East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm

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 16 January 2020
From Pat Hogan

Representation

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.