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 24 January 2020
From Alan Thomas
“Residing in Friston, I am generally supportive of the move toward renewable energy sources. However, the approach adopted by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) in pursuit of what are wholly commercial objectives, is unnecessarily damaging this fragile area of East Suffolk. To this end I fully support the objections made by Friston Parish Council and several community action groups, to the DCO application made by SPR in respect of EA2 Windfarm. In particular, I wish to object as follows, as the areas of concern will directly and adversely affect my quality of life. I object - to the sheer size of the development. During the “Consultation” period no attempt has been made by SPR to minimise the visual impact by careful design. The EA2 substation requires an area of about 8-9 acres, to which must be added a further land take of about 65 acres to accommodate the EA1 substation, the National Grid substation, water run-off drainage ponds, cable sealing ends, re-alignment of OHL pylons plus a metalled permanent access to public road system. Given the close proximity of Friston which includes residential properties, listed buildings, a village pub, mediaeval church & graveyard, duck pond, bowling green and early 19C post mill, in all occupying about 30 acres, the development will be completely out of character and will totally dominate the village and its setting. I object - to the way that the development will deprive the residents of a much loved network of footpaths, providing circular walking routes across tranquil farmland with pleasing views of farmhouses, copses, wild life and the backdrop of our 12 Century Church and 170 year-old post mill. During build (a minimum of 4 years), the whole area to the north of the village will be shut off from other footpaths to nearby villages and churches. I object - to the irresponsible way in which the rural ‘soundscape’ will be blighted by a persistent and inescapable background noise, 24 hours per day and 365 days per year for perhaps 40 years. The level and tonal quality of the sound emitted by HVAC substations is dramatically different to that of farmed area we enjoy at present. I object - to the Noise and Vibration content of the Environmental Statement of the DCO Application, where there is no coherent justification for the imposition of a 34 dB(A) noise boundary at the nearest receptor sites. This shows a complete lack of understanding by SPR regarding the nature of sound propagation in a rural environment, especially at night and under conditions of temperature inversion and adverse wind direction, when the distance travelled by low frequency sound can be much greater than that predicted by simple computer models as used by SPR. I object - to SPR’s stated intention to use 24 hr security lighting, albeit triggered by motion sensors or in emergency conditions. Friston enjoys ‘dark skies’ at night and to have this taken away by a company in pursuit of profit is offensive. One cannot mitigate light pollution! AT”