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 23 January 2020
From 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.”