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 23 January 2020
From Felicity Twort

Representation

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.