economic growth. Both would be hugely devastated by this project. Whilst, generally in favour of wind powered energy, no consideration as to how all this new energy can be connected to the National Grid, in a consolidated and economic fashion, has been given. We should anticipate a little disruption that this case is a classic example of an ill conceived and "rushed through" project where viable alternatives have not been considered. I simply cannot believe that any sane person would think it a good plan."

S N Fulford
"EN010078 Windfarm Dear Sir I am registering an interest in the above application as a resident of Friston Village. I endorse all points raised by the SASES action group without exception. (Redacted) is a listed building 350m from the site. The property boundary is 150m from the proposed site. I dispute the claim that there will be no or negligible impact on (Redacted) or Friston Village by SPR. There will be: Pollution Evidenced by residents near the Galloper substation (Sizewell ) construction experience and others. Air born diesel fumes, dust. Other pollutants from a heavy industrial site. Noise during construction will be untenable for years six days a week. 66 Hours, not including traffic movements to and from site outside of those hours given that it is an extremely quiet zone. Night time disruption from generator noise and other activity. The long term prediction re operating noise from Philip Rew-Williamson of consultants RHDHV was/is that we will need double glazing! Initially he insisted publicly that there would be no noise impact. SPR are not acknowledging this and are actively excluding Friston House as a receptor. (World Health Organisation outlines 21db with a window open as a reasonable urban expectation at night) It will be shown elsewhere that the ambient night time level is far below that. Water course pollution re surface run off through Friston village, including flooding. The proposed and likely future development of Friston will create Industrial pollutants that have no recourse but to flow through Friston Village and on into The Rivers Alde and Ore that currently enjoy marine protection. Friston currently enjoys a “Dark Sky” environment that will be lost. Consultation process Further to the fact that SPR have mislead the public repeatedly re noise and appearance, the total absence of information about the National Grid elements of this application and the further consequences of their (NG) intensions in the immediate vicinity of Friston Village is not acceptable even if this process “Scopes out” these elements. The residents of Friston are expecting further cable routes and infrastructure which will remove the point of the Village. Cable route The destruction of so much land is not sustainable in such a closed community. In particular the loss of woodland at Aldringham Court. This woodland is not replaceable by replanting or mitigation. This area is priceless in context of loss of environment. This will be the second cable route carved through Suffolk by SPR. The Bawdsey to Bramford debacle should be held as an example of how unfit this company is to proceed with this project. At present it appears they (SPR) are applying the same criteria and design parameters to Friston as Bramford, an existing “Brown Field “site. Road access SPR have changed their stance from claiming the present road infrastructure was wholly adequate to planning wholesale changes to all the roads leading to Friston and Thorpeness. The general public are and remain oblivious and ignorant of the impact this project will reek in Suffolk."

Sally Miles
"Dear Examining Authority, Re (East Anglia North One) and East Anglia two I wish to object to ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: The cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. 11kms of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas. The severing of the Suffolk coast and Heaths ANOB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. Local Road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and high level of HGVs. Light and noise and air pollution with accompanying health and mental health hazards. The impact on tourism and business. The DMO report says traffic congestion would deter tourism. In the event of a nucular incident the evacuation route would be severely hampered."

Simon Ive
"EAST ANGLIA 2 OFFSHORE WINDFARM RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS. Be assured that I am not against proposals for offshore windfarms (better offshore than onshore) as part of the Governments renewable energy policy but reject the choice of Friston as the site for a hub of energy projects in addition to that proposed. Accordingly, I concur with the relevant representations made by: - Friston Parish Council supported by the SASES action group - Historic England - Suffolk County Council - East Suffolk Council - Other local interested parties opposed to the selection of Friston as the site for EA1(North), EA2 and National Grid substations. The proposals are acts of human and environmental vandalism. - Destroying in excess of 30 acres of historic rural and agricultural land, wild life and fauna habitats, turning the area into an industrial wasteland. - Five-mile cable route scars permanently the landscape. - In the heart of an area surrounded by areas of Specific Scientific Interest and Specially Protected and AONB. - Closing permanently and temporarily 26 footpaths and PRoWs. - Causing permanent loss of amenity to visitors and residents seeking peace and tranquillity offered by skies (day and night!), landscapes, seascapes and nature. - Loss of valuable agricultural land. - The site spreads into the social and spiritual heart of the village – the Village Hall and the Grade ll* listed Church undermining their sustainability and roles within the community. - Exposes a vulnerable ageing community to increased health and safety risks: - Flooding - Noise - Light - Air pollution - Traffic and transport arising from road alterations and increased traffic volumes (no overarching traffic management plan) and no refuge for walkers and cyclists. - Anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation and isolation. - Financial – loss of equity, funding of social and health care. - These issues are NOT ‘negligible, temporary or minor’. (SPR terms!). - Inadequate site selection planning. - Both projects were conceived to follow the Bawdsey to Bramford corridor through open countryside to an already established substation complex far from a population centre with capacity to expand. - Questionable manoeuvring by the developer and National Grid to establish a new hub for further energy projects and to avoid the NSIP process for the National Grid substation. - No accountability by/for National Grid and withholding information. - Insufficient accounting for cumulative effects of existing and proposed projects – namely Sizewell C construction – it is seeking DCO approval this year which means major disruption to the whole of this part of the coast being subject to its preparatory and construction works at the same time as these projects. Meanwhile, its viability and construction are questionable and the site could alternatively be used to accommodate these projects with much less damage to Sizewell and its community. - expansion of Greater Gabbard and Galloper offshore windfarms; two National Grid Ventures Interconnectors (Nautilus and Eurolink) and then energy storage facilities. - These exacerbate the risks of the two projects subject to examination and the extended construction periods damaging to nature, the community and visitors. - Raising the questions of lack of planning co-ordination for all the projects. - Allied to Councils’ Local Plans (subject to scrutiny and approval by the National Planning Inspectorate) for the development of 85,000 new homes within one hour’s drive of this area – total impact on local infrastructure and population, services, accessibility and then the need for new home families to have access to historic and unspoilt land and seascapes. - Sustainability of the community is threatened by the loss of new residents into the village; inward investment; loss of support of church and village hall and local events; loss of jobs arising from fall in tourism as potential residents and visitors are deterred by spread and size of these and other projects. - The DCO application, 17,000 pages is lazy and contemptuous displaying a lack of understanding and care for humans and environment. No cognisance of local issues and concerns already advised. Indeed, most of the visuals omit to show the existence of the village. - Too much key detail including that relating to safety and traffic to be subject to detail after DCO consent – who approves, monitors and enforces? - Even now the developer is drip feeding further information concerning acquiring rights of way, land and access which have sinister implications for the future of Friston. Simon Ive 20 January 2020"

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

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

Suffolk Preservation Society
"The Suffolk Preservation Society (SPS) acknowledges the contribution that wind power will make towards the Nation’s energy needs. Notwithstanding this, SPS’s charitable objects are to protect and promote the special landscape and heritage of Suffolk by ensuring that proposals are critically assessed and properly mitigated. SPS operates as the county branch of CPRE. Having responded to the consultations and participated in the archaeology and cultural heritage working group, SPS remains concerned about the scale of this project and the enormity of its environmental impact. SPS wishes to register as an Interested Party on the following grounds: Onshore Impacts – Landscape and visual SPS’s principal concern is the scale of the industrialising effect of the onshore substation within an area where its intrinsic rural character is defined by its historic landscape and buildings. Friston, a tiny rural village has remained substantially unchanged for centuries and will be overwhelmed by the substation. The Environmental Statement underestimates the onshore landscape and visual impacts and does not truly reflect the character or the historic significance of the landscape and the resulting harm. This large alien feature will not integrate with this existing landscape but will dominate in terms of siting, scale and massing. The effectiveness of the proposed mitigation planting is ambitious and the reliability of the supporting visualisations is questionable. In some cases the mitigation planting being proposed is inappropriate and will create further harm to this historic landscape. SPS believes that a more creative and sympathetic design, and/or consideration of lowering the ground level, rather than adopting generic layouts would minimise some impacts. The detail provided within the Design and Access Statement and the Design Principle Statement is superficial. SPS also has strong reservations about the adequacy of the assessment of the impacts on designated heritage assets. Although the methodology for assessing impacts appears sound, the resulting narrative and conclusions drawn are both inaccurate and misleading and do not fully recognise the important contribution of setting to significance. Seascape and Visual Effects The visual impacts of the turbines on the special qualities of the AONB, and the Southwold and Aldeburgh Conservation Areas, will be significant, particularly with the cumulative impacts from EA1(N). Although the applicant has reduced the extent of the arrays they will continue to have a significant adverse impact on a nationally designated coastline and numerous coastal heritage assets. Consideration should be given to a height restriction to mitigate the impacts. Other Issues SPS also has concerns relating to the Cable Route, Archaeology, Traffic, Rights of Way, Lighting and the Cumulative Impacts including the uncoordinated approach to all offshore wind developments. These will be included within future representations. Finally SPS would raise the case for an environmental fund to compensate (in part) those that will be undoubtedly impacted upon and disrupted during the life of this project. The absence of any such recognition of the impact from such significant infrastructure provision within small rural communities is considered to be wholly unacceptable and inequitable to the cost being paid by those communities."

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

Susan Moon
"Dear Examining Authority, Please see my reasons below to objecting to ScottishPower Renewables plannign application, Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years. Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. Impact on wildlife and Sandlings Heath. Our wonderful dark skies will be lost. Destruction of ancient woodland. Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor. Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk's light sandy soil which blows/runs away causing visibility hazard and health issues. Increased heavy traffic on roads , causing a danger to cyclists and residents. Emergency services . Inevitable delays endangering lives. Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley stadium. Local road networks unsuitable for high traffic levels and more HGVs I sincerely hope my views will be taken into consideration."

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

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

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

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

Will Horton-Fawkes
"Scottish Power EA2 proposal We support the representations of SASES and Friston Parish Council And I object to:- Future expansion beyond the current proposal and timings of work i.e. ongoing consecutive construction rather than concurrent construction, which would increase disruptive construction time considerably. Risk that if approved, the area will become a power hub and ongoing construction will therefore become semi-permanent. The highly detrimental impact on the edge of our AONB, our heritage landscape, - footpaths, woodland, country roads. Permanent noise pollution in peaceful rural site & effect on human & wildlife health - 'tonality' correction should be imperative Permanent light pollution in area with low existing light levels - effect on humans & wildlife (insect numbers already in steep decline), particularly during 24hr construction period, Friston is free of street lighting and there are no large towns nearby Impact on movement of humans and wildlife once corridors (footpaths, hedgerows)are destroyed Effect on tourism and jobs - of high significance in the area, including world renowned cultural sites e.g. Snape Major disruption to road network during construction and consequent increased use of narrow country roads adding to air & noise pollution & risks to pedestrians, cyclists, livestock .Design of substation. It must be 'low impact' following best practice & given sensitivity of site and inherent ugliness of substations. Not 18/21m high as in proposal Planting to screen the site should be at start and not end of construction and be compatible with existing landscape i.e. large deciduous trees such as oak Replacement of wildlife habitat should exceed what is removed given the environmental impact Forecast timings for alteration of road junctions seems inadequate and wildly optimistic e.g. Changes to A12/A1094 completed in 3 weeks! During the tourist season, March-Nov, there will be major disruption and there are no alternative routes north-south or to Snape/Aldeburgh, so small roads will be used not suitable for heavy traffic There is no long term cohesive assessment of future traffic movements and flows No on-going jobs once construction complete and likelihood of local jobs being put at risk due to downturn in tourism (DMO report) Inadequate proposed measures so far to deal with surface water flooding risk, which will impact farmland viability, nearby listed buildings and the village of Friston Harmful potential of setting a precedent for construction on the edge of AONBs Also harmful potential of precedent for second class construction and second class or non-existent mitigation in sensitive rural sites that are currently well adapted to human and wildlife co-habitation A new footpath map should be devised for all those links that are broken by the construction and each new footpath ought to be planted to provide access to humans and refuge and habitat to wildlife A vulnerable coastline risks being damaged at Thorpeness where the cables come on shore The cable corridor (9km long), will not only be destructive of habitat and disruptive to residential properties, but will also set a precedent for future cable corridors - hence the importance of a quality impact reduction plan and mitigation/reinstatement plan Local businesses and property owners will have to endure the inconvenience and will see a downturn in the value of their properties, possibly causing an exodus and loss of revenue to the area"

Aline Mowat
"The proposed site at Friston will be the size of 9 football pitches and up to 18m high. Carving up the countryside with huge trenches and up to 1200 HGVs on our roads a day. Road closures, Air pollution and light pollution.... All local people WILL ALL BE AFFECTED !!! Tourism and local businesses will suffer."

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

Anthony Ball
"I am in favour of renewable energy production but the impact of this on shore has to be minimised. I, like most members of the public was unaware of the huge scale of the on shore infrastructure required to serve the incoming power. For a rural community to have this gigantic industrial complex constructed in its midst will be irreversibly damaging to the quality of life, and for many for the rest of their life, as well as to the environment. There are alternatives to this such as the established site at Bramford that has recently been completed, the financial cost of using such an alternative cannot be compared to the permanent devastation that this development will cause and should not be a consideration. There are no short or long term benefits to their communities that will be affected by this. There will be years of construction causing traffic chaos and pollution on small roads not designed or capable of the huge amount of heavy construction traffic required to build this. Local businesses and tourism will also be adversely affected."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Matthew
"Use of unspoilt countryside for complexes the size of Wembley Stadium Destruction of Ancient Woodland 11 km of cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas Threat to wildlife Threat to tourism Noise pollution Air pollution Danger on roads to residents and cyclists Closure of PROWs Increased traffic on roads unsuitable for HGVs and high leve of traffic Unimagineable long term damage to an area of outstanding natural beauty"

Clare McWhirter
"I am using this opportunity to voice my concerns for the proposed plans for the Scottish Power Profects for the area of Suffolk in which I live. I support the representations made by the SASES and Friston Parish Council. I do not want to see the huge substations to destroy and impact on tourism in the Suffolk coastal are and also have such a negative impact on the village of Friston itself. The work itself will have damaging impacts on wildlife and village life and this part of Suffolk relies heavily on tourism."

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

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

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

Francis Jasper Jacob
"Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs for landing cables Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for giant substation complexes 11Km of cable trenches, destroyingenvironmentally sensitive areas Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath"

George lightfoot
"Severe damage to local wildlife Significant negative on local populations."

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

Hilary Lightfoot
"I wish to object to this Scottishpower renewables planning application for the following reasons : impact on local communities lasting 12 to 15 years : fragility of Thorpeness cliffs as site for landing cables : local olds unsuitable for extra amount of traffic : impact on tourism . I have a shop in Aldeburgh and traffic congestion would deter tourists : substation too large for small village friston"

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

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

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

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

Jane MacFarlane
"I do not object to wind farms, electricity from this source is needed. What I object to are the electric companie, mainly foreign, who looked at a map of East Anglia and planned the easiest, i.e. cheapest, route to distribute the electricity. The fact that this map represents a living environment for people, ancient woodland, flora, fauna, birds and businesses seemed to have been treated as a minor inconvenience. When offshore substations can be built why, decimate unspoilt countryside with an initial complex of approximately 97,200 sq. mtrs.(with more to follow) and 11km cable trenches, destroying a fragile ecosystem. The transport system is already on overload, especially at peak periods, with numerous tailbacks, and will hinder even more, emergency vehicle access. Millions of pounds generated by one of the largest businesses, tourism, in this area, will be threatened by the resulting building and congestion. Who wants to holiday in the proposed East Suffolk Energy Building Sites during the next 15 a 20 years! We are a small island with finite countryside, once destroyed it will not return, robbing our future generations."

Jean Floodgate MBE
"There are offshore alternatives to the desecration of environmentally sensitive areas. We have to consider the future. In the short term the projects will cause considerable pollution in terms of Air, Noise and Light. Suffolk will no longer hold the same attraction for visitors The people who live here will change in attitude and approach towards their surroundings...this has been seen elsewhere. Communities become divided and lack the support network. Care and consideration of others is lost. Attitudes become "everyone for themselves", resentment is rife. Please consider the bigger picture and less disruptive alternatives. Do what you can to enable real and meaningful participation and engagement in the change process."

Jill Hubbard
"*The whole project will ruin an area of outstanding beauty. *Wildlife, particularly endangered species will be destroyed or drastically decreased. (eg The Nightingale, slow worms et c) *Some local footpaths will close and may not be reopened A footpath running into Fitches' lane was one that in the past residents fought to maintain so it is particularly important to them. *The care homes in the area will be affected by both the increase o traffic and excessive noise."

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

Leiston-cum-Sizewell Town Council
"I believe that the Initial Assessment of the Principal Issues must acknowledge the very real concerns raised regarding the cumulative impact of this and the other energy NSIP’s coming forward on this coast and, at least, make reference to this concern for the SoS to consider. The project itself, should it be consented, must be clearly linked to its sister application and conditions be applied to ensure that the cable route is laid and populated for both projects at the same time. The sandy topsoil along the cable route is in one of the driest areas of the country and particular conditions must be applied to ensure dust is effectively controlled continuously throughout construction. The disruption which will be caused by the crossing west of Knodishall on the B1069 must be quantified and conditions applied to ensure it is not used during peak periods of the daily commute. The Town Council continues to believe that the construction of such visually intrusive complexes and such large-scale industrial developments where they are now being proposed will always be wholly uncharacteristic to this area and will affect tourism and local amenity on a large scale. This will be addressed by other interested parties The proposed landfall at Thorpeness and associated cable route will severely affect our community’s quality of life and leave a visual blight on the landscape for many years to come. It is unacceptable to place these complexes within the close confines of rural villages like Friston and they should be located in positions better able to accommodate and disguise them. We still believe that any of the sites originally proposed to the west of Leiston in the onshore study area would extend and introduce the industrial development area right out into the countryside in a random fashion blighting a beautiful and agricultural landscape to an unacceptable degree and should not be used. If this does get approval it must be on the basis that the cable trenches will be filled in as soon as possible as the cable route moves west rather than the whole length laying open for years to come. Do a section at a time and re-instate. That working hours in the compounds and on the haul roads be brought in to 7.30am – 5pm to give local residents and walkers etc. some dust free and noise free recreation time in their gardens and in the countryside. The A1094, as it passes the junction to the B1069 (Blackheath Corner) should have a 40mph limit imposed. The detailed work done by SPR is noted but there should be another study done to look at changing the whole layout and visibility at this junction to increase safety of local residents further. The carriageway should be widened on B1069 from Blackheath to Knodishall as it will be very intimidating for motorists encountering continual (100% increase) HGV traffic. The B1069 from Blackheath to Knodishall is difficult for local drivers when buses or HGV’s are encountered. The carriageway must be widened for this stretch. Issues with the A12 Friday Street junction and Sizewell Gap Road."

Lynne Darley
"Do I repeat what I said in the first part? Our countryside is being put at risk, never to recover. Trenches will be dug; unsuitable road networks; sub stations close to small villages; pollution; and what happens in the case of a Nuclear incident? Please rethink!"

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

Meg Purvey
"I wish to object to ScottishPower Renewables planing application for the following reasons: Though supportive of offshore wind energy the proposed land based substations wil have a detrimental impact to this area. The East Anglian coastline is natural and beautiful this proposal will cause the destruction of parts of it and have a great environmental impact. The breakup of the coast line will cause problems to migrating wildlife The countryside will be irreparably spoilt and the destruction of woodland will happen if substations and other infrastructures are allowed to be built. This again impacting upon the wildlife. From information available there are brownfield sights in the vicinity that could be considered that would have far less impact upon the environment. For local communities this will have an impact on jobs created from trade and tourism as the area becomes less appealing. Increased light pollution and peace and tranquillity being affected by massive infrastructure."

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

Middleton cum Fordley Parish Council
"Representation giving notice of interest in, and concerns regarding: The East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm Development Consent Order Application ref: EN010078 We are deeply dismayed, not to say alarmed, that this application is being submitted for consideration with so little reference to, or allowance being made for, the combined impact of some six other projects planned in the very area covered by this DCO. There seems to be no regard being paid to the cumulative disruption that will be caused to the daily life of local residents, in terms of noise, air and light pollution, delays to all forms of traffic (including the emergency services). Nor is there due recognition of the damage and destruction of the adjacent AONB and SSSI with their fragile environmental and ecological aspects and the inevitable erosion of this unique region’s tourism. With several further windfarm developments, their associated National Grid infrastructures , the NG Nautilus project and the proposed new twin nuclear power station complex at Sizewell (SZC) all envisaged to overlap in part or even run consecutively, the various specific transport movement figures quoted in this particular application are all but meaningless. And the effect, not only to people living on or around the HGV routes shown, but also the delays to deliveries of the constructors’ own materials, could well be devastating. The lack of “joined-up thinking” in this process is spectacular at all levels. Back in the 1980s, a new road, providing direct access to Sizewell from the A12, was planned to protect local communities from the problems of construction of Sizewell B. But it never happened. With all the current proposals, the need for that very road, taking its original path (D2 as it was then labelled; EDF’s misguidedly dismissed route W today), is now overwhelming. We beg to question whether the piecemeal construction of onshore facilities for each new windfarm is really necessary or appropriate. The Dutch solution of each farm being joined by an offshore Ring Main, and landfall thus limited to fewer, or even singular, locations makes absolute sense, especially when the East Suffolk coastline’s beauty and fragility is considered. With existing onshore windfarm infrastructure already existent at nearby Bawdsey, what prevents the new farms’ supply being added to that? Or select an area already spoiled, for example the brown field sites alongside the rail tracks at Manningtree?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Redshaw
"I wish to object to the building of the East Anglia Two Offshore Windfarm, it is an unsuitable area of the country for this massive development. The area is very important for wildlife, plants , tourism and is a fragile soil area, prone to Coastal Erosion and this size of development could have a major effect , flloding is possible in Friston with the concrete diverting the water flow. The Cliffs at Thorpness are not strong enough to carry the landing cables, the 11km of Cable trenches will destroy enviromentally sensitive areas , destroy ancient woodland. It is a quiet area , with small traffic movements , the roads are too small to cope with the high traffic levels and the Heavy loads on the HGVs required to build the project. The area survives on Tourism , there will be loss of trade , visitor income will drop, leading to loss of jobs and economic decline. There will be a very big increase in Light, Noise and air pollution , with increased hazard and health issues"

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

R. C. G. Rowe
"I object to the massive development of substations in the Friston and surround area as planned. The area is unspoilt countryside, part of the Sandlings. Tourism and the local economy will be adversely affected. The environment will be seriously harmed during construction and afterwards. Recognising that the cabling, etc. and substations are required they must be planned and sited as unobtrusively as possible. (Redacted) Germany constructed V1 and V2 rocket sites deep in the ground in NW France 80 years ago. The effective camoflague is still evident now. This planned development could be constructed deep in the ground from the coastline inland so that its impact at ground level should negligible and the countryside would remain intact."

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

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

Robin Singleton
"The proposals would interfere with environmental interests of established importance in this fragile and remote coastal area. Traffic pollution would be severe during construction. The impact of the proposals on this attractive and open landscape cannot be successfully mitigated due to their intrusive scale"

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

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

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

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

Stanley Spilman
"I would first like to say that I hope that the Irony of trying to legislate against 'representations' that are not 'vexatious' is not lost on the Planning Inspectorate. The amount of fear, frustration and anxiety that has been levelled at the communities around the effected area, compounded by the sheer unilateralism and hubris with which this enterprise has been rolled out is very worrying, and indicative of a distinct and deliberate beclouding of the line between the Public and Private interests. It is well known that there exists in Whitehall, a policy of a 'Revolving Door' towards people involved in the planning and commissioning of public projects and their Private Sector counterparts - thus how can ordinary UK citizens trust that when they are told that something is 'within their best interest', they don't assume, as I do; that there are many other interests at play here? Especially when the Company in question wants to build a Cheaper Substation on Land instead of a more efficient Station at Sea. A Historic landscape and community is more important than Scottish Power's Shareholders."

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

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

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

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

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

[Mirriam] Jan MacKenzie
"We, in this area, have had up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 - 15 years. The cumulative impact of this has already been felt. This new projects plans to use unspoilt countryside, will destroy ancient woodland,will sever the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and will consequently be a considerable threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath. Thorpeness cliffs are fragile and are therefore unsuitable as a site for landing cables and the vast length land to be dug for cable trenches will destroy environmentally sensitive areas. Communities will also suffer with the building of substations close to a small village and the increase in traffic - especially HGVs - along small unsuitable roads. The increase of traffic on such roads will lead to problems for the emergency services gaining access to accidents and, in the event of a nuclear accident, evacuation routes would be severely hampered. Pollution will also be evident. Suffolk will lose its famous dark skies and its peace and tranquillity. Air pollution will be the inevitable result of increased traffic and the digging of trenches in the sandy soil. There will be a major impact on tourism - the DMO report states that traffic congestion and related issues deter tourists. For tourists and locals alike is the problem and inconvenience of the closure of PRoWs. I am an ardent supporter of renewable energy - but not in cases like this when the damage inflicted on local residents and wildlife is so severe. Jan MacKenzie"

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

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

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

Antony Easton
"RE: EAST ANGLIA TWO I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: - Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years - Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables - Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium - Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding - 11Km of cable trenches,destroying environmentally sensitive areas - Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes. - Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath - Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor - Destruction of ancient woodland - Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs - Light pollution.Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost - Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost - Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues - Increased traffic on roads, a danger to cyclists and residents - Emergency Services.Inevitable delays endangering lives - In event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered - Impact on tourism. DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists fromcoming to the area - Impact on businesses.Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline - Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) Even though I have used another source for these objections, they are my unreserved objections too and are reproduced here without contradiction to my own views about East Anglia Two"

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

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

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

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

David Moon
"I would like to raise my objection to the planning application for offshore Windfarm two, below are my reason for objecting >Destruction of woodland and the fragile environment and eco-system that this developments route is being proposed through. >Cable trenches that would run too close to local villages and homes, disrupting the normal ebb and flow of local life and travel. >Destruction of the unspoilt countryside around the village of Friston. >impact on the tourism and economy of Leiston, Thorpeness and Aldeburgh. >The threat to wildlife and migrating birds in and around the Sandlings Heath area. >Disruption to Emergency Services route when responding to 999 calls, endangering the well being and lives of the local residents."

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

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

Dr Graham Tattersall
"Construction of a the EA2 windfarm substation in the village of Friston will have the following specific consequences: * Destruction of a rural landscape that is valued by residents of Friston and visitors to the Suffolk Coastal Area. * Generation of traffic noise and artificial light both during construction and subsequent operation. * Intrusive tonal noise (50 Hz and harmonics) from electronic conversion of windfarm feed to grid frequency and voltage. * Generation of heavy traffic to which existing roads are unsuited. * Degradation of quality of life for all in Suffolk without compensating local benefit. * Insufficient consideration given to alterative sites such as land near Sizewell B/C or brownfield sites such as Bradwell power station in Essex."

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

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

Frances Cahill
"*The proposed development would irreversibly damage the environment in an area designated as a heritage coast and of outstanding natural beauty. This harm would be: 1. Visual - namely to the look of what is a unique and tranquil landscape. 2. In terms of damage to the natural environment and the habitat of plant life and animals; 3. To the unspoilt character of the villages, by creating a vast and disproportionate infrastructure of buildings and roads that will put pressure on schools, health services and other local facilities 4. In terms of pollution and noise levels, damaging the quality of the air because of the huge increase in vehicle and other emissions 5. The destruction of the identity of small rural communities. *We owe it both to present and future generations to preserve such a quiet, unspoilt area of natural and fragile beauty which once harmed, can never be restored. Please, please consider other options such as offshore hubs or ring mains and listen to the voice of the local community. The proposals are being made without thought to the views of local people; to the views of the many who visit this part of Suffolk in search of peace and a break from busy, stressful lives; nor to the impact on our children. A wrong decision now, to destroy a precious natural asset, will reverberate down the generations."

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

Ian Wiles
"This proposal is ridiculous, SSE have not listened to the govenment, local goverment, businesses and local residents. It would seem that SSE have purchased the land before any consultancy with any of the above and will just bulldozer it in regardless of opinion. The proposal flys in the face of any consideration to the local environment issues - loss of habitat, impact to small rural villages, lack of infrastructure, impact of housing etc,etc the list goes on."

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

John Last
"Cumulative impact on local area too great and projects proposed are not co-ordinated. Treat to wildlife and Sandlings Heath Severing the Suffolk Heaths and AONB. Destruction of woodlands(some ancient) Impact on Tourism and the local ecomony Unsuitability of Thorpeness Cliffs which already have serious erosion issues and serious accidents. Local infrastructure is not suitable for up to 7 projects, of which there is not a co-ordinate approach or timeline. There is no evidence that Offshore hubs and ring mains have been explored enough to rule out as a more suitable option to Landfall facilities"

John Ruiz
"Industrialisation of this region. Mental effect on local communities of 12 to 15 years of disruption. Use of unspoilt and green sites. Disruption of local traffic. Noise and pollution. Use of roads not built for this volume of traffic and heavy materials. Negative effect on tourism. Negative effect on wildlife. Destruction of ancient woodland. Destruction of Heritage Coast"

Julia Mary Ruiz
"Destruction of Heritage Coast. Industrialisation of área of natural beauty. Loss of valuable farmland. Loss of local amenities, footpaths etc. Negative impact on tourism and trade. Noise and dust pollution. Local roads not suitable for heavy loads and increased HGVs. Threat to wildlife. Overloading local infrastructure."

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

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

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

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

Mr M J Allen
"I support the representation made by my Town Council and am concerned that the proposed development would transform this part of Suffolk from a beautiful area with its thriving tourist economy into an industrial area that that no on e would want to visit."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teresa Newton
"I am so concerned and worried about the impact these proposed developments will have on the landscape and shoreline of this beautiful county which relies heavily on tourism for the livelihood of people. The immense impact it will have on the local fauna and flora."

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

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

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

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

Andrew Harris
"The cable corridor route will cause destruction of a large area of woodland and AONB as well as causing major problems for local communities during the long construction period. There will be adverse effect on local businesses and the tourist industry of the area which it is expected will have a long term effect on the economy of the area with fewer visitors wishing to holiday or vist this part of East Anglia certainly whilst construction is taking place. The increased traffic during construction on the A1094, B1121 and the B1069 will cause a greta deal of inconvenience to local residents visitors and businesses who rely on these country roads to carry out their daily routines. These roads are totally unsuitable for the large amount of heavy construction traffic expected. Overall this unspoilt and rural area of East Anglia is unsuitable for this proposed development which long term will turn this area into a large industrial and urban site."

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

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

Antonia Howard
"I would like to object to this Scottish power planning application for the following reasons: Destruction of ancient woodland Unsuitability and fragility of surrounding cliffs for landing cables Threat to wildlife Threat to local ecosystem from prolonged building works Domination of local towns and villages Cumulative effects of prolonged construction of various energy projects."

Catherine Hackshall
"Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to make the following representations in relation to the application East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm (Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010078). • Cumulative impact of Sizewell, National Grid and offshore windfarms. • Negative impact on human quality of life, enjoyment and use of the area. • Negative impact on the landscape and heritage of the rural coastal area. • Site selection and current land use. • Light pollution from the construction phase and during operation. • The socio-economic impact a job sense and tourism. • Flood risk of the proposed areas that would be affected and where floodwaters may be pushed away to. • Disturbance and stopping up of public rights of way. • Damage and removal to onshore ecology sites and ongoing effects of substation operation on remaining sites. • Design and noise impact of the construction and operation of the substation and cables. • Traffic and transport routes for the construction and operation of the substation and cables. • The route of the cable, particularly the landfall at the fragile cliffs of Thorpeness. The location and scale of the project is not suitable for this rural coastal area. Regards, Catherine Hackshall"

Charles Manning
"Assuming the project is considered viable, the road system serving the proposed site is not fit for purpose on the basis that the movement of materials to and from the site will use mainly heavy trucks. The two village bypass of the A12 passing around Stratford St Andrew and Farnham must be completed before work starts. The use of the A1094 to access the site will not allow two trucks to pass one another due to road width. The project should provide for an adequate road width or a one way system using a circular route from the A12 at Friday Street to Leiston and then north to Theberton and Yoxford, rejoining the A12. This would require better temporary service roads across the site to connect to the B1122."

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

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

East Anglia THREE Limited
"APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER BY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm – APPLICATION REFERENCE EN010078 Dear Sirs I write to you on behalf of East Anglia THREE Limited with regard to the above application. Whilst the East Anglia THREE East Anglia TWO projects share the same parent company, they are being developed by separate project companies and as such are separate commercial entities. East Anglia THREE Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) which in turn is part of the Iberdrola Group, a world leader in clean energy and the leading wind energy producer worldwide. SPR is at the forefront of the development of the renewables industry and is contributing towards providing cost effective energy security for the UK, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and maximising economic opportunities through investment in the UK. East Anglia THREE Limited fully supports the Development Consent Order applications made by East Anglia TWO Limited. The project will make a significant contribution to the UK’s renewable energy supply and consequently help provide significant benefits in terms of local and regional economic growth, energy security and decarbonisation. The East Anglia TWO project will continue SPR’s investment in East Anglia as part of our East Anglia HUB initiative, where to date SPR has already spent, or has committed to spending (through the East Anglia ONE project), over £75 million with businesses across the East of England, providing significant jobs and investment to the region. The East Anglia ONE project has also facilitated further investments of £30m in port infrastructure at Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. East Anglia THREE is 45km from East Anglia TWO. The East Anglia THREE Offshore Export Cable Corridor passes through the East Anglia TWO Windfarm site and Offshore Cable Corridor approximately in an East to West trajectory. East Anglia TWOs draft Development Consent Order includes Protective Provisions to protect the integrity of East Anglia Three Limited’s offshore assets where interaction between the projects occurs. East Anglia THREE Limited consider this is the appropriate mechanism to ensure its assets are protected in the future and will continue to liaise with East Anglia TWO Limited during subsequent phases of the project to ensure these protective provisions are adhered to. Yours faithfully Ross Ovens Project Director On behalf of East Anglia THREE Limited"

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

Frances Wardale
"I wish to make known my objection for Scottish Power renewables to site a substation at Friston for the following reasons: Desecration of local wildlife and their habitats Increase in noise, air and light pollution Destruction of fragile coastline Loss of valuable tourism income to the area. I feel certain that alternative routes and sites should be selected that would result in less impact. I suppoet renewables but feel that there has not been sufficient research and local consultation."

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

Gillian Crowe
"When my children were small, we were able to take long walks along the beach from Thorpeness via Sizewell towards Southwold.. Seeing the looming structures which now dominate the skyline, we draw back in horror. Now more carnage is planned. Who will this benefit? The residents of Suffolk's coastal towns and villages? No! Their peace and tranquillity will soon be further destroyed by noise and air pollution. The holiday makers who once craved its' opportunity for calm and reflection? No! Those qualities will be buried by what is called 'progress'. Who will benefit from this 'progress'? So is it all brought down to the crude desire to make money? Who will see this money? Certainly not those who need and deserve it. Finally those who are powerless to defend themselves against the greed and selfishness of the human population. What will happen to the wildlife for whom Suffolk is their natural habitat? Will they also be trampled under the feet of the developers? Let's hold on to what remains of Suffolk's dignity before it is lost forever in the name of 'progress'.."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margaret Dewey
"My objection is the same as for East Anglia ONE. The very fact that there are 2 schemes is indicative of the failure to plan strategically for the U.K. as a whole. In so relatively small a country this is stunningly short sighted - not to say incomprehensible."

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

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

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

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

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

Berrys on behalf of Mrs Ann Dallas
"Mrs Ann Dallas (“the objector) owns and occupies Peartree Farm IP17 1TN and is therefore one of the closest residents to the proposed substation. The objector supports and repeats the representations submitted by Substation Action Save East Suffolk (SASES) and Friston Parish Council. The following is a brief summary of the other main aspects the objector disagrees with and why, which may be followed by a Written Representation: - 1. No explanation of how the scheme will affect the objector. The applicant sent a USB containing 577 files but did not explain how the scheme will affect the objector with reference to specific files on the USB. If present, the information specifically relevant to the objector is buried in the volume of documents received which is disingenuous and a breach of duty. 2. No engagement with the objector who is a key receptor. Aside from receiving notice of acceptance of the application and the USB, the objector has not been engaged with at all by the applicant. The objector’s agent sent enquiries to the email provided and to the liaison officer for the ONE project seeking clarification but received no response. 3. No photographic montages provided to demonstrate visual impact. The documents include a “Proposed Planting Plan”, however it is not clear what will remain visible until the planting is established and thereafter. The applicant proposes developing the final design post consent, however this will limit the influence that key receptors can have on design. 4. No explanation as to what any of the designations on the objector’s land mean. The applicant has failed to make it clear why the objectors land is included in the development area, what for and how it is proposed to be used. The objectors land is designated as Land subject to Temporary Occupation and Use and as Work No 43 but we could find no explanation what any of this means. 5. No plans showing extent of the overhead line realignment works. The objector’s property is already blighted by two National Grid 24 conductor 400,000 volt overhead lines crossing in close proximity within 60 metres. The application refers to permanent realignment and temporary diversion of overhead lines, but we could not find any plans showing the proposed routes. 6. No plans showing location of underground lines and earthing. It is understood that up to six underground cables and up to two fibre optic cables with joining pits will be installed to connect into the substation. However, we could not find any plans showing the routes of the underground cables and there is no mention of any earthing which will presumably also be required. 7. No assurance of non-interference with private water supply. The objectors land benefits from a private water supply from a well that is 60ft deep and has a 10ft borehole, which is fed by an underground stream. No assurance has been received that water quality and level will be monitored and continuity of supply ensured during and after construction. 8. No suitable diversion of footpath from Little Moor Farm to Woodside Farm. The applicant is proposing to permanently stop up a historic footpath and redirect users through Laurel Covert and back on to the main Grove Road. The road could be avoided by providing a footpath through the planting to the east and south of the substation, to link back up with the footpath into Friston. 9. No provision during and after construction for reducing impact of physical factors. No provision during construction for reducing impact of physical factors arising from scheme including noise, dust, fumes, smells, vibration and artificial lighting. No immediate and permanent provisions after construction for reducing impact of physical factors arising from scheme including those stated above and electromagnetic field. 10. No woodland planting proposed to the north and west of the substation. The plans show woodland planting against the boundary to the south and east, however there is no woodland planting proposed against the other boundaries. Once established, additional planting would screen the substation from the diverted footpath and presumably assist in reducing electromagnetic field. In conclusion, there has been a complete lack of transparent engagement with local residents who will be directly and severely prejudiced by the scheme. The East Anglia TWO onshore substation would severely affect Friston and should not in any case be permitted to be developed in such close vicinity. For the above reasons and those set out in SASES and Friston Parish Council’s representations, the Planning Inspectorate is invited to reject the application."

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

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

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

Peter Wallis
"Wind power is essential but it must develop in a way that respects the local ecology and environment. The proposed project does not seem to minimise this damage. There is no use of existing brownfield sites such as Sizewell power station. Furthermore there seems to be little sharing of resources between the various energy companies involved possibly for commercial reasons. Government should insist on a joined up approach to the various projects so as to minimise the environmental damage. Commercial interests seem to be preventing this at present. Strong central planning is needed to minimise the environmental damage and the government should require the power companies to work together."

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

Rijkswaterstaat
"We have a concern regarding the transboundary impacts in chapter 12.8 on offshore ornithology. In the commentary column it is stated that at the time of writing no specific information was found in relation to turbine numbers and specifications or ornithology assessments. However, we recently upgraded the Ecology and Cumulation Framework. The original methodology is described (also in English) at this site: https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/functions-and-use/offshore-wind-energy/ecology/ In these calculations, scenario’s for size and number of turbines are used for the different plans up to 2030. We would appreciate if in the EIAinformation is used on planned turbine's in the Netherlands EEZ when assessing the accumulation of transboundary impacts."

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

Samuel Davies
"Suffolk is a county of rich and beautiful heritage, full of its niche and gorgeous market towns and villages and its shimmering shorelines, serving as a role model to the East Coast and areas alike. I have fond memories of my father who would take me away on vacations in the summertime to Aldeburgh and areas alike. We would buy ice creams in Thorpeness and play in the arcades on the bustling pier at Southwold, and have mysterious adventures on the walk from Snape Maltings to the discreetly flourishing hamlet of Iken. It came to the point where Suffolk became a home away from home, and I feel that a lack of respect for the history of the area will amount in the eventual degradation of such a stunning scene. Unfortunately my father has passed some 5 years ago, but I am sure that he would be disgusted at the mere thought of this campaign just as I am. It is harrowing to me that my children will never get the chance to experience the beauty and natural splendour of the area, forming lifelong memories and lifelong emotional bonds. This thought greatly saddens me, and I hope that the pioneers of this project will be able to see past their pockets to understand that not just wildlife is at stake here, but so are families, histories and lifelong memories. I think of my father in times like this and believe that the usurpation of such a thriving community is not a step that needs to be taken, and am extremely disappointed that this scheme was not challenged sooner. What hopes does this hold for the future of my children?"

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

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

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

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

Thomas Sweet
"FAO Examining Authority, RE: East Anglia Two My objections which challenge the relevant SPR planning application are as follows: 1. There have been unreasonable, broad assumptions made by SPR and the absence of mitigating risks have resulted in a totally unsuitable set of development sites and locations. 2. SPR have continually failed to acknowledge the views, concerns and objections of the residents of the affected areas of development namely, the residents of Friston affected by siting of the substation and connection to National Grid and those along the areas of landfall, onshore 11km cable corridor and road / routing alterations contained in these proposals. 3. Proposed changes to roads and environment to accommodate cable routes and large numbers of HGVs over a lengthy period of time will create immediate and ongoing danger and risks to the daily lives of residents, tourists and local businesses. Wildlife and mature natural habitats such as the valued Sandlings Heath along with woodlands will be destroyed. 4. Construction will generate unacceptable levels of noise and air pollution. 5. 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. 6. 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 Two could have been absorbed and integrated within the existing infrastructure. SPR must be held accountable for this lack of foresight and planning and held to task by the Planning Inspectorate at the appropriate phase in the planning process for these proposals to be rejected on basis that that they need to be integrated within the existing land-based infrastructure. 7. In conclusion, from the information I have received from SPR and other relevant balanced sources, I believe this proposal displays SPR's opportunistic approach and lack of strategic planning of renewables projects showing total disregard for the local environment in this unique AONB which supports and attracts wildlife, residents and visitors who value and support it."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony Lockwood
"- Suffolk's famous peace and tranquillity lost, noise pollution, air pollution. With the cancellation of the Stratford, Glenham bypass, how will the road infrastructure cope with the predicted movement of Hgv? Friston is a totally inappropriate site for the substation."

Brian Charlton
"The proposal to direct heavy traffic along Saxmundham and Leiston Roads in Aldeburgh:- * will have a disproportionate effect on residential areas of that town rather than by a more direct route. It affects pedestrian access routes to local shopping and school, pedestrian crossings in use for both and residential parking for approx 40 homes with no alternative parking available. The town end of the route is already subject to heavy traffic congestion particularly during the summer months. * is unnecessary when the other routes used for most of the construction traffic can be used. It will extend the area of the ANOB affected by construction blight when there is little significant advantage in doing so. The fact that the number of traffic movements proposed have been reduced on consultation demonstrates that there are workable alternatives available. *the proposal needs to be coordinated with the other energy proposals for the area to minimise disruption rather than the present piecemeal approach which increases disruption."

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

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

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

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

Colin Sibley
"Concern about long term effects to health, educational success of our children and economic damage to the local area. Agricultural land being lost to industrial construction, some of it permanent. Loss of tourist economy, including music, artists, sailors and wildlife specialists. Loss of currently protected areas - ANOBs and SSSIs. Why are they even being considered for use? Endangered wildlife will have nowhere else to go. Impact of other potential developments in the same area such as Sizewells C&D and all the new link roads planned. All plans lasting more than a decade. Local communities not resilient enough for impact of migrant workforce, its demands/needs and impact on local infrastructure. Security in terms of threats to terrorism when so much is concentrated in one area. Safety when migrant workforce won't all come with family support - lone men living away from home for years. The health of the local communities in terms of the effects of light and noise pollution with extended shift work and heavy plant machinery."

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

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

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

Edward Magee
"i Fully support the representation of SASES and Friston Parish Council. This development will have a major impact on the peace and tranquillity of life in Suffolk. Many peo0le including myself have moved an visit the area area use of the natural beauty and the impact of this development will severely impact on that peace and tranquility. It will have a determination impact on the financial value of my house. It will impact on the social economic of the area with no financial impact in term sof jobs and it will have a lasting and determination impact on tourism is the immediate and wider area. The traffic disruption during the building will also impact on society and the life of visitors and residents. Local infastruture is is not able to support the activity. There is concerns about the impact of noise and light pollution that are not explained in the proposals and I there is little indication of future developments could be made one site once it is built that could indeed further else rate the life and livihoodl of the area."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historic England
"PINs Registration and Relevant Representation Form Section 56 Planning Act 2008 Date notified: 25 November 2019 Response deadline: 27 January 2020 Project: The Proposed East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm Response made by: Dr Will Fletcher Our ref: PL00541702 PINs Ref:EN010078 Telephone: 01223 582710 The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (HBMCE) is better known as Historic England, and we are the Government’s adviser on all aspects of the historic environment in England - including historic buildings and areas, archaeology and historic landscape. We have a duty to promote conservation, public understanding and enjoyment of the historic environment. HBMCE are an executive Non-Departmental public body and we answer to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Digital Culture, Media and Sport. In addition to our remit for the conservation of the historic environment the National Heritage Act (2002) gave HBMCE responsibility for maritime archaeology in the English area of the UK Territorial Sea. Representation: The applicant has provided a full Environmental Statement and Historic England’s full written representation will comment on aspects and concerns that we have established with regards to the impact of the scheme upon the on- and offshore historic environment. In relation to the off-shore historic environment, the large number of geophysical seabed anomalies recorded within the PDA highlights the potential for significant historic environment features to be present. Our concern is therefore to ensure that the Outline Offshore Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation considers how the construction can be designed sensitively to take into account known and potential heritage assets. In the event of the project being consented, we are concerned to ensure the appropriate depth for a continuous stratigraphy is incorporated into the planning of the geotechnical survey. With boreholes and vibrocores stored and maintained to maximise archaeological objectives. This is to mitigate impacts on archaeological deposits of high potential. We have identified that the resulting proposals of embedded and additional mitigation - through schemes of investigation - have the potential to successfully mitigate impacts to the historic environment through avoidance, but these present opportunities to better reveal the significance of the heritage assets found within the proposed development area (see ES Chapter 16). We consider that the projects potential contribution to new knowledge arising from such investigations (EN-3, paragraph 2.6.142) can be linked to additional socio-economic beneficial effects, such as the provision and enhancement of educational facilities for the community (EN-1, paragraph 5.12.3). Given the scale of the development and the cumulative impacts within this region of the southern North Sea, we feel these outcomes should be included as part of the mitigation. On-shore, our principal concern is in relation to the proposed development of the sub-station and the cumulative impact of this new infrastructure on the significance of the grade II* listed Church of St. Mary at Friston. Dating from the eleventh century, the phases of building illustrate ecclesiastical design and patterns of worship, and show the significant role of the church within the community. It lies on the northern edge of the village and is appreciated in a rural and largely open landscape setting enabling views from the south and north. This enhances its prominence and adds to the appreciation of the building. The scale and appearance of the development would significantly change the character of this rural landscape setting. It would compromise and completely obscure views to the church from the north and from the church looking northwards. It would also greatly impact on key views of the church from the south, which would be seen against a backdrop of the sub-stations. We consider this would result in a very high level of harm to the significance of the grade II* church. We are aware the proposal includes screening and mitigation planting, however we have also considered this aspect of the scheme and have concerns that this will also bring about further changes to the setting of the church. We intend to expand on this more fully in our full response, and it is likely we will consider wider impacts of the proposed sub-station infrastructure and the on-shore cable route on designated and non-designated heritage assets. We have however concluded that although we do not object to the scheme in principle, we will consider an in principle objection to the location of the sub-station on historic environment grounds. Dr Will Fletcher [email protected]"

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

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

Janette Redshaw
"The planned developements will send too much heavy traffic through a busy tourist resort where the roads barely cope at the height of the holiday season,& the heavy lorries will add to congestion on minor roads & are a safety hazard to other road users in particular children who are ardent cyclist in this area. This is an area designated as AONB & how can an area that is protected by legislation suddenly be dug up destroying numerous delicate Flora & fauna habitats which are unlikely to recover back to their pre development status delicate ,ecosystems do not work like that. Tourism will inevitably be affected & as a result the local economy will loose out"

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

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

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

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

John Dawson
"This project has been driven purely by cost and not enough thought has gone into the impact on the environment, wildlife and well being of the local residents and impact on the tourism and other businesses that are so important to the area. More should be done to mitigate the size of the sites and installations, plus more joined up thinking with the other large projects at Sizewell. Forcing if necessary the main players to work together on a single site. It is unfair for one small area to have to accommodate so much power infrastructure which is necessary for all in the UK and therefore should be spread out into other areas of the UK not just this small area of ANOB. The design should be smaller and have less impact on the flora, fauna and local populous and the businesses they depend on."

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Keane
"I am stronly opposed to the building of the substation at Friston and the damage caused between the sea shore and the station. Surely it should be possible to build the substation in the sea."

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

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

Mrs Hilary Thorby
"As a frequent visitor to East Suffolk for RSPB Minsmere & the Suffolk coast in general, Snape Maltings & the village of Friston where I have close friends, I am appalled & horrified by the DCO applications for EA2 by Scottish Power Renewables. I understand the need for renewable energy, but the cumulative impact of EA2, & what could be in total up to seven energy projects running together, spells destruction & devastation to such a small geographic location. The impact on the landscape, which includes an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & two sites of Special Scientific Interest, wildlife, the local population & tourism would be catastrophic. Not to mention the increased risk of flooding to the village of Friston where the drainage infrastructure is already inadequate, the loss of footpaths & rights of way, light pollution, noise, & volume of construction traffic. I strongly object to EA2 & urge you to listen & act to save the peace & tranquility of this outstandingly beautiful area"

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

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

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

Nigel Strutt
"Dear Examining Authority, RE: EAST ANGLIA TWO I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application for the following reasons: The cumulative effect on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years The effects on local traffic levels and a road network which is unsuitable for higher numbers of HGVs and a danger to both cyclists and residents. The impact on tourism, local businesses, loss of trade and jobs, leading to social and economic decline."

Penny Robertson
"I am terrified of the cumulative impact on the local environment & local communities of up to 7 energy projects in this immediate area. There is a huge threat to wildlife & areas of special scientific interest in a time of climate emergency when we need to protect all the biodiversity we can. I am saddened by the destruction & threats to ancient woodland, pristine Sandling soils & fragile habitats. I object to the miles of cabling that will go through productive farmland & the massive substation & related infrastructure that will dominate this area. We have a huge tourist industry round here which will be destroyed for the forseeable future causing economic & social decline. This is a beautiful rural area which will be utterly spoiled by this huge industrial complex of energy projects. We will never get it back & that is a national & global tragedy."

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

Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that: With respect to Registration of Interest documentation, we are reassured that earlier comments raised by us on 5th December 2017 and 26th March 2019 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues that could significantly affect public health. We are satisfied that the wider determinants of health have been adequately assessed, using a suitable methodology. On the basis of the documentation provided we have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."

Rachel Minto
"I wish to object to SPR's planning application for several reasons 1. The unsuitability of Thorpeness cliffs as the site for landing cables 2.The use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for a substation 3. The threat to wildlife in the area 4.The severing of the wildlife corridor on the Suffolk Coast and Heath 5. The destruction of ancient woodland 6. 11km of trench which would impact environmentally sensitive areas"

Richard Hunter
"I support the representation being made by SASES & the Friston Parish Council. I am subject to flooding in Low Rd Even before the Sub stations are built. Loss of landscape & foot paths . Los of wildlife and habitat Serve impact on future generations. Impact on road users and near Villages. I am a productive allotment user & the drainage plans of the water run off will effect us. Noise & light pollution."

Roger Ellwood Turner
"To the examining Authority. I wish to object to the planning application made by Scottish Power Renewables. My main objections are. 1. The serious damage that will be done to such beautiful countryside by the large tracks that will be made and the enormous sub station. All this across prime agricultural London, over several years 2. The damaging effect on wildlife habit from the noise, excavation and pollution caused by machines 3 The serious effect it will have on the local population by the close proximity of the works 4 problems s to local traffic caused by the heavy vehicles,and volume needed to carry out the works. There are many other negatives to this project well documented by others. I have been a Suffolk resident over many years with an involvement in.agriculture. R. Turner"

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

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

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

Sizewell Residents Association
"Sizewell residents are gravely concerned about these plans because 1) they involve drilling through rock on an already fragile and eroding coastline. This corraline crag has been shown to be a hugely important stabilising feature of this particular area. It is also a traditional potting ground for lobsters and crabs. 2) the lorry route to Thorpeness is identified as the Sizewell Road/Lovers Lane - this is not the existing lorry route to Thorpeness which could and should be used..The Sizewell Road/Lovers Lane is the only Road in and out of an operational nuclear site (Sizewell B) and this includes any access for emergencies (accidental or deliberate) and as such traffic should certainly not be increased, especially when this could be totally avoided. This is a very serious issue. It is also the only road for residents, visitors, and businesses which include a Conference Centre, and two Caravan sites, as well as pub and cafe. Tourism now plays an important part of the economy, as well as being important for the well-being of the many dog-walkers, birdwatchers, and Park-Runners using the beach. It is also the only access to a decommissioning nuclear site(Sizewell A), and a highly likely further nuclear site (Sizewell C) certainly in the initial construction phase. 3) the cable route should not come via Sizewell at all, since there is a much less intrusive more direct route that could be taken - the ‘planned’ routing has come about through fault-ridden initial enquiries, and which ignore the issue of it passing directly adjacent to permanent homes..not second homes..and dismissing the possibility of using underground route in possible sensitive locations. 4) Residents and industry have maintained a balance here which meets the needs of all, including tourism and leisure pursuits, and this has been hard won through good communication, consultation and negotiation, none of which have been shown by this Company. This project jeopardises this balance, and indeed need not involve Sizewell at all. 5) Sizewell surely has enough upset to deal with as a main provider of energy without further projects being foisted on us. This project does not even offer long-term employment opportunities, badly needed here. 6) We surely must take a strategic view of plans, plans which must treasure our AONB’s, coastlines, and greenfield sites, and especially as we now recognise the importance of mental and physical health. The current plans are based on poor and superficial initial investigations, and have come about through poor handling of their own plans for Bawdsey etc in their EA1/EA3 work. This and the many energy plans should not be rushed through in this ad hoc way, and should be thoroughly thought through."

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

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

Susan Seabrook
"1) (Redacted) was purchased in October 2017. There was no indication on relevant Searches that SPR's cabling route would pass within 60m. of my new home and 10m. from the garden or that there were any plans at all of a cabling route coming ashore within a few hundred metres of this property. I downsized to the cottage in order to enjoy a peaceful retirement in a beautiful, peaceful environment close to the sea and to be able to enjoy a life of walking, cycling, bird-watching, swimming right from my doorstep. And, being able to pay for myself for care in old age. I now find that this may not be possible if SPR's plans are accepted to come ashore at Thorpeness with their cabling route. Unasked-for stress now dominates my daily life - given the possibility of massive air pollution from heavy machinery and traffic and being overwhelmed by dust from excavations in a wholly sandy soil. (redacted) 2) The East Suffolk coastline is getting washed away at an alarming rate; this will not be helped by SPR's coastal activities at Thorpeness. 3) For generations this area has been used for leisure activities. These will become impossible with the destruction of b and c roads, public footpaths and bridleways. This has been a safe area for families, wildlife, tourist activities: it will become a no-go area if SPR have their way. None of the roads are suitable for the volume/weight of construction site vehicles. 4) This is a tourist area - something Suffolk has worked seriously hard towards for the past 30+ years. There is a good level of employment and this is a happy area enjoying the untold benefits of having an unspoiled peaceful coast, with beautiful villages and areas of outstanding natural beauty in which to enjoy all that implies. If SPR receive planning permission to come ashore at Thorpeness, trench to Sizewell then on to Friston a way of life will be ruined and all that we enjoy now will be forcibly removed for the foreseeable future. 5) Friston is a small unspoiled village, sitting within valuable agricultural land and is totally unsuitable for the construction of a electrical substation with all the horrors that implies - light pollution, noise pollution and air pollution not to mention the filth that will be created from such a development. It is unthinkable and our local citizens should not be made to suffer in this way. 6) SPR should think outside the box, develop an offshore ring main and stop ruining tracts of our precious countryside willy-nilly wherever they fancy."

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

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

Tim Anfilogoff
"The vast scale of this development on the heritage coastline is totally inappropriate and brownfield sites should have been found. I have no problem with wind power but actually this is over the top and in the wrong place. I understand that no other substations have ever been built so close to a village community. Better solutions are available such as using brownfield sites, off shore hubs and ringmains. There is huge risk to local habitat as well as ruining the environs of Friston village."

Tim Rowan-Robinson
"RE: EAST ANGLIA TWO WIND FARM I fully support the development of offshore wind energy, however I strongly object to this application from Scottish Power Renewables for the following reasons: 1. It is totally illogical to consider this application in isolation from all the other energy projects currently being planned for the Friston/Sizewell area. There is no evidence to suggest that such consideration has been given. A joined up strategy is required before individual projects can be properly considered. 2. The economy of the area is very heavily dependent on tourism. Research from the Suffolk Coast DMO clearly shows the negative impact on businesses and jobs in the area. 3. The destruction of wonderful countryside (some in the AONB), wildlife and ancient woodland is a price we should not pay. 4. Sufficient consideration has not been given to alternative locations for linking with the grid. It appears that ease and cost are the dominant criteria for the site that has ben chosen. 5. Noise, air and light pollution will have a negative effect of the tranquillity, fresh air and dark skies for which the area is known and the reason why so many visitors are attracted to it. 6. The local road network is completely inadequate for the amount of HGV and other traffic that these projects would demand. This applies to the A12 and all roads approaching the development sites. 7. The risk to the future of Thorpeness, one of East Anglia's gems, through undermining the cliffs and the scale of development work in a very small village. My overriding objection to this proposal is that it is made without reference to the other energy projects being planned. The choice of location for the onshore substations appears to be made without due consideration of the long term cost to the area through destruction of the local economy which is dependent on tourism which, itself, is based on the natural assets of the area that these projects would destroy. The Government must produce a new energy strategy before any of these projects are considered."

Victoria Bennett-Hall
"I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years Impact on tourism Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, loss of visitor income and jobs leading to social and economic decline Light pollution Noise pollution Air pollution Local road network unsuitable for higher traffic levels and more HGVs Irreparable damage to AONB Cable trenches destroying environmentally sensitive areas Threat to wildlife and Sandlings Heath Destruction of ancient woodland Closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complex also dominating a small village"

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

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

Angela Mary Aldred
". Damage and the destruction to an area which is recognised as being of natural beauty. . Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables. Evidenced after a gentleman died when the cliff collapsed beneath him in 2017. . Cumulative impact on local communities of up to seven energy projects occurring consecutively over twelve to fifteen years. . Substations dangerously close and dominating a small village liable to flooding. . It will cause the loss of hedgerows and woodland areas, affecting the retention of topsoil and increasing the likelihood of flooding which is already a problem on the access roads. . The threat to wildlife including Red deer in which SPR's plans will destroy their habitats and force them to relocate with potentially devastating consequences. They may be culled or if forced to relocate as they are territorial and will be forced to fight clashing antlers and injure themselves. . Threat to wildlife including birds and reptiles (the latter have already been relocated in Kenton Hills). Our famous birds unique to this area include the Bittern, Nightjar, Marsh Harrier, Hobby and Nightingale. . Destruction of ancient woodland - at least one of these trees is reported to be in The Doomsday Book. . As a result of the work being conducted I believe the disruption and destruction will adversely affect tourism which will have a negative impact on the local economy and community. This could affect the Suffolk area for twelve to fifteen years if all seven energy projects are approved. . Light pollution. Suffolk is famous for it's dark skies, these will be lost. . Noise pollution. Suffolk is a place of peace and tranquility, this will be lost. . In the event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered endangering lives. . Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths). This includes the famous Suffolk Sandlings Walk through Suffolk Coast and Heaths. . Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGV's. . Air pollution from traffic and trenches through Suffolk's light sandy soil which blows/runs away causing health issues and hazards to persons/wildlife. . Local amenities already under pressure for example doctors and schools, where are additional workers and families going to go? . The threat to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor from damage/severance to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB - this includes the famous Berwick's Swan, unique to this area."

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

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

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

Catherine Lester
"I am objecting to the plan to build huge electricity substations near the beautiful village of Friston. The substations are too big and too close to a small rural village, a lively community which would be swamped and killed were the development to go ahead as planned. Scottish power have paid no attention at all to the objections raised during the previous consultations. They propose building two trenches for some 9kms along a fragile coastline, destroying ancient woodland, ANOB land and prime agricultural land and all of this along a coastline which is famous for its tourist attractions, including the Snape Malting and pretty well known villages. I fully support green energy and the construction of wind farms. But what I do object to is individual power companies carving up large areas of beautiful coastline without assessing the devastating impact of the totality of all the projects. I object in my capacity not as a resident but as a visitor to the area from London, visiting to see friends and valuing the very special nature of the coastline and its beauty and cultural heritage."

Charlotte de Mille
"Dear Examining Authority I am appalled at the proposals for both East Anglia North One (10077) and EA North Two (10078) for the following reasons: - The Thorpeness cliffs are incredibly fragile, soft sand and not suitable for landing cables. The potential environmental damage and impact for the coastline and village is too great. The coast is already liable to erosion, so it is poor planning to add large infrastructure to a vulnerable site, both for the longevity of the project proposed as well as the local environment. - The habitat around Thorpeness includes 23 SSSIs. Many would be irreparably damaged, particularly Sandlings Heath, but also the Suffolk Coasts and Heath AONB which forms an essential wildlife corridor for migrating species. - The potential site for the Substation at Friston is part of a village already liable to flooding. - Pollution: noise, light, haulage. This is not only poor for locals but DMO suggests would deter tourism on which much of the local economy relies. - Access for emergency services hampered by building works of a massive scale lasting 7 years. Yours faithfully Charlotte de Mille"

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

Chloe Agar
"I have grown up and live around the coastline between Thorpeness and Dulwich and it is the heartland of where I belong and the place I go to relax, walk, and enjoy the environment. My experiences talking to visitors to the area has shown that the beauty of this coastline and the way in which it is removed from heavy industrial processes is key to the appeal of the area to tourists, visitors, and the like. It is not within our interests as a coastal community to have to suffer from the detrimental effects of mass transport and disruption of our much loved ecosystems. I am totally in support of renewable energies, but I cannot agree to support any procedure that disrupts our communities in such a detrimental way when there other alternative ways of bringing wind power to the national grids. Especially as there are other projects such as the construction of Sizewell C power station already putting considerable strain on our communities and environments."

Christopher Knights
"Destruction of countryside Extra traffic Property depreciation Complete change to village life"

Christopher Stooke
"I am opposed to this proposal. It will be most damaging to a very fragile area of the country and particularly to Friston. I have lived in Aldeburgh since 1994 and have enjoyed the peaceful beauty of the area. Development of an electricity facility so close to Friston will be hugely damaging. I am very much in favour of alternative energy such as wind but surely the connection to the Grid can be done in such a way as to avoid the huge amount of environmental damage implied by this plan. Perhaps use the existing links at Sizewell as an alternative."

Clare Skelcher
"I object to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application for a number of reasons. I live in the Isle of Man. My children & I visit my family in Leiston around 8 times a year and I intend to retire in Suffolk. I object to the Scottish Power Renewables planning application for a number of reasons. The massive destruction of the unspoilt landscape, farmland, ancient woodland and coastline. The massive impact of building works and cable laying - threatening wildlife, ecosystems, destroying our Heritage Coast and Sandlings Heath. The impact on tourism, loss of trade and business to small villages. A DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues will deter visitors to the area. The impact of pollution - excessive noise, traffic, light. The impact of excessive heavy loads, HGV's on small roads, congestion through villages, questioning the suitability of the current road network. The permanent and temporary closure of PRoEs ( footpaths, bridleways, byways and cycle paths) The fear of further substations and inter-connectors following on in quick succession."

Colin Stevens
"Having viewed the website for this project it is truly disconcerting that there is no reflection or consideration, compassion or respect shown on the impact on the local areas, the precious countryside, environment, habitat, nature, coastline, residents and communities. Why is it with all the UK coastline, so many energy projects are being concentrated in one area, an area of AONB, ruining our heritage and very fragile coastline, destroying our ancient woodland and precious countryside and impacting on our tourist economy, the life and blood of these communities. I wish to object to this Scottish Power Renewables planning application for the following reasons: 1. Too many projects occurring simultaneously over a period of 20 years having a cumulative impact on local communities 2. Eroding and fragile cliffs at Thorpeness unsuitable for landing cables. Prime example encroaching sea and loss of local coastline at Orford Lighthouse 3. Loss of vast amounts of unspoilt countryside and destruction of ancient woodland 4. Damaging the Suffolk Coastal and Heaths AONB and the wildlife that depend on the areas when migrating 5. Environmentally sensitive areas destroyed by cable trenches 6. Wildlife habitat threatened including Sandlings Heath 7. Light, noise and air pollution 8. Local narrow and winding country road networks unsuitable for high traffic levels and HGV’s. Between Woodbridge and Thorpeness very few HGV’s sighted and one tourist coach sighted at Stratford St. Andrew had come together with a tractor due to narrow roads 9. Increased traffic a danger to cyclists and residents and will delay emergency services endangering lives 10. All the aforementioned would deter tourists from visiting the local areas, which is their livelihood, resulting in loss of trade and economic and social decline 11. Why can’t the substations be built out at sea"

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

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

Helen Marasha
"Dear Examining Authority I am appalled at the proposals for both East Anglia North One (10077) and EA North Two (10078) for the following reasons: - The Thorpeness cliffs are incredibly fragile, soft sand and not suitable for landing cables. The potential environmental damage and impact for the coastline and village is too great. The coast is already liable to erosion, so it is poor planning to add large infrastructure to a vulnerable site, both for the longevity of the project proposed as well as the local environment. - The habitat around Thorpeness includes 23 SSSIs. Many would be irreparably damaged, particularly Sandlings Heath, but also the Suffolk Coasts and Heath AONB which forms an essential wildlife corridor for migrating species. - The potential site for the Substation at Friston is part of a village already liable to flooding. - Pollution: noise, light, haulage. This is not only poor for locals but DMO suggests would deter tourism on which much of the local economy relies. - Access for emergency services hampered by building works of a massive scale lasting 7 years"

Helen Sydney Graham
"Dear Examining Authority RE: EAST ANGLIA TWO As a permanent resident of Thorpeness, I wish to object to this ScottishPower Renewables planning application, for the following reasons: ? Cumulative impact on local communities of up to 7 energy projects occurring consecutively over 12 to 15 years ? Unsuitability and fragility of Thorpeness Cliffs as site for landing cables. (A man has already been killed due to the cliff collapsing on 14th January 2017) ? Use of unspoilt countryside at Friston for substation complexes the size of Wembley Stadium ? 11Km of cable trenches, destroying environmentally sensitive areas ? Cable trenches and haul roads too close to residential homes ? Threat to wildlife and the important Sandlings Heath ? Severing the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB causing problems to migrating species and severing the wildlife corridor ? Destruction of ancient woodland ? Local road network unsuitable for the high traffic levels and more HGVs ? Light pollution. Suffolk’s famous dark skies lost ? Noise pollution. Suffolk’s famous peace and tranquillity lost ? Air pollution from traffic and trenches dug through Suffolk’s light sandy soil which blows/runs away, causing visibility hazard and health issues ? Increased traffic and parking on roads. Where are the workers on the project going to park? In the village of Thorpeness at a guess, thereby making parking for residents and visitors impossible. ? Emergency Services. Inevitable delays endangering lives ? In the event of a Nuclear incident the evacuation routes would be severely hampered ? Long term damage to Thorpeness’s role as a year round tourist destination and a decline in employment not only for long time permanent employees but also for the many students who work during the summer at The Dolphin, The Country Club, The Meare Tea Shop, The Kitchen and The Golf Club. ? DMO report says traffic congestion and related issues would deter tourists from coming to the area ? Impact on businesses. Loss of trade, visitor income, jobs leading to social and economic decline ? Permanent and temporary closure of PRoWs (footpaths, bridleway, byways and cycle paths), again, leading to decline in visitors who come to walk their dogs, bird watch and generally view the wildlife and sea vistas. Yours sincerely “Helen Sydney Graham”"

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

James Fulford
"I support the representations being made by SASES and Friston Parish Council - As an interested party - please acknowledge my objection to this