The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.
East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm
Received 15 January 2020
From 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.”