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 20 January 2020
From 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.”