Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm

Representations received regarding Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
T Wright
"1) Proposed location of the Swardeston Substation being visually detrimental to the amenity of the area 2) Noise nuisance emanating from the proposed Swardeston substation with inadequate noise mitigation measures casing a loss of rurality, peace and quiet to local residents. 3) Negative impact of the Swardeston substation being on a high point in the locality. 4) Recommendation that the proposed Swardeston Substation be reused and should be immediately next to the Norwich Substation which has a significantly less visual impact. 5) Negative impact of increased traffic and foreseeable road closures/restrictions both construction and lifespan os normal operations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Hannan
"I consider that the applicant has failed adequately to consider the impact of the project-generated traffic on the local road network and that the relevant planning authority (Norfolk County Council) has failed adequately to ensure consultation of local residents about and to challenge the traffic impact assessment. This is in particular regard to the proposed main compound at Oulton Airfield near Oulton Street. In its consultation with the residents and the Parish Council, the applicant has been told about the unsuitability of the local feeder roads to the proposed compound site which pass through the settlement of Oulton Street. These roads are narrow and for much of their length will not allow two vehicles, let alone lorries, to pass each other. Further, the houses in Oulton Street, for the most part abut the road with no significant verge or front gardens. Hence the risk of structural damage is great and the impact of lorry traffic on residents' enjoyment of their property would be detrimental. The applicant's response to these concerns has been inadequate. No mitigation measures have been proposed other than a vague proposal for a one-way system about which no details have been offered. I contend that Oulton Airfield is unsuitable as the main compound and has been chosen primarily because of the landowner's willingness to offer the site. Other possible sites close to the main road network have not been adequately assessed before being rejected. The traffic assessment is inadequate and has not been challenged by the planning authority. Neither the Base Traffic Flow (Annex 7.3) nor the Traffic Flow with Construction Traffic documents (Annex 7.7) include data on the roads which will serve the proposed Main Compound), namely the B1149, The Street, Oulton and Church Lane, Oulton. The accident figures data omits the junction of the B1149 and The Street which would take all traffic in and out of the proposed main compound. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Greg Peck (Reepham Division, Norfolk County Council)
"As the County Councillor for Reepham Division and District Councillor for Eynesford many communities affected by this application fall within my constituency. I believe the Consultation process was flawed as the applicant has been unable or unwilling to answer many simple questions regarding their plans. For example the siting of the main depot at Oulton Airfield. They have not done any traffic movement modelling, they seem blissfully unaware of a previous planning application for the site which was turned down because Highways raised objections to the traffic movements which would have been generated in what are extremely narrow approach roads meaning trucks would be constantly backing up. Even after this was pointed out to them they seemed to ignore it and persist in saying traffic would also be directed through the village, which even the previous applicant acknowledged as a problem and avoided in their unsuccessful application. The impact of traffic movements on the surrounding communities, most of which are serviced by country lanes, over potentially an eight year period is unacceptable. The method of digging the trenches they have chosen would have a negative impact on farmland, increasing compaction and using a wider trench than is necessary. They could have chosen a lighter touch method as promoted by another applicant. The applicant has consistently not answered landowners questions and concerns. Has refused to engage with landowners on this subject, recently cancelling a meeting with affected landowners and three local MP's at short notice. They have had an arrogant approach to the consultation and appear to have done a tick box exercise so that they can claim they have attended x number of meetings. At these meetings they were ill prepared and couldn't or wouldn't answer residents concerns. On these grounds, until they can answer these basic questions, I think the application should be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mervyn Bibb
"Three alternative routes were proposed for the high voltage underground cable as it passes to the west of Little Melton, two of which could be extremely close to our dwelling and those of our neighbours which we would find unacceptable. We would like to ensure that we have the opportunity for representation should these latter two alternatives be considered as viable options by the Planning Inspectorate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Perry
"Protection of bridleways in the Little Barningham area.Works traffic and horses do not mix if a sub station is to be built near this path and works traffic uses the designated bridlepath"
Other Statutory Consultees
The Crown Estate
"The Crown Estate manages property and rights which are owned by Her Majesty in right of the Crown. This portfolio includes around half of the foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to 12 nautical miles around England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the Energy Act 2004 and the Energy Act 2008, The Crown Estate also manages the rights over the continental shelf to offshore energy generation and the rights to carbon dioxide and natural gas storage and transportation (respectively). The Crown Estate requests to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm. Our interest in the project is that Orsted Hornsea Project Three holds an Agreement for Lease from The Crown Estate for the area of seabed to be occupied by the project, and (subject to obtaining the necessary development consents) The Crown Estate will issue a lease to Orsted Hornsea Project Three for construction of the project. We therefore wish to follow the progress of examination of the project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lin Pateman
"I am a local resident and Parish Councillor and wish to express an interest in this application. I have attended the meetings and commented on the plans for myself and on behalf of local residents."
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that:- We have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annemarie Wharton
"1. Weybourne has had two previous windfarm projects with associated heavy construction traffic on small country roads. The disruption caused is well documented and it would seem unjust to allow a third project, lasting 8 years, to be visited on this village. 2. The major income for the economy of this area is tourism. Holiday makers might not continue to return to an area overwhelmed by heavy works traffic. 3. This is a designated ANOB and Foxhills is part of an Area of Scientific Interest. A third and prolonged period of invasive construction would be to the detriment of the local ecology. 4. The fragile coastline has been drilled and bored into for two previous projects. A third session of invasive tunneling would further weaken the structure of the shoreline and with increased the risk of flooding. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
J D Jennings
"The main issues which I wish to raise in relation to this application are 1. Lack of information regarding the noise impacts of the onshore booster station 2. Inconsistencies between the assumptions made in the photomontages/LVIA and the application documentation 3. Need or otherwise for the booster station needs to be confirmed prior to consent being granted "
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations
"The NFFO is a representative body of the fishing industry covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We intend to examine the assessment of impacts to fisheries, both direct impacts on fishing businesses and any related impacts to the fisheries resource base. We are interested in maximising the scope for coexistence between our two industries and will consider provisions to achieve this end. We intend to pursue a statement of common ground with the applicant, which together with the applicant's documentation will then inform any detailed representations we wish to make."
Parish Councils
Wood Dalling Parish Council
"Wood Dalling Parish Council have an interest in the cabling corridor , as it will run just outside the Parish. They are concerned that if the planning is permitted with the funding phased, the effect on the village and surrounding area will be extensive and prolonged."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Whale and Dolphin Conservation
"WDC have been engaging with UK and devolved government bodies and developers for several years regarding marine renewable energy and provide our advice regarding marine renewable developments and their impacts on whales, dolphins and porpoises (cetaceans). Due to the impacts of climate change on cetaceans, WDC supports the development of well-considered marine renewable energy. However we have serious concerns about the potential impacts of these developments both individually and cumulatively, have on cetaceans. WDC are particularly concerned that the construction of Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm has the potential to negatively impact cetaceans, in particular harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and the integrity of the Southern North Sea candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC), for which harbour porpoise are the qualifying feature. The cSAC site includes key winter and summer habitat for this species. Although Hornsea Project Three offshore windfarm does not lie directly within the cSAC, it’s very close proximity means that the windfarm construction will impact the cSAC both alone and in-combination. The planned installation of all windfarms, as well as other activities within and adjacent to the cSAC, have the potential to disturb the harbour porpoise population of the cSAC and so should be taken into consideration. Our primary concern for Hornsea Project Three Offshore Windfarm development surrounds the intense noise pollution resulting from pile driving for all cetacean species in the region. Should consent be granted, our key recommendations for this development are: • That pile driving is not used at all during construction; • That strict limits be placed on noise levels during construction, including cumulative noise, • That proven mitigation methods are in place around the source to mitigate the impacts of radiated noise levels; • That a robust impact monitoring strategy (Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (MMMP)) is developed for the range of species that can reasonably be expected to be impacted; • That WDC is included as a consultee of the MMMP and that we are included in the discussions for the design of the MMMP as we have concerns regarding effectiveness of some mitigation methods; • A robust MMMP should include: shut-down when marine mammals approach within a specified distance of operations (mitigation zone); • That the monitoring strategy is appropriate to consider cumulative impacts of all developments in the region; • Ground-truthing of modelled noise assessment data should be undertaken; • Should any incident that results in mortality occur during construction, activities should be halted immediately until an investigation can be completed; • An assessment report is publicly available within a reasonable timeframe of construction completion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Holland
"Our home is within 100 yards of where the cables will be laid. I appreciate this is an Ørsted application, however what should be taken into consideration is the imminent DOC from Vattenfall as the cables from both companies will cross within 100 metres of our home. We are extremely concerned about the magnetic field generated from the cables. We understand Ørsted have not yet made a decision as to AC or DC, Vattenfell are committed to DC. "
Parish Councils
Kelling Parish Council
"We are concerned that not enough has been done to reduce the problem of construction traffic and speeding in the village of Kelling. We do not understand why Pudding Lane,Kelling, which is a restricted byway and well used footpath, should be temporary closed where it meets the A149 coast road during construction. This is at the edge of the construction area, and it is easily possible to move the area over to the west by only 10 metres, and widen the access gateway to the field to allow larger vehicle entry / egress. This would allow Pudding Lane to remain open at all times and allow uninterrupted access to Pudding Lane Cottage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ray Pearce
"Our property is within 80 meters of the proposed position where the Hornsea Three Wind Farm Project cables (Orsted) are planned to cross with those from the Vanguard and Boreas Wind Farm Projects' (Vattenfall) cables. Orsted & Vattenfall have placed a commercial Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) over their discussions regarding the crossing point of their cables which is detrimental to the planning process. Orsted have failed to provide a plan of how the crossing point will be engineered and, therefore, have failed in their duty to provide required information for public consultation through the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report. The planned cumulative energy through the crossing point will be up to 6GW (5 times the maximum output of Sizewell B nuclear power station) which will have a significant impact on the environment and, potentially, public health. Also, the crossing point creates a Vulnerable Point (VP) in the Nation's energy infrastructure security. National Grid plc allocated the project the connection point at South Norwich without co-ordination causing the crossing of cables - Hornsea 3 should connect to NETS at Necton with a considerable saving on the environmental impact."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Corporation of Trinity House of Depford String
"Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The statutory role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority includes the superintendence and management of lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development would have on navigation within Trinity House’s area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order throughout the application process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J A Wright
"Re: location of HVDC Converter / HVAC Substation by A47 with entry from B1113 - I wish to object to proposed location as... (a) the proposal is sited on productive farmland rising gently from B1113; (b) the B1113 is a rural road through villages and this will appear like a factory complex, detracting from the rural landscape of the area; (c) it is very close to 2 historic buildings, Gowthorpe Manor (of great historic significance) and Mangreen Hall and will detract from both from some viewpoints; (d) this could/should be relocated to a site adjacent to/north of the Norwich Main National Grid Substation which is currently being quarried so the Converter/Substation buildings could be hidden from view and there is excellent access from the A140."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samantha Neville
"As a resident of an affected area I would like to be able to make any objections"
Local Authorities
Broads Authority
"The Broads Authority, having considered the documents submitted, does not have any objection to the application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Wright
"Although in general I would support such additions to our essential national infrastructure, I wanted to ask a few questions about the resilience being designed into, and operationally planned for, this important energy supply system. In a recent Economist article on electrical infrastructure resilience (The Economist, July 15th – 21st 2017, page 16, A Flash in the sky), the vulnerability of electricity infrastructure to geomagnetic storms is discussed along with possible civilian life consequences. As the article states, it is a low probability event but with high consequence. However, if one adds to this the higher probability (but maybe lower consequence) of unwelcome events such as destructive terrorism and cyber-attack, then the overall resilience strategy addressing issues for example of access control, surge blockers, electro-magnetic pulse protection and insurance spares, becomes very important. I am not expecting to be told the details of any such strategy, but it would be re-assuring to know if there is indeed a strategy and that it addresses all these risks and mitigations. Some information about myself. Although now retired, I worked for 40 years in the oil and gas industry (with a short spell at Sizewell B in the 1980’s), mostly on development projects, including some at key onshore gas reception facilities where security has had to become considerably more robust over that time. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Blue Sky Leisure
"I am writing on behalf of our client Blue Sky Leisure. Blue Sky Leisure is a successful family company with a long track record of delivering high quality tourist and leisure facilities including a diverse range of accommodation from camping through to log cabins within North Norfolk and especially within the area of the proposed Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm. Our client’s concerns are; North Norfolk is an AONB and a renowned tourist destination. The significant adverse landscape and visual effects on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB would be contrary to the primary purpose of the designation and the national duty to conserve and enhance the area’s natural. The scale, form, design, appearance and cumulative impacts of the proposals would significantly adversely affect visual amenity, local environment, economy and the recreational/tourist use Having been involved in the destination promotion in Norfolk for over 25 years the figures produced in Orsted’s Socioeconomics chapter of the PEIR are considerably understated, out of date and/ or inaccurate. Orsted have failed to provide adequate mitigation, as the data being used to determine these provisions is incorrect, especially in terms of traffic, transport, noise and vibration. Orsted have failed to provide details/responses to queries raised. Our client respectfully requests that these points are considered fully within the examination process and intends to submit a full written representation in due course. In addition, if appropriate, they request to make oral representations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
N2RS (No to Relay Stations) (N2RS (No to Relay Stations))
" ORSTED: HORNSEA THREE INTERESTED PARTY – REGISTRATION Background N2RS is a local campaign action group based in the East Ruston area of North East Norfolk. It was formed in April 2017 amidst concerns about the proposed onshore infrastructure planned to support Vattenfall’s Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas offshore wind farms. N2RS has also been monitoring Ørsted’s Hornsea Three project, which presents similar challenges for the communities affected and the potential for a cumulative, detrimental impact on the Norfolk landscape. With both projects the overriding issue for N2RS was the technology being proposed and the main concern was the prospect of cable relay stations. Like Ørsted, Vattenfall originally intended to seek planning permission for an HVAC system – with the possibility, post consent of changing to an HVDC system, if feasible. After intense campaigning and widespread support for HVDC, Vattenfall recognised the detrimental impact that cable relay stations and a 100 m wide cable corridor would have had on Norfolk’s rural landscape and Vattenfall has now committed to newer, more environmentally friendly HVDC technology (prior to its planning application). As a result cable relay stations will not be required and the width of the cable corridor will be more than halved. This will significantly reduce disruption in North East Norfolk and along the cable corridor. It has also removed a great deal of uncertainty and created a much more acceptable project. Consequently this decision has been warmly welcomed by N2RS and many other interested parties. The Ørsted Proposal We have consulted with the Friends of North Norfolk, had discussions with land agents and stakeholders, attended Ørsted drop-in exhibitions and spoken at the NNDC cabinet meeting which debated the Hornsea Three project last year. HVAC technology is widely seen as the most damaging option for much of North Norfolk. From our own investigations into the impact of HVAC here in North East Norfolk we believe that it is also the wrong choice for Hornsea Three. It will have a negative impact on individuals, businesses, farming and especially on tourism. The large cable relay station proposed in open countryside near Little Barningham is of specific concern – and there is little information available to help interested parties determine what it might look and sound like. The long timelines for construction will also mean that areas of North Norfolk are plunged into planning blight for many years to come. Conclusion Now that Vattenfall is able to commit to HVDC - a much better outcome for Norfolk - we call upon Ørsted to follow its lead by delivering the most environmentally friendly project possible – with HVDC at the heart of the scheme. N2RS wishes to make these views known to the Planning Inspectorate in writing but also to attend at any future hearings. Web: n2rs.org.uk Email: [email protected] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Scott
"I want to support this project for both national and local reasons as follows: 1 The country urgently needs as much renewable power as it can get. Off-shore wind is an obvious way that this region can contribute, with its regular wind and shallow seas. 2 Norfolk is particularly badly hit by rising sea levels and this is likely to get worse, which makes my first point all the more pressing. 3 Any impact on wildlife will probably be temporary. Even if it is not, the overall long-term benefits to wildlife in helping to stabilise the climate more than outweighs that. 4 Norfolk urgently needs acceptable broadband, which most of it does not have. If the condition is made that the project must allow fibre to be laid in the trenches with access, as is the case with Vattenfall, then organisations such as B4RN can use it to provide good broadband across a wide area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Everett
"As the elected Broadland District councillor for Reepham Ward, I would request that the Planning Inspectorate considers requiring Orsted to install the ducting for Phase two of the scheme at the same time as the ducting and cabling is installed for phase one. I appreciate that Orsted have already reduced the project from three to two phases but this further amendment would considerably reduce the impact of the scheme at phase two stage on the local community and area by only requiring the cabling to be pulled through at various locations rather than the whole route being disrupted for a second time within an eight year period."
Parish Councils
Poringland Parish Council
"Poringland Parish Council would recommend that the proposed building in the Mangreen area is the smaller DC building at 15M tall; that it is grey rather than green; that it is sunk into the ground if possible; that it is masked into the landscape; and that it does not have a detrimental impact on the listed building Keswick Hall."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peel Ports
"I refer to our letter of 20th September 2017. GYPC would like to emphasise that our interest are Port related and the potential effects on our operational interests and the statutory interests of the Port Authority which include navigational safety, shipping movements and dredging activities. As an interested party we are seeking the necessary assurance that vessel access to the Port will in no way be affected, construction and operation of the windfarm will not impact on port's radar, navigational or communications systems or that the construction or operations will not impede or otherwise adversely affect the dredging regime, infrastructure or operation of the Port. "
Parish Councils
Plumstead Parish Council
"DC should be used rather than AC as this delivers less overall impact Cables should be laid all in one go - no second phase Money should be made available to communities facing significant disruption."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Equinor
"As the Hornsea 3 project is planned to cross the Dudgeon transmission assets (both offshore and onshore cables), Equinor, as current operator of these assets is a vested stakeholder. It is expected that a proximity agreement and crossing agreement will be sought from the Dudgeon operator as part of the development. However, it must be noted that once the Dudgeon OFTO transaction completes this will no longer be an Equinor consultation matter as Equinor will not be asset owner of the cables. Consultation must be run through and with the OFTO buyer: TCP."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Wharton
"With the increase in heavy works construction traffic which the Hornsea Project will bring, I am concerned about the safety of pedestrians on the A149 walking between Weynor Gardens and Weybourne village centre. This section of the road has no pavement and a blind bend for part of the way. There is no verge to escape the traffic. Weynor residents and holiday makers staying at Foxhills Camping wish to use the road to access the pub, church, coffee shop and the beach. I would like to suggest a pavement be provided and construction traffic use of the road limited to weekdays only. "
Parish Councils
Oulton Parish Council on behalf of Oulton Parish Council
"The main issues that OPC wish to raise during the examination process are as follows: 1. No proper pre-application assessment has been made of either the suitability of the Oulton site or the feasibility of the access route. For instance, the highways issues in the case are many, and some are intractable. These include: • the southern end of Oulton Street is unfeasible for HGV traffic in both directions (see Appeal Decision Ref: APP/K2610/A/14/2212257) and use of the northern (residential) end of The Street by Orsted traffic is completely unacceptable; • low overhead power and phone cables; • a railway hump very close to proposed site entrance; • Impact on Blickling Conservation Area. • Impact on tourists visiting NT Blickling Hall/Conservation Studio (Oulton Street) • The B1149 has been assessed to have a Personal Injury Accident record 25% higher than the national average. HGVs will use the B1149 to and from the Main Compound/cable routes via ‘The Street’. • B1149 will experience an increase in traffic….‘‘B1149 at Edgefield, north of the village hall and south of Hempstead Road (11.3%); and B1145 east of Cawston, west of the B1149 crossroads (17.9%).’’ • Oulton Street has NOT been assessed as a sensitive receptor, houses directly on road with no garden or pavements. • School children have to walk to taxi pick-up point along ‘The Street’ as there are no buses. This list is not exhaustive. 2. Deficiencies in the post-application assessments: Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) were installed in the parish for a period of approx. 2 weeks between about 15th and 30th June. The locations chosen for these ATCs will mean that much of the HGV agricultural traffic (e.g. a percentage of that generated by Street Farm) will not be recorded at all, and – vitally - the entire period of installation “happens” to coincide with one of the rare lulls in agricultural activity i.e. between sowing/planting and harvesting. The traffic assessment data will therefore be dangerously unrepresentative. 3. Orsted’s failure to produce even an outline CTMP, pre-application, has made it impossible for them, us, PINS and Vattenfall to assess the cumulative impact of the fact that Vattenfall are also locating 2 of their compounds in this parish and sharing the same access road. 4. Light pollution: Oulton is a dark skies area. 5. Noise pollution: will impact on 24 dwellings in The Street and the several dwellings very close to the western edge of the site. As well as traffic noise, there are grave concerns relating to: • generators – especially at night; • on-site traffic movement noise; • on-site reversing alarms (hard to control with use of sub-contractors). • Cumulative impact of Noise from both Orsted & Vattenfall’s Compounds/Mobilisation area/cable route/traffic associated with these projects, if both projects run concurrently. 6. The Old Railway Gatehouse: situated at the very entrance to the proposed site, the impact of noise and emissions would mean that the quality of life of the residents would be utterly destroyed for the entire 8 years of the project. 7. HVDC and the Ducting method: OPC raises these over-arching issues because of the huge implications they would have in minimizing both the length of the project and the overwhelming disruption it causes. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gerald Frank Bullimore
"65m square small holding I am against orsted compulsory accessing my locked paddock and 99 year lease. My amenity and utility smallholding just 65 m square, has on it woodland apple orchard (protected) wooden summer house, utility services, a caravan. Permission given by sec state 2004, beehives, stables, haystore, 3 rescue ponies, a vast amount of wild birds owl box, bat boxes, butterflies and casualties that come off the heath (100 yds) I am a member of Norfolk Wildlife Trust My argument Why cant orsted continue over field (agricultural) behind us instead of detouring across the road and crossing (Kelling paddocks) small privately owned plots (locked and insured) on a private road maintained by paddock owners."
Local Authorities
Norfolk County Council
" Norfolk County Council Comments on the Hornsea Project Three offshore Wind Farm and Onshore Supporting Infrastructure Norfolk County Council: (1) Supports the principle of this offshore renewable energy proposal, which is consistent with national policy, subject to the detailed comments set out in this report being resolved satisfactorily through the DCO process; (2) Has a series of holding highway objections to the proposed onshore infrastructure (see detailed comments in Appendix); (3) Seeks a number of / “Requirements” (conditions) relating to highway; flood risk; and archaeological matters being agreed and attached to any final DCO decision (see detailed comments in the Appendix); and (4) Considers that the applicant should ensure that the proposal brings real socio-economic benefits to both (a) the individual communities directly affected by the planned infrastructure works and (b) the County as a whole. 1. Substantive comments Over-arching Comment 1.2. The principle of this offshore renewable energy proposal should continue to be supported as it is consistent with national renewable energy targets and objectives, subject to the detailed comments, holding objections; and proposed planning conditions below being resolved. Transmission Alternatives 1.3. Comment – the County Council’s preferred option would be for Orsted to pursue a HVDC solution which would overcome the need for a HVAC Booster Station, but recognises that the HVDC convertor station at Swardeston would have a greater height than the HVAC option. Grid Connection 1.4. Comment – welcome the flexibility within this application to allow for electricity generated to feed into the local network (from Norwich Main) but consider that Orsted should pursue with National Grid and UKPN the opportunities for a secondary interconnection along the cable route in order to supply electricity where it may potentially be required to support housing and employment growth. Socio-Economic Issues Comment 1.5. It is felt that the County Council should continue to work pro-actively with Orsted to demonstrate the economic benefits of using the Port facilities at Great Yarmouth for: • Construction; assembly and manufacture of windfarm components; and • Operations and maintenance. Wider Community Issues and Impact on business 1.6. Comment – welcome the commitment towards establishing a Community Benefit Fund and would ask Orsted to ensure all stakeholders/communities are made aware of such funds and have the opportunity to make appropriate bids. 1.7. Comment – while welcoming the reduction in construction duration, it is felt that Orsted should commit to providing appropriate compensation for businesses and communities adversely affected by the construction works. Comment - The Committee also agreed that there should be penalties imposed on the developer of Hornsea Three in the event that the project over-runs beyond the timetable set out in the Environmental Statement accompanying the DCO application. Such penalties should include financial compensation to be paid into a Community Benefit Fund. Commercial Fishing Comment 1.8. Welcome the proposed mitigation and compensation measures set out in the ES and would ask that Orsted continue to work closely with the fishing community in order to minimise any potential impacts particularly during construction and decommissioning. Local Highway Issues Comments 1.9. As a consequence of a number detailed outstanding highway access issues (see detailed comments below in the Appendix) the County Council will need to raise a series of holding highway objections; and require a condition (known as a “requirement”) be imposed on the DCO requiring an up to date Construction Traffic Management Plan. Wider Strategic Highway Issues 1.10. Comment – It is felt that Orsted should continue to work closely with both Highways England and Norfolk County Council as Highway Authority to ensure that the proposed cable route does not fetter any future plans for the strategic highway network to the west of Norwich. Minerals and Waste Comment 1.11. While the County Council does not have any minerals and waste planning concerns at this stage it is felt that the applicant should continue to work closely with the County Council as the application is progressed through to Examination. Flood and Drainage Issues –Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) 1.12. Comment – the LLFA welcome that Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) have been proposed for the project where permanent above ground infrastructure is proposed to mitigate against additional impermeable surfaces creating an additional risk of flooding. Having considered the submitted documents, the LLFA are pleased to see that strategies have been supplied for the HVAC booster station and the HVDC converter / HAVC substation study areas. The cable corridor has not been considered in the drainage strategy due to the fact that the cable would be below ground and reinstatement to pre development state would mitigate the potential for increased runoff. 1.13. Construction compounds - It is noted that stockpiled material and construction compounds are proposed to be located outside of the floodplain (where possible), and as such have not been included in the study areas. Comment - it is suggested that additional information regarding these areas is provided in the flood risk assessment and drainage strategy. Watercourses - 1.15. Comment - Norfolk County Council appreciates that these are initial drainage proposals, however ideally the matters above (infiltration testing and drainage design) should be clarified prior to determination, to ensure that the site has a deliverable surface water drainage strategy. In particular there is no maintenance or management strategy supplied with the application and the LLFA have to assume that the applicant will take responsibility for maintaining the drainage for the lifetime of development. 1.16. Comments continued – The LLFA will require a series of issues to be resolved ahead of commencement, including, for example: detailed infiltration testing; detailed design modelling calculations; design of drainage structures; a maintenance and management plan etc. These issues can be addressed through a pre-commencement condition/requirement (see detailed comments below in the Appendix). Public Health 1.17. The County Council would expect detailed matters relating to construction noise and local environmental health to be addressed by the relevant District Councils. Providing the District Councils are satisfied with the proposal in relation to the above matters, the County Council would not wish to raise any public health concerns at this time. Local Member Views 1.18. The Local County Council Member for Melton Constable has made the following comments: 1.19. • Welcomes the fact that an experienced and respected developer has invested significant time and money preparing this proposal, which will help the UK reduce its reliance on carbon energy; 1.20. • Considers it is vital that local people's concerns are listened to, in terms of the effects of the proposed development on their lives, and the steps that could be taken to mitigate them; 1.21. • Mitigating the impact on work, life and the environment must be paramount, and no expense spared; 1.22. • It is essential that any application for which consent is granted must contribute strategically to the local area as well; 1.23. • Would like to see the developer propose ways in which the proposed development will benefit the local community in terms of infrastructure in the long term - be that through improved transport, digital infrastructure or otherwise. Appendix - Detailed Comments – Please see below: Detailed Highway and Environment Comments Highway Comments (a) Access Issues 1.24. During construction safety at the temporary accesses can be controlled and managed, however, theses access points need to be removed upon completion of the project. The applicant has stated they will be removed “where appropriate” and “where agreed with landowners” which is not acceptable. Comment – A condition is needed requiring an update to the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) whereby it includes written confirmation these accesses will be removed unless otherwise agreed by the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and that the highway verge will be re-instated to the satisfaction of the LHA together with timescales for completion of the works. 1.25. The applicant intend to design the proposed permanent accesses to the onshore HVAC Booster Station and HVDC converter stations / HVAC substation prior to the commencement of any construction works. This raises a serious issue as the applicant still needs to demonstrate that safe access points can be provided. As an absolute minimum, the application needs to include details of the proposed visibility splays for the permanent access points. If safe visibility cannot be achieved then it calls into question the viability of the project. 1.26. Comment – It is felt that a holding objection on highway safety grounds should be raised until safe visibility at the permanent access points in respect of the above onshore infrastructure works is clarified. 1.27. The main compound for the project is located at a completely different location to that included within the pre-application discussions. It is now located on the former Oulton Airfield and seeks to utilise an access and HGV route which the Planning Inspectorate identified in 2014 as being unsuitable for HGV’s to use (PINS Appeal ref – APP/K2610/A/14/2212257). 1.28. Comment – it is felt that the applicant needs to find a different site for their main compound. However, if they wish to pursue their chosen site then they will need to: (i) provide a scheme of permanent off-site highway improvement works comprising carriageway widening along the entire route from the compound to the main road; and (ii) demonstrate that such a scheme is capable of overcoming the issues previously identified by PINS. In the meantime it is felt that a holding objection on highway safety grounds should be raised to the inclusion of this site. 1.29. (b) Damage to the highway The applicant will undertake video condition surveys of the proposed routes before being used by HGV’s. A legal agreement between the applicant and the Highway Authority will ensure the applicant repair any damage caused. Comment – welcome this approach 1.30. (c) Abnormal Loads The number of abnormal loads is low in number, less than 20 in total and will be managed under separate consent from the Police and the County Council. Comment – the County Council is satisfied the impact from abnormal loads will be insignificant and falls outside the current assessment. 1.31. (d) Travel Plans It is recognised that the linear nature of the works; the absence of a fixed permanent work site along the cable route; and the rural nature of much of the cable corridor make it difficult to implement a standard travel plan (TP) for the onshore cable corridor working. Comment – the County Council is satisfied that a TP has not been submitted with the current application. 1.32. The assembly of components for the off-shore wind turbines and also maintenance of the off-shore facilities does not form part of the current application. Accordingly, the County Council will review TP requirements in relation to the off-shore works at a later date. (e) Cumulative Impact 1.33. The proposal has been satisfactorily assessed against the cumulative impact from construction traffic associated with other currently committed development. Highway Summary 1.34. Subject to additional information of a quality sufficient to remove the above holding objections set out above, the County Council anticipate being able to agree with the overall conclusion that there would be no severe impact on highway safety or congestion. Ecology and Nature Conservation 1.35. The involvement of the County Council with regards to ecology has been with onshore works only. Representatives from the Natural Environment Team have been involved in the On-shore Ecology Expert Group meetings and have had the opportunity to contribute to the scoping and methodology of ecological survey work, and have previously seen many of the results of the ecology surveys. The Ecology Chapter of the ES describes the ecological baseline and makes a robust assessment of impacts resulting from the onshore infrastructure requirements. 1.36. Construction of the onshore elements of Hornsea Three has the potential to cause damage to designated sites (including County Wildlife Sites) and habitats such as watercourses and woodland. However, with a cable corridor that avoids most important wildlife areas, and the inclusion of “designed-in” mitigation measures (most notably the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) techniques to avoid ecologically sensitive areas noted above), the effects on CWS and habitats is considered to be of negligible to minor adverse significance i.e. not significant in EIA terms. 1.37. In managing potential impacts on terrestrial ecology, the delivery and implementation of two documents will be key: the Construction Code of Practice (CoCP) and the Ecological Management Plan. 1.38. An Outline Construction Code of Practice includes a chapter on ecology with specific measures relating to: an Ecological Clerk of Works, biosecurity, invasive species, protective buffer zones, trees and hedgerows, amphibians and reptiles, water voles, otters, badgers, bats, and wintering birds (notably pink-footed geese in functionally-linked habitats to the North Norfolk SPA). Comment - The County Council acknowledge that this is a live document and will be updated post-submission of the DCO as required. In addition the County Council welcome the above approach and agree the content of the outline CoCP. 1.39. An Outline Ecology Management Plan (EMP) has the aim of providing “a single document that describes the ecology and nature conservation mitigation measures that will be implemented prior to, during and post construction of the onshore elements of Hornsea Three, and the long-term management measures to be set in place for reinstated and enhanced habitats”. It is noted that the outline EMP is a ‘living’ document that will be updated as required post submission of the DCO, during the Examination Period and during the detailed design process as necessary prior to implementation. At this point, it is felt that the Outline EMP is appropriate. It is noted that the reference to the possible district licensing for great crested newts that may be in operation prior to commencement of works, and the potential need of a pink-footed goose mitigation strategy if construction work occurs within certain time periods. 1.40. Comment - It is stated that the Outline EMP will be “prepared in consultation with the Local Planning Authority”. It is assumed that the reference to “the LPA” in this context actually means all three district planning authorities through which the cable route passes (North Norfolk, Broadland and South Norfolk). The County Council would also wish to be involved in any consultation on the emerging EMP. Landscape 1.41. It is noted that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been conducted using the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) 3rd Edition and other industry best practice guidance. The included visualisations using photomontages and wireframes are useful in viewing the likely effects of proposed development and change over time. 1.42. It is apparent that the construction of the onshore elements of Hornsea Three has the potential to impact on landscape and visual amenity, however it is noted that “designed-in” mitigation measures, such as the use of HDD techniques will minimise these impacts. This is further supported by measures suggested within the Outline Landscape Management Plan (LMP). 1.43. The Outline LMP is intended to provide a “framework to agree detailed masterplans and operations for the management and maintenance of the soft landscape proposals (planting and seeding) for the onshore HVAC booster station (if required) and onshore HVDC converter/HVAC substation, and management and maintenance of hedges and trees replaced and additional planting along the onshore cable corridor to ensure that the design and mitigation intent is realised.” It is noted that the Outline LMP has been produced in conjunction with, and should be read in conjunction with the Outline EMP. Comment - Overall the Concept and Design Justification, as detailed within the Outline LMP, includes suitable measures to reduce the landscape and visual impacts, retain landscaping where possible and enhance and compliment landscape features going forward. Public Rights of Way 1.44. In relation to the County Council as the Highways Authority, it is felt that the communication plan that will be developed as part of the Outline CoCP is very necessary and will be an important document. It should ensure local authorities are kept informed of when and where works will be taking place. It is noted that the communications plan intends to ensure appropriate media (signage/leaflets/notices) will be used to inform residents, parish councils and visitors of temporary changes to the PRoW network arising from the onshore construction works for Hornsea Three. Comment – the County Council welcome the need for advanced warning notices that would be erected at key points where PRoW would be affected by the onshore cable laying works to make users aware of the construction working area and associated construction noise. This will be important in reducing the burden on NCC in managing matters relating to the PRoW network with regards to the cable laying works 1.45. The County Council welcomes the intention of the applicant to liaise with the PRoW Officers over short-term temporary diversions of PRoW. Norfolk Trails 1.46. It is noted that where the cable laying works cross the Marriott’s Way Norfolk Trail HDD will be used. This should result in negligible disruption to users of this Trail. 1.47. The location of greatest concern for NCC is the landfall location at Weybourne where there will be disruption to users of the Norfolk Coast Path. It is accepted that the documentation in the ES recognises the sensitive nature and high usage of the beach and the coastal footpath. The Draft CoCP states that in the event that access along the beach is to be restricted or the coastal path needs to be temporarily diverted, the principal contractor for the landfall works will “submit a PRoW Management Plan to be approved by North Norfolk District Council as the relevant planning authority, developed in consultation with Norfolk County Council”. 1.48. Comment - The Norfolk Trails Team have had some discussions with the Hornsea Three team on this matter but are yet to be convinced that the initial proposals for managing users of the Trail at Weybourne are workable. As such it is felt that Orsted should continue discussions with the County Council and an appropriate plan be drawn up. Archaeology 1.49. The Historic Environment implications of the onshore cable route and infrastructure of the Hornsea Three Offshore Windfarm have been assessed in the ES in respect of the buried archaeological remains and the setting of designated heritage assets. Comment 1.50. The following Planning Conditions / Requirements are sought in relation to buried archaeological remains: 1.51. (A) No development shall take place until an archaeological written scheme of investigation has been submitted to and approved by Norfolk County Council in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and 1) The full programme and methodology of site investigation and recording, 2) The programme for post investigation assessment, 3) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording, 4) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation, 5) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation and 6) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the written scheme of investigation. 1.52. (B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the archaeological written scheme of investigation approved under (A). 1.53. (C) The development shall not be operated until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the archaeological written scheme of investigation approved under (A) and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured. Flood Risk – Proposed Condition / Requirement 1.54. Prior to commencement of development, in accordance with the submitted Environmental Statement for Application for Development Consent - The proposed Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Order Application ref: EN010080, detailed designs of a surface water drainage scheme incorporating the following measures shall be submitted to and agreed with the Secretary of State or his delegated approving body. The approved scheme will be implemented prior to the first use of the development. The scheme shall address the following matters: I. Detailed infiltration testing to be undertaken in accordance with BRE Digest 365 within the study areas for the converter / booster station and sub-station for the design of SuDs features. II. If infiltration is not possible surface water runoff rates will be attenuated to the pre development 1 in 1 year rate as stated within Annex 2.1 of Volume 4 of the Environmental statement (or 2 l/s/ha). Where applicable confirmation should be sought from the Internal Drainage Board that the proposed rates and volumes of surface water runoff from the development are acceptable. III. Provision of surface water infiltration / attenuation storage should be sized and designed to accommodate the volume of water generated in all rainfall events up to and including the critical storm duration for the 1 in 100 year return period, including allowances for climate change, flood event. IV. Detailed designs, modelling calculations and plans of the of the drainage conveyance network in the: • 1 in 30 year critical rainfall event to show no above ground flooding on any part of the site. • 1 in 100 year critical rainfall plus 40% climate change event to show, if any, the depth, volume and storage location of any above ground flooding from the drainage network ensuring that flooding does not occur in any part of a building or any utility plant susceptible to water (e.g. electricity equipment required at the converter / booster station and substation) within the development. V. The design of any drainage structures will include appropriate freeboard allowances. Plans to be submitted showing the routes for the management of exceedance surface water flow routes that minimise the risk to people and property during rainfall events in excess of 1 in 100 year return period VI. Details of how temporary works or temporary storage areas that will generate surface water runoff will be controlled to prevent a temporary increased risk of flooding. These details will also include what strategy/ plans will be provided to reinstate land to the pre-development state. VII. Finished ground floor levels of the converter / booster station and substation should have a freeboard such that all infrastructure is above expected flood levels from all sources of flooding, including fluvial flooding associated with the ordinary watercourse, tidal flooding and any above ground storage or flooding from the proposed drainage scheme. VIII. Details of how all surface water management features are to be designed in accordance with The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C697, 2007), or the updated The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C753, 2015), including appropriate treatment stages for water quality prior to discharge. IX. A maintenance and management plan detailing the activities required and details of who will adopt and maintain the all the surface water drainage features for the lifetime of the development. This will also include the ordinary watercourse and any structures such as culverts within the development boundary. 1.55. Reason: To prevent flooding in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 103 and 109 by ensuring the satisfactory management of local sources of flooding surface water flow paths, storage and disposal of surface water from the site in a range of rainfall events and ensuring the surface water drainage system operates as designed for the lifetime of the development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Griggs-Smith
"I live very close to the proposed substation at Mangreen . I will be directly affected in the following ways . View from back , I will see the structure and view spoilt. Noise and disruption. Road and access to work . House devalued and difficult to sell it for the building time . Destruction of hedges and wildlife. What I ask for: Substation be built adjacent to Norwich Main Substation. if not- Need to ensure planting of trees begins earlier than building. Earth mounts 10 metres at least around site / building. Keep it behind line of very old diverse hedges and trees. Wood Fence provided around my property if requested. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sherrill Catherine Bullimore
"65m square small holding I am against orsted compulsory accessing my locked paddock and 99 year lease. My amenity and utility smallholding just 65 m square, has on it woodland apple orchard (protected) wooden summer house, utility services, a caravan. Permission given by sec state 2004, beehives, stables, haystore, 3 rescue ponies, a vast amount of wild birds, owl box, bat boxes, butterfly's and casualties that come off the heath (100 yds) I am a member of Norfolk Wildlife Trust My argument Why cant orsted continue over field (agricultural) behind us instead of detouring across the road and crossing (Kelling paddocks) 8 small privately owned plots (locked and insured) on a private road maintained by paddock owners."
Members of the Public/Businesses
ConocoPhillips (U.K) Limited (ConocoPhillips (U.K) Limited)
"ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Limited (“COP”) as a consultee of the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Windfarm, has considered maps, plans and associated documentation for the proposed project. COP, as Operator and one of the owners of assets in proximity to the proposed Hornsea Wind Project Three offshore development, wishes to register as an interested party to take part in the examination of the application for Development Consent of Hornsea Project Three Offshore Windfarm. COP’s Southern North Sea portfolio comprises operated and non-operated assets located onshore and offshore, including platforms, gas pipelines, a condensate pipeline and a gas terminal located at Theddlethorpe. COP wishes to register the following key concerns as a stakeholder: ? - COP must be able to fully consider all possible implications and ensure satisfactory mitigations are in place for the continued safety and integrity of COP pipelines and infrastructure. Offshore locations and physical contact points of proposed cables crossing the COP owned and Operated pipelines and piggy backed methanol lines are required. Crossings of COP pipelines should be kept to a minimum through bundling or other appropriate methods where possible. ? - There should be no impediment to access to COP facilities that may compromise or complicate decommissioning activity. ? - Collision Risk Management - The impact of displacing shipping is uncertain, however traffic is likely to increase proximate to our assets. This has a number of significant implications to COP’s existing Marine Operations arrangements including the Radar Early Warning System (REWS) and Emergency Response and Rescue Vessels (ERRV). COP expects Hornsea Project Three to agree that it will have an obligation to procure a mitigation solution, if required, to identify the extent of the risk to the Collision Risk Management System, REWS and ERRV, and suitable and proportionate mitigation measures to ensure that such systems are not impaired by the construction and operation of Hornsea Project Three. ? - Potential crossing/proximity issues - COP must be able to assess the proximity of wind farm construction and maintenance operations to infrastructure as well as any construction or maintenance vessels, to determine the requirement for any additional protection measures. ? - Crossing Points should be designed such that the crossing angle be as close to 90 degrees as possible with a 300mm physical separation between the cable and pipeline at the midpoint between anodes to minimise the potential for adverse mechanical loads and electrical interference with the pipeline CP system. To preserve Cathodic Protection and minimise interference, a minimum 50m proximity zone is required to ensure the safety of COP pipelines. COP is willing to act reasonably and enter into commercial discussions with Orsted in good faith. The execution of crossing/proximity agreements is required to appropriately address all the important issues raised in this consultation including those outlined above. These agreements require review and acceptance by the other infrastructure owners, on behalf of whom COP operate. Please note that concerns raised at this time are based on headline issues currently captured. Further concerns may be raised following review of technical detail as it becomes available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
CPRE Norfolk
"CPRE Norfolk responds to this consultation by focussing on planning and environmental/pollution issues. We are led to conclude that the Planning Inspectorate should not have accepted the Orsted application for entry into the DCO process, which is explained in our points 1, 2 and in part 3. In summary, this is because there is no information in the Orsted PEIR documents that provides any explanation of the physical differences between HVAC and HVDC transmission along the cabling route in terms of land take, either during construction or the permanent easement. The use of HVAC transmission adopts the worst case scenario as the baseline all along the cabling route. The differences between HVAC and HVDC transmission systems should have been stated throughout the consultation documentation, not hidden through the absence of data, overlain by masking that HVAC is always the worst case or maximum in terms of impact. The decision of Orsted to pursue the HVAC option is not compliant with PINS Advice Note Nine (2012) on the so-called Rochdale Envelope. In our view this was designed to allow for an unlikely or unforeseen event, or a genuine mistake in the construction; not to invite a known (but not to the public) option which has maximum range of impact or worst case scenario as the baseline, before evaluating any mitigation measures that can be potentially brought into play. We are also concerned about the disregard of NPPF policy on biodiversity, which is particularly critical for the River Glaven catchment, which is explained further in our points 4, 5 and 6, and in part 3."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Searson
"traffic and noise disturbance to the village and associated problems resulting in a lowering of our quality of life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jill Leigh
"I am concerned about access to our property, which is a single track road, and how it will be affected by additional traffic due to the development. I am concerned about the noise level from the development, which is adjacent to our property. I would like to understand the impact the development will have on wildlife and the natural environment in Reepham, Cawston and Booton."
Local Authorities
Norwich City Council
"This representation is made on behalf of Norwich City Council issued at officer level. The majority of the scheme is a considerable distance from the Administrative Area of Norwich City Council and therefore these comments relate solely to the HVDC Converter and HVAC Substation which is proposed to be located to the south of the A47 and east of the B1113. Norwich City Council do not wish to comment on the other elements of the proposal. The HVDC Converter and HVAC Substation is located approximately 1.4km to the south of Norwich to the southern side of the Yare River Valley and beyond the A47. Buildings/structures in the area are proposed to be up to 25m tall and screened by a woodland planting belt. Figure 4.7 of the Volume 3 Chapter 4 of the Environmental Statement (ES) suggests that the zone of visual influence does not extend into the administrative area of Norwich. An assessment of impact from Marston Marshes (viewpoint SS4) is considered and 4.7.6.48 of the above chapter of the ES concludes: Viewpoints SS4 and SS8 are located at the areas of Marston Marshes and Swardeston Common where there would potentially be the most open views of Hornsea Three. The scale of effect at these locations is assessed to be negligible, as set out in Table 4.14 and volume 6, annex 4.5: Photograph Panels, Wirelines and Photomontages, and effects on receptors within these areas would not therefore be significant so they are not considered further. Eaton Common is located immediately adjacent to Marston Marshes with a similar pattern of landform and vegetation cover, as such, effects here are unlikely to be different to those at Marston Marshes and it is therefore also excluded from further consideration as effects are unlikely to be significant. Without selecting the viewpoints to be assessed during the scoping work, we cannot be certain that there will not be a more significant visual impact resulting from the proposed development on the natural landscapes of the Yare River valley than the negligible impact identified in the ES. To ensure any impacts are mitigated we would like to see a more robust screening mix on site with a mix of broadleaf native trees with some selected standard specimens that will mature more rapidly than the proposed transplants and ultimately provide effective screening for the development from the Yare River valley. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Glenser
"My family and I live at (redacted) Oulton. We would be the closest neighbours to the proposed development of the Main Compound and thus amongst the most closely effected. I am extremely concerned about the severe adverse impacts on our residential amenity and the severe adverse impacts on our quality of life if this proposal is granted permission.The peace and quiet of this remote location was a major factor in our decision to buy the house. The quiet enjoyment of this property will be severely effected by the construction of a site nearly eight acres in size, with lights, generators, facilities for staff and heavy vehicle movements just a few hundred metres away and in the direction the house faces. It is difficult to overstate how quiet and this area is at night and how much vehicle reversing alarms, engines and even voices will disturb this silence. Similarly the area is very dark at night – inevitably security lighting will cause light pollution in this dark skies area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daisy Turville-Petre
"1. I have grave concerns about the increased traffic along this very narrow residential street. I have three children who live with me in the village and walk unaccompanied along the road at times. Increased HGV traffic will no doubt be a risk to the buildings themselves, the conservation area in which we live, but also to the lives and well-being of the residents - including children - of this area. The research submitted by the parish council in this area indicates that the increase in traffic will be substantial and I am very concerned that the impact will be significant and detrimental to the village as a whole. My youngest daughter is seven - that is most of her childhood in this village. 2. Orsted’s failure to produce even an outline CTMP, pre-application, has made it impossible for them, us, PINS and Vattenfall to assess the cumulative impact of the fact that Vattenfall are also locating two of their compounds in this parish and sharing the same access road. 3. Light pollution: Oulton is a dark skies area. 4. Noise pollution: will impact on 24 dwellings in The Street and the several dwellings very close to the western edge of the site. As well as traffic noise, there are grave concerns relating to: • generators – especially at night; • on-site traffic movement noise; • on-site reversing alarms (hard to control with use of sub-contractors). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Jackson
"My concerns are the amount and type of heavy traffic on our class C roads - and how it will conflict with farm traffic. I am also very concerned that any LIGHTING does not harm our wonderful dark skies here!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Reeves
"I am alarmed by the proposed increase of commercial traffic through a small village with a single narrow lane. This same lane and the type of industrial vehicles cited, were recently the subject of an attempt by the same farming family to turn the only road through the village into an industrial slip road serving their agricultural industry alone. Their 'industry' has seen many examples where planning has been sought to remove farming from the agenda, only to be replaced by power generation or storage, with concomitant traffic increase, in one form or another. On appeal this was forbidden. Why would it be allowed now? Keith Reeves 16/07/18"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Norfolk Wildlife Trust
"The Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT), has more than 35,000 members and has been taking a lead role on action for wildlife in Norfolk, since its foundation in 1926. NWT is one of a network of 46 Wildlife Trusts (TWT), which with more than 800,000 members is the largest UK voluntary organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK’s habitats and species. NWT representation focuses on onshore biodiversity impacts of Hornsea 3. However, we also support The Wildlife Trust’s submissions regarding offshore marine mammal and benthic impacts. NWT & TWT were members of the MCZ Assessment Group and NWT was a member of the Onshore Ecology Working Group. Impacts relating to the width of the cable route: We have not taken a view on the merits of using AC or DC, rather that ecological impacts should be minimised, whatever method is adopted. However, it is clear that habitat disturbance will be less if DC option is used, even if designated sites and the majority of areas of Priority Habitat are avoided. This is particularly relevant in relation to loss of hedgerow and foraging habitat for species such as great-crested newt. Impacts on Booton Common SSSI: NWT manages Booton Common SSSI. We are pleased to see that HDD will be used with regard to the Blackwater Drain, in order to avoid impacts on Booton Common. There is however, potential for impacts on hydrology of the SSSI resulting from a cable buried in close vicinity to this wetland site. We would like to see further information to make clear that this issue has been fully addressed and may wish to make a representation. Impacts on great-crested newt: Although, we accept that the survey methodology used to assess cable routes and impacts is in line with that from similar projects, we do have some concerns in relation to impacts on great-crested newt meta-populations, particularly in the Bodham and Heydon areas. This is because there is detailed information available on presence of great-crested newt in these areas as a result of surveys carried out by University College London. We understand that this evidence has been presented to Orsted. It appears that great-crested newt may be present in ponds that were not visited, or assessed as unsuitable by the project ecologists. Where meta-populations are divided by the cable route, non-priority terrestrial habitats linking ponds should be considered important for movement of GCN and mitigation should be at an appropriate level. In this context, consideration of whether AC or DC is used, may be of relevance. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Greaves
"Traffic impact on Oulton/Oulton Street residents due to HGV movement and construction site traffic Noise and light pollution created by the above activity Wildlife impact due to the above - specifically on deer population who roam freely around Oulton/Oulton Street Infrastructure impact on large vehicles travelling many times over a defined timespan and the impact on road construction"
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Wildlife Trusts
"The Wildlife Trusts (TWT), with more than 800,000 members, is the largest UK voluntary organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK’s habitats and species. This representation focuses on offshore marine mammal and benthic impacts. However, we also support the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s submissions regarding onshore biodiversity impacts. Marine Mammals TWT has concerns regarding the impact of underwater noise from construction on marine mammals, in particular, cumulative disturbance to harbour porpoise. We have concerns regarding the approach to the cumulative and in-combination assessment. In addition: 1. TWT does not agree with the current proposal on underwater noise management. The science underpinning the approach is weak, it is difficult to deliver and does not encourage noise reduction. 2. Underwater noise should be managed at a regional seas level using noise limits. Noise limits should apply across all construction activities associated with offshore wind farm development. This approach is used in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, and should be applied in English and Secretary of State waters, ensuring consistency across the Southern North Sea. 3. Due to cumulative underwater noise impacts, underwater noise mitigation should be conditioned as part of planning consents. 4. Fishing should be included in cumulative/in-combination assessments; it is not part of the baseline. 5. Detailed monitoring of noise levels and harbour porpoise population activity should be undertaken at a strategic level to verify predictions made in planning applications and to provide information for the growth of the offshore wind sector. 6. Strategic mitigation and monitoring should be implemented through a conditioned levy payment which would also establish and support a Southern North Sea underwater noise management steering group. 7. TWT value the relationship developed with applicants during the pre-application stage. Due to the uncertainties on marine mammal mitigation and monitoring at examination, we wish to be named on any associated documents for consultation post-consent e.g. MMMPs, In-Principle Monitoring Plan. Cabling and benthic impacts TWT is pleased that that applicant has rerouted the offshore cable to avoid impacts on the chalk reef within Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds MCZ. However, a more detailed assessment on The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC is required to give greater certainty of no adverse effect. More realistic expectations on cable burial and protection within the SAC is required, which should be conditioned if consent is granted. The science to support the impact assessment on ocean quahog is weak. The cumulative impact assessment for ocean quahog does not consider fishing, which is one of the main threats to this species. This should be taken account of in a more detailed assessment. General: We have some concerns regarding the assessment methodology and subsequent conclusions drawn across some assessments. We would also like to raise that fishing is not included in cumulative/in-combination assessments. TWT does not consider fishing to be part of the baseline. Following the commencement of judicial review proceedings by TWT against Dogger Bank Wind farms, we were given assurances that fishing would be included in future offshore wind farm assessments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm DCO Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits including should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Cadent has low, intermediate and high pressure (major accident hazard) gas pipelines located within the order limits which are affected by works proposed. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. Cadent is discussing the potential impacts on its network with the promoter however any proposed relocation of apparatus or protections including the extent of any land or rights required by Cadent to facilitate works have not been finalised. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will continue negotiations with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement. "
Parish Councils
Mulbarton Parish Council
"Onshore HVDC converter and HVAC substation at Swardeston The currently proposed site for this facility is on rising ground alongside the A47 trunk road. It is at present undeveloped farmland, in agricultural use. Due to the large size, height, and scale of the proposed building and associated works, the use of this site would have significant visual and environmental impact, leading to extensive mitigation measures. Further, if the currently proposed site is adopted, then it would also appear that all vehicle access, including during the construction phase, would need to be made to and from the B1113. Given that Highways England has recently stated that access to the site from the A47 will not be permitted, there would seem to be no advantage in continuing with this particular site. A more suitable site is potentially available at the Lafarge Aggregates quarry, Mangreen (52°34'46.2"N 1°16'35.4"E). This alternative location is a working gravel extraction site, with existing heavy goods vehicle access to and from the A140 trunk road, and in very close proximity to the Norwich Main National Grid Substation. Gravel extraction is a progressive process, and the site will necessarily become exhausted when all commercially viable supplies of gravel have been removed. Excavations are then typically backfilled, and restored to agricutlural use. There is clearly an opportunity to obtain economic and environmental benefits by using a part of the existing Lafarge Aggregates site for the construction of the Onshore HVDC converter and HVAC substation. There seems to be no evidence so far that the potential advantages of this alternative location have been seriously considered, or discussed with the site operator. These possibilities should be fully explored before a final site selection decision is made."
Parish Councils
Edgefield Parish Council
"Edgefield will be hugely affected by the cablin route through to north Norfolk. The storage unit is to be in Oulton, so all vehicles going to the North Norfolk coast would come through the centre of our village. The edge of the village will also have cabling going through and the Parish Council have concerns of disruption to the village over a number of years whilst cables are being laid. The booster station will also be clearly visible from the Parish as it is in the village next door."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Paul Kemp
"I strongly object to the development proposed for the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm, where the onshore cable corridor is coming through my farm, which is earmarked for future development. I have already spent a considerable amount of time and money promoting the development over the last thirty years. I am objecting to where the cable corridor runs as the land would be sterilized for development by the permanent cable corridor, and also any future development on my land would need to take this corridor into account."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natasha Hall
" HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT EN010080 Firstly as owners of the only property (redacted) in close proximity of the converter we are disappointed and upset with the communication and withholding of information from Orsted After purchasing (redacted) in 2003 we made appoint of contacting South Norfolk Council who told us in no uncertain terms there would be no construction between our boundary and the Southern bypass which I believe has now been contravened to support this latest application. Orsted have been slow in communication with us and we have had lots of mis- guided information 1. The sound monitors were put up at our property (when asked what they were for we were told they just monitor the wind speed). Asking what effect this will have on us they replied absolutely nothing!!!!! 2. We voiced our concerns about the construction traffic (Not knowing about the impending roundabout on the B1113) They did but let us voice our concerns and look stupid 3. We asked why the substation could not be located nearer the main substation at Mangreen/Caister again they knew that there was a proposed reserve substation in the process- we didn’t Below is the abstract from the sound report which they carried out in March 2017 promising us a copy before it went to planning inspectorate surprisingly we got it 1st June 2018 17 days after the misinterpreted report was sent to the planning inspectorate. The results of the assessment for (redacted) shows that with the design mitigation applied, it is anticipated that during operation in the day time there would be no change in the sound level at the property, and during evening the anticipated change (+0.3 decibel increase) has been assessed as negligible for the purpose of the assessment. For your information, since we last spoke we have submitted our planning application for Hornsea Project Three to the Planning Inspectorate on 14th May. You will be formally notified by us in writing if the application is accepted for examination, so that you have the opportunity to view the full suite of documents and make a written representation. So there will be no sound affect during the day when they are constructing less than 200 metres from our property this is without the dust and eyesore we will be exposed to Putting up a few trees and landscaping is not going to make up for this We have raised our family and would now be looking to downsize but are now prisoners in our own home as no one will buy with 12+ years of construction Stuart Livsey (Orsted)said on live radio that there is no evidence that the construction would devalue our property (in that case they could purchase and sell at the end of construction with no monetary loss) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Orsted Wind Power A/S
"The proposed Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm is located within the former Hornsea Zone in the southern North Sea region. The Hornsea Zone was one of the nine zones identified by the Crown Estate’s Round 3 offshore wind programme in 2009. The Hornsea zone was disbanded in early 2016 and four separate project agreements are now in place. Each Agreement for Lease (AfL) or Lease is held by a separate subsidiary of Ørsted Wind Power A/S:- • Hornsea Project One (Hornsea 1 Limited. Company 07640868). • Hornsea Project Two (Breesea Limited. Company 07883217). • Hornsea Project Three (Ørsted Hornsea Project Three UK Limited. Company 08584210). • Hornsea Project Four (Ørsted Hornsea Project Four Limited. Company 08584182). Hornsea Project One was granted a Development Consent Order (DCO) on 31st December 2014 and has since been awarded a Contract for Difference (CfD). The Project took Final Investment Decision in February 2016 with onshore construction works commending in January 2016 and offshore construction works commencing in January 2018. Hornsea Project One anticipates that construction will be completed and the wind farm will be fully operational by 2020. Hornsea Project Two was granted a DCO on 16th August 2016 and was awarded a CfD in September 2017. The Project took Final Investment Decision in September 2017 and the onshore substation construction works commenced in April 2018 and offshore construction works are due to commence in 2020. Hornsea Project Two anticipates that construction will be completed and the wind farm will be fully operational by 2022. Ørsted has an AfL for Hornsea Project Four, and is currently considering how to take this project forward. Hornsea Project Four has commenced initial engagement with relevant statutory consultees to gather relevant baseline data to inform route planning and site selection. Hornsea Project Four is currently working towards submission of the EIA Scoping Report to the Planning Inspectorate in October 2018, and statutory consultation in May 2019. Submission of the Project Four DCO application is anticipated to be made in Q1-Q2 2020. Hornsea Project One, Hornsea Project Two and Hornsea Project Four support the development of Hornsea Project Three, but each project, as a separate entity, reserves the right to make further representations throughout the forthcoming examination period, if appropriate. "
Local Authorities
response has attachments
South Norfolk Council
"In general, the District Council is supportive of the project, recognising its importance in relation to the diversification of UK energy supplies and potential contribution to the national and local economy. The economic benefits in terms of investment and job creation are welcomed. We are however concerned at the adverse visual effects, together with the harm to Heritage assets the converter/substation would have on our District. Contrary to National and Local Policy. The Environmental Impact Assessment has been conducted using appropriate and agreed methods and has been informed by relevant and up to date surveys, modelling, evidence gathering and desk studies. The scope and methodology of these has been agreed with key stakeholders and consultees throughout the process. Overall the ES is comprehensive and of good quality and there are no substantive issues arising from it, subject to the following comments: Impact on Heritage Assets The Council considers that the impact of the development on both the setting of Keswick Hall and the setting of the historic parkland should be considered to be a greater level of impact and of more significance in the EIA than currently attributed. This we feel should be given sufficient weight, particularly with regard to the options between HVAC and HVDC converter/substation, where the latter would result in a significantly higher building, a greater degree of harm, and fewer possibility of mitigating that harm in terms of the design approach. Other mitigating measures could include further tree planting and careful consideration of the proposed colours of the building/buildings. Landscape and visual impact It is considered that in landscape impact terms, the greatest effect is on the site of the proposed sub-station and this would be a significant adverse effect (major-moderate adverse) but that this would diminish outside the site where the effects would not be significant. With regards to the visual impact, the most significant visual effects are from Mangreen Lane and Low Road. Overall the EIA concludes that, on completion, the visual effects would diminish as new planting matures so to be not significant. However, the planting will take a long time to establish. It is also considered that some of the degree of harm can be mitigated against through various measures such as having a substation/converter which is lower height and use of recessive colour for the building. In respect of the impact of the cable route, in the absence of the information in terms of the ‘importance’ of hedgerows under the Hedgerows Regulations and assessment of trees implicated in the scheme, it is not possible to conclude on the impacts of the cable route. Concern that the creation of woodland, whilst offering an opportunity to reduce the visual and aural impact of the A47 on the rural ambience of this area, would impact on the openness of the bypass protection zone, which could result in a significant adverse effect. Noise and Pollution With regards to specified works to be undertaken issues relating to Control of Noise, Air Quality, Artificial Light, Waste Management, Pollution Prevention, Contamination Assessment and Mitigation and Working Hours are adequately covered by the Requirements in the Draft DCO. The Council is in general agreement with the Outline Code of Construction Practise but wishes to confirm that issues relating to hours of operation, siting of any standby generators, good practise procedures, prior notification of constructional noise, floodlighting, movement and storage of waste materials, public safety, dust control, emissions, telecommunication or television interference and decommissioning should be in place in the final document. Conclusion The Council acknowledge that there are national benefits in delivering 2,400 MW of electricity, which as stated by Orsted would meet the daily energy needs of over 2 million homes, however there are limited benefits at the local level. There is however harm identified at a local level, in particular by the construction of the proposed converter/substation in the parish of Swardeston. The Council considers that significant weight should be had to the visual and heritage harms in the planning balance. In view of the above, the Council would urge that the substation is constructed using technologies that would allow for its height to be kept as low as possible. There is a significant difference between HVDC height of 25m and HVAC height of 15m. The Council wishes to continue to work pro-actively with the applicants as the application is progressed through to Examination to try to resolve some of the outstanding issues, particularly in relation to hedgerows and trees. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Hall
" HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT EN010080 Firstly as owners of the only property (redacted) in close proximity of the converter we are disappointed and upset with the communication and withholding of information from Orsted After purchasing (redacted) in 2003 we made appoint of contacting South Norfolk Council who told us in no uncertain terms there would be no construction between our boundary and the Southern bypass which I believe has now been contravened to support this latest application. Orsted have been slow in communication with us and we have had lots of mis- guided information 1. The sound monitors were put up at our property (when asked what they were for we were told they just monitor the wind speed). Asking what effect this will have on us they replied absolutely nothing!!!!! 2. We voiced our concerns about the construction traffic (Not knowing about the impending roundabout on the B1113) They did but let us voice our concerns and look stupid 3. We asked why the substation could not be located nearer the main substation at Mangreen/Caister again they knew that there was a proposed reserve substation in the process- we didn’t Below is the abstract from the sound report which they carried out in March 2017 promising us a copy before it went to planning inspectorate surprisingly we got it 1st June 2018 17 days after the misinterpreted report was sent to the planning inspectorate. The results of the assessment for (redacted) shows that with the design mitigation applied, it is anticipated that during operation in the day time there would be no change in the sound level at the property, and during evening the anticipated change (+0.3 decibel increase) has been assessed as negligible for the purpose of the assessment. For your information, since we last spoke we have submitted our planning application for Hornsea Project Three to the Planning Inspectorate on 14th May. You will be formally notified by us in writing if the application is accepted for examination, so that you have the opportunity to view the full suite of documents and make a written representation. So there will be no sound affect during the day when they are constructing less than 200 metres from our property this is without the dust and eyesore we will be exposed to Putting up a few trees and landscaping is not going to make up for this We have raised our family and would now be looking to downsize but are now prisoners in our own home as no one will buy with 12+ years of construction Stuart Livsey (Orsted)said on live radio that there is no evidence that the construction would devalue our property (in that case they could purchase and sell at the end of construction with no monetary loss)"
Non-Statutory Organisations
The National Trust
"Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010080 The National Trust wishes to register as an interested party. The proposal would not impact directly on land owned or managed by the National Trust, but some elements of the proposal would abut or be close to such land and may impact indirectly. This land at Oulton Street where the construction compound is proposed and land to the south of Weybourne Cliffs (to the north of Sheringham Park) which is located to the east of the proposed landfall. The Trust wishes to comment on three particular aspects of the proposal: - The proposed construction compound at Oulton Street and its impacts upon the local highway; - The proposed construction compound at Oulton Street and its impact upon heritage; - The archaeology in the area of the on-shore landfall. Land at Oulton Street – Highway Impacts - A construction compound is proposed at Oulton Street, which abuts the boundary of land owned by the Trust. The National Trust has significant landholdings within the vicinity of the site which attract large numbers of visitors each year who come to enjoy the heritage, wildlife and leisure opportunities that they provide. - The airfield is located on ‘The Street’ which is accessed from the B1149. This is a rural road with a narrow carriageway and the National Trust questions the appropriateness of this for use by the construction traffic. This is having regard to the potential peak daily staff vehicle and HGV movements (a peak of 130 daily staff vehicle movements and a peak of 118 daily HGV movements) and the potential construction period (under a two-phase construction programme a duration of up to 8 years and under a single-phase programme a duration of up to six years). - No details have been provided of the traffic management measures. - The scope of the use of the main construction compound is not yet known; therefore it is difficult for interested parties to fully consider the impacts. - The National Trust is concerned about the impacts that the level of traffic using this rural road and the impacts the traffic management measures could have on its tenants, staff and visitors who use this road. The lack of detail and uncertainty at this stage about the traffic management measures gives cause for concern. Land at Oulton Street – Heritage Impacts - There is no assessment of the significance of Oulton Airfield which the National Trust considers to be an undesignated heritage asset. - The former RAF Oulton is inextricably linked with Blickling Hall (Grade 1 Listed), which provided accommodation and facilities for the RAF in WWII and was perhaps the most impressive country house in the county to serve as a mess site for an operational airfield. The runways and tracks at Oulton are one of the most complete surviving examples of a wartime built RAF airfield in the county. - The airfield is an important part of the history of Oulton and Blickling. Further detail can be provided within a subsequent submission. - The significance and character of the airfield, its historic relationship to the village and the Blickling estate and the contribution it makes to the setting of the Blickling Conservation Area have not been acknowledged within the application. There is no appraisal to ensure any harm caused to the heritage asset of the airfield is minimised. North Norfolk Coast – Archaeology - The results of any archaeological work for the land near our coastal land ownership should be appropriately recorded and made publicly available. - The section near our coastal land is important as there may be military defences within the coastal zone and also very old activity associated with deeper geological layers. An understanding of this would give a greater indication as to whether similar remains might exist within our land. These areas are prone to erosion and loss. Information on coastal geology deposits and any archaeological finds or layers would also be of value. We request that appropriate mitigation is in place to record this information. "
Local Authorities
Broadland District Council
"The District Council notes that the proposed development will deliver a significant national benefit in the supply of substantial renewable energy in the UK. However the anticipated local impacts should be addressed. The main construction compound for the on-shore works is on part of the former airfield to the east of the small village of Oulton which is designated as a Conservation Area and served by narrow country lanes. The predicted construction period for a 2 phase build is at least 8 years and it has been indicated that construction traffic will pass through the village centre, it is anticipated that the residents of Oulton will experience significant danger and disruption during the entire build period and there will be a negative effect on the character of the Conservation Area. Regard should be given to the dismissal of a planning appeal in 2014 for an anaerobic digester plant on the former airfield on grounds that it would result in material harm to highway convenience and safety and the living conditions of the occupiers of The Old Railway Gatehouse (to the south of the access) in respect of noise and disturbance. Detailed consideration needs to be given to all impacts arising from the position of the main construction compound but if these can’t be adequately resolved that the position of the main construction compound should be revised. A separate cable corridor and associated development within the District is proposed as part of the Norfolk Vanguard off-shore wind farm. The cumulative impacts of the two proposals need to be considered. In this respect it is noted that Norfolk Vanguard are proposing two compounds in Oulton using the same access road as the Hornsea Three proposals. In addition the two cable corridors cross at a point north of Reepham and this has the potential to increase the visual and environmental impacts of the proposal in the locality of this intersection. Two areas of woodland designated as Ancient are within 500m of the cable corridor one is Jennis Wood (north of Ebony Hall, Ringland) and the other is on the boundary with South Norfolk at Harman’s Grove, the corridor appears to run directly adjacent to these areas of woodland. Both are County Wildlife Sites and should be protected. The installation of the cable route will also require the removal of sections of hedgerow; these will have to be assessed using the criteria set out in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 to establish if they would be considered as important due to the flora, fauna or historical significance associated with them. If sections are removed and cannot be replaced following installation of the cables this will have greater long term significance to the landscape of the locations and some form of mitigation would be appropriate which could include replacement planting on adjacent land. The Hydrology & Flood Risk Statement Vol. 3 Chapter 2 (pg. 28; 2.7.6.2) incorrectly states that the District Council does not hold records of private water supply information. The District Council would like to reiterate that the Norfolk authorities have signed up to County position statement in respect of offshore wind energy proposals that was sent to the Rt. Hon Dr Greg Clark MP on 26 February 2018 which requests that the offshore energy companies undertake to: a) Secure improvements to the local electricity distribution networks in the County; and b) Ensure real economic benefits in respect of the (i) provision of high quality jobs; (ii) creation of training/skills initiatives in the energy sector and (iii) the provision of wider community benefits. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr William Horabin on behalf of Friends of North Norfolk
"1.We are concerned that HVDC Transmission has not been properly and fully considered. HVDC Transmission is used in transmission of high voltage current over land and sub sea for many continental interconnectors and in operational offshore wind farms in the North Sea off Germany where it has been specified by the German Gov't (Orsted-Dong have interests in these). Offshore Converter Platforms up to 950MW capacity have been constructed, installed and are operational. HVDC Transmission will need fewer cables, less disruption to the seabed, land and the ecology and eliminate the need for vast Compensator Booster Stations both offshore and within open countryside. Indeed HVDC Transmission is the single best solution to limit and mitigate against the significant effects of this vast project. 2.Orsted have failed to evidence that they are truly committed and open to the full and proper consideration of HVDC Transmission within the Rochdale Envelope approach. The Consultation Report evidences a clear bias and assumptions that HVAC Transmission will be used - Orsted have used HVAC Transmission when they have been allowed the choice despite the significant advances and use of HVDC Transmission by others. 3.Orsted have failed to provide proper details and visualisations of the onshore HVAC Booster Stations or give a sense of scale to all parts of the project to enable proper public consultation. Proper mapping and imaging including aerial photo surveys and more sophisticated photo montages / 3D imaging is warranted for a project of this scale. 4.Orsted have failed to properly identify the cumulative effects of other projects - existing or proposed - on the North Norfolk Coast, the AONB and Marine Environment/Ecologies and the socio/economic impacts on tourism, fishing etc. Other projects include the recent Sheringham Shoal, Dudgeon and Race Bank offshore wind farms/cabling works and the proposed Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas offshore wind farms. 5.Orsted have failed to identify or understand the impacts of works and sediment disturbances - the Cromer Reef MCZ is an example. Trenching works carried out when there is a tidal stream running west to east (particularly on Springs) will cause pollution to the reef and sands/sediments will carry and damage it. Should the chalk reef continue under the sea bed and extend out then the cabling works will pull up chalk which can travel in suspension for many miles. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Historical Railways Estate (representing the interests of structures belonging to the Secretary of State for Transport) (Historical Railways Estate (representing the interests of structures belonging to the Secretary of State for Transport))
"Historical Railways Estate manage former Railway structures on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. Several of these sit within the proposed route/boundary. As such we would like to ensure that we are contacted for our approval relating to any element of the proposal that affects or impacts on these bridges. Orsted have contacted us previously and been advised of this. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"We intend to respond to the application for the Hornsea 3 Project to ensure the safety of navigation is maintained during construction, operation and decommissioning, with appropriate risk mitigation measures in place, and to ensure we are able to maintain our search and rescue obligations. We would therefore expect developments to be undertaken in accordance with Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 543 and its supporting annexes. MCA’s remit for Offshore Renewable energy development is to ensure that the safety of navigation is preserved, and our Search and Rescue capability is maintained whilst progress is made towards government targets for renewable energy. This includes our obligations under The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Statement of Common Ground has not yet been agreed by MCA. We remain concerned regarding the sighting of surface infrastructure anywhere within the 300m development corridor (+/- 150m from the centre line) which could be detrimental to navigation safety and SAR capabilities. This principle is considered beyond microsighting, and more a determination on layout design, and therefore the MCA does not find this reasonable. Straight lines of orientation without obstructions are by far the best way to provide for safe navigation of aircraft and vessels. We are aware that the volume of commercial and recreational vessel activity in the area is low. However, we need to consider the vessels which find themselves in the vicinity of the windfarm in bad weather e.g. poor visibility, or in an emergency situation, the offshore support vessels, and the recreational vessels who do decide to transit the site. Principle 8 - Infrastructure shall be sited within Development Lanes of up to 300m width whilst still maintaining Principle 2 along the length of the Development Lane. Infrastructure may then be sited at varying distances up to 150m from the centre line of that Development Lane. The MCA considers this excessive and it will likely create surface infrastructure which are not in line and/or curved. A 300m lane of surface infrastructure which is not in line effectively creates a 300m corridor, which is not searchable. This could result in 23% of the development with no SAR coverage (300m every 1300m). This principle is not considered to be microsighting but part of a determination on layout design, and as a result the MCA does not find this reasonable. Principle 11 - The position of Surface Infrastructure within a Perimeter Development Lane around the Hornsea Three Array Area or a Phase shall, so far as is practicable, be arranged in straight or curved lines (to a tolerance of ±150m) from the indicative boundary of the Hornsea Three Array Area or Phase whilst complying with Principles 1 and 2. As per comment on principle 8, the tolerance of 150m is excessive and would lead to non-linear surface infrastructure, which may have an adverse impact on SAR and navigation safety. We are concerned that the length of the lanes will be up to 22nm in length, which may take a SAR helicopter approximately 20 minutes to transit. Considering there is just one line of orientation, this would not allow a SAR aircraft to turn and manoeuvre down an adjacent lane, which is fundamental for SAR capabilities. In addition, the lack of a helicopter refuge area restricts access options. Annex 5 to MGN 543 states that these helicopter refuge areas may be required where developments are over 10nm in length. The MCA therefore strongly recommended that an assessment be made into the feasibility of one perpendicular helicopter refuge area, half way along the development. "
Parish Councils
John Hurst on behalf of Morton on the Hill Parish Council
"Morton Parish Council believe that the site chosen for a construction storage compound immediately to the south of the junction of Marl Hill with the A1067 is not a suitable site for the following reasons: 1.Marl Hill is a particularly busy road which currently carries up to 4000 cars a day and this particular junction is both extremely busy and an accident black spot. The A1067 was closed due to an accident at this junction earlier this year and there are regular tail backs of traffic on Marl Hill caused by vehicles queuing to join the A1067. 2.Marl Hill regularly floods at two points leading up to the junction with the A1067 and during the winter of 2017/2018 both areas were under two feet of water during the months of December and January. 3. There is an Anglian Water mains water pipe, constructed of the old weaker material, just under the entrance to the proposed compound. This water main has a history of bursting just further up Marl Hill and we are concerned that it will not take the pressure of continual lorry movement into and out of the proposed site. 4. It will be much more difficult to reinstate this particular area owing to the amount of water that regularly flows down Marl Hill during wet weather.The overflow pipe from the road drain which passes under the proposed entrance is often blocked as it can only be cleared by pressure jetting the pipework. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a vehicular width restriction at the top of Marl Hill this road is a very attractive short cut to the A47 for vehicles coming from the Norwich Northern Distributor Road. It is an extremely busy and fast road and there are regular tail backs of traffic leading up to the junction. For all the above reasons Morton Parish Council believes it is a most unsuitable site for HGV's turning into and out of a construction and storage compound."
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC and National Grid Gas PLC
"Representation by National Grid Gas Plc and National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (together ‘National Grid’) to the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Application for a Development Consent Order. National Grid wishes to make a relevant representation to the Hornsea Project Three DCO in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. National Grid’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on National Grid’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area, and National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. National Grid Electricity Transmission National Grid Electricity Transmission has high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines, a high voltage substation and high voltage underground cables within the onshore Order Limits. Substation • Norwich 400kV Overhead Lines • 4VV (400kV) overhead line route - Norwich Main to Walpole 1 - Norwich Main to Walpole 2 • 4YM (400kV) overhead line route - Bramford to Norwich Main 1 - Bramford to Norwich Main 2 • PHC (132kV) overhead line - Norwich Main to Trowse 1 • PGG (132kV) overhead line - Norwich Main to Trowse 3 Underground Cable • Norwich Main – PHC001 Gas Transmission National Grid Gas has high pressure gas transmission pipelines and above ground installations (AGI’s) within or in close proximity to the onshore Order Limits: Above Ground Installations: • Little Barning • Felthorpe Gas Transmission Pipelines: • Feeder Main 02 - Bacton to Brisley • Feeder Main 03 - Bacton to Roudham Heath • Feeder Main 04 - Bacton to Gt Ryburgh • Feeder Main 27 - Bacton to Kings Lynn As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime is negotiating with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neptune E&P UK Ltd
"Neptune E&P UK Ltd (Neptune) wishes to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm. Neptune is the Operator of the Cygnus gas field which is located in blocks 44/11a and 44/12a of the UK sector of the Southern North Sea (SNS) approximately 150km northeast of Easington. There are two installations on the field; Cygnus Alpha and Cygnus Bravo. Cygnus Alpha, located in block 44/12a, is a processing and gas compression hub comprising: • Utilities-Quarters platform (UQ); • Production Utilities platform (PU); • Wellhead Platform (WHP). Cygnus Bravo, located in Block 44/11a, is a satellite wellhead platform and drilling centre. The co-ordinates of the platforms are: Cygnus Alpha Platform: ? 54° 34’ 9.75” North; ? 02° 17’ 28.29” East; Cygnus Bravo platform: • 54° 35’ 59.77” North; • 02° 11’ 41.42” East; The manning of these installations is serviced by helicopters from Norwich International Airport. The flight path from Norwich to Cygnus is directly over the Hornsea Offshore Windfarm. Neptune has been advised by its helicopter operator, CHC, that the construction of Hornsea Project Three, in combination with the already sanctioned Hornsea Project One and Two, effectively places a navigational barrier across a wide stretch of the Southern North Sea with the potential to significantly disrupt normal flying operations. The Hornsea Three development has the potential to impact communication and radar navigation systems. However, the biggest risk to Neptune’s operations is that it will raise the Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) in the area to as much as 2500ft. At this altitude, freezing conditions, with the risk of the helicopter rotor blades icing up, would occur when the air temperature at sea level was 4 to 5 degrees. There is the potential for these conditions to occur, which would preclude helicopters flying over the turbines, for up to five months of the year. The only alternative would be for helicopters to deviate from their normal flight path and fly around the windfarm. As the development is so large, the alternative route would be significantly longer. This would mean longer flying hours, increased fuel consumption, and reduced payloads which would add significant logistical costs to our operation. This would also be a problem for the safe operation of the Cygnus Platforms in terms of dealing with medical emergencies, emergency response and personnel evacuation as the response time would be significantly longer. As an existing operator already established close to the area where the Hornsea 3 project is proposed, our understanding is that the DCO is required to take account of Neptune’s operations and secure adequate mitigation measures. Neptune would therefore like to make a representation on the potential impact to its operation in the SNS and ensure that suitable mitigation (such as a safe corridor for helicopters to use between the Hornsea Two and Three projects) is assessed during the examination process. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Tanner
"I object as this is going to have a major impact on my life. Noise levels, heavy traffic passing my house, noise and light pollution, which will impact on my sleep as noise carries at night. It is unacceptable that I should have to put up with this disturbance for 8 years . We bought our property having been told that there would be no planning etc. The noise is bad enough now with all the tracked farm vehicles passing my house. Adding Heavy abnormal loads and Hgvs to the mix is going to afffect my well being. The constant hum of generators will mean I cannot enjoy my garden."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Hellewell
"Concern with the large increase in the volume of HGV traffic through the village of Cawston during the cable laying phase of the project. My property is sited on the B1145 opposite the junction to Booton (Goosepie) Lane. The property lies approximately six feet from the road and is situated on a bend. The B1145 is narrows at this site and west bound HGV's encountering oncoming traffic mount the kerb causing heavy vibrations (wall shake). My concern is that the increase in HGV movements could result in structural damage to the property. Orsted have a duty of care to not only conduct a condition survey on my property, but on all properties that will be affected along the route through the village. These surveys should ensure that any damage occurring to properties due to increased HGV traffic will be rectified without prejudice. Orsted should also consider the effect that the increased HGV traffic will have on the main sewer that runs under the B1145 through the village. The sewer is of Victorian construction and could be susceptible to cracking or collapse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Strutt and Parker on behalf of Beckhithe Farms Limited
"- Insufficient consultation and engagement; - Lack of compelling case for the requirement of compulsory acquisition rights; - HVAC and HVDC technology; - The location of the booster station; - Concerns regarding the construction and funding of the project; - The cumulative impact of multiple wind farm projects in Norfolk; - Insufficient information relating to Jointing Bays and Link Boxes; - Insufficient information regarding field drainage, soil protective, flood issues and dust control; - Insufficient information relating to access to the Order Limits; - Insufficient information relating to access for landowners to severed land; "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Bidwells on behalf of Carl Baker & David Baker
"An alternative cable route has been suggested to take into account the following:- • Under the current emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan, the South West growth location, which includes Hethersett, will need to accommodate up to 1,500 new homes for the period to 2036. • Due to existing physical and planning policy constraints, land to the north of Hethersett is the logical location for development to take place (to accommodate up to 1,500 homes). • The proposed cable route would result in approximately 9.8 hectares of residential development land being sterilised. At a typical density of 30 dwelling per hectare this would result in the loss of approximately 294 dwellings. Two plans will follow by separate email, one showing the effect of the proposed cable route on the residential development land (Drawing No 0088/007), and the second showing the alternative cable route proposed (Drawing No 0088/008) to avoid the residential development land. The outline representations which we support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing us is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of Charles Watt
"The outline representations which I support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing me is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr. Georgina Perry-Warnes
"Choice of transmission system: should be DC technology Phasing of the Project and Associated Construction Timetable(s): one phase preferable to two Working Corridor of onshore cable route should be as small as possible Use of Horizontal Directional Drilling onshore: to reduce environmental and social impact Onshore HVAC Booster Station: if DC technology is not used, traffic and overall impact needs careful management. Mitigation measures to comply with minimum statutory requirements would not be enough. Impact of construction traffic: the impact on tourism and local businesses as well as the day to day life of the community needs maximum consideration. Landscape & Biodiversity Mitigation: measures should exceed minimum statutory requirements Community Benefits: there needs to be local benefit to help compensate for the local disruption for a project undertaken in the national interest. There are many 'not spots' in the area, as well as slow broadband, so improvements to these would help local businesses and the wider community in the long term."
Other Statutory Consultees
Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
"Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA) has reviewed the application for a Development Consent Order for Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm and the associated documents and would like to raise the below comments regarding the inshore sections of the cable corridor which pass through our district (out to 6nm): • The change in routing of the cable corridor across the SAC and around the MCZ, rather than directly across the MCZ, significantly increases the footprint of the corridor and thus the impacts of works on the fishing industry, local and commercially important species and the habitats that they utilise. Whilst we support the decision to move the cable route away from the sensitive chalk features, we question why a more direct route that goes from Weybourne and crosses the north west corner of the MCZ has not been proposed. This would reduce the total footprint of the inshore section of the cable route, and thus reduce the impacts on the fishing industry and seabed habitats. It would also lie across more mobile coarse sediments (according to the existing habitat data), compared to mixed sediments which are known to have a higher sensitivity and a lower recoverability to disturbance, reducing ecosystem impacts. • To accurately assess seabed disturbance resulting from cable installation activities and the requirement for rock armouring cable protection, a better understanding of the habitats in the cable corridor is required and should be conducted through further habitat surveys. • Eastern IFCA have concerns over the requirement for rock armouring cable protection, due to the potential impacts on soft-sediment habitats and on the fishing industry. Recent experience of Race Bank cable installation in The Wash and North Norfolk Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) have shown operation and maintenance requirements have increased considerably beyond initial predictions with subsequent increases in seabed disturbance and the potential for the exclusion of fishing activities within certain areas where cable cannot be buried. This raises the question of how realistic the predictions are for Hornsea Three cable installation, operation and maintenance activities and increases the potential for cumulative impacts and increased in-combination effects with other activities. • Following discussions with some of the local potting fleet, it is apparent that the proposed cable route lies within an important area for the fishery. The heaviest impacts are expected to be on those that fish out of Cley-next-the-Sea and Weybourne. There are also concerns regarding the displacement effects of another cable route on the fishery and the cumulative impacts on the local fishing fleet from cable installation, operation and maintenance works across the inshore areas of the district. The potting fishery represents a substantial contribution to both national and local economies, including the tourism section, and any detriment experienced by the fishing community would have wider repercussions on the local economy/community. • Eastern IFCA suggest a wider assessment is required of the cumulative and in-combination impacts of offshore wind farm development (including Electro Magnetic Fields) and other licensed activities on fish and shellfish dependent on seabed habitat, particularly habitat that provides important spawning and nursery areas, given the increasing number of such developments off the East Anglia coast. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Ebony Holdings
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Jones
"I have concerns over the routing of the cables and the lack of information about what land is required. Also I have strong opinions about the 8 year build time."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"The Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Directorate Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: AE/2018/123000/01 Your ref: EN010080 Date: 20 July 2018 Dear Sir/Madam APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER FOR THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM – SUMMARY OF RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS. Environment Agency – Summary of relevant representations This letter provides a summary of the relevant representations submitted on 20 July 2018. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) We consider that the various undertakings in the Outline CoCP to consult with the Environment Agency should be reflected in the Requirements and we request that Requirement 17 in the Draft Development Consent Order includes a requirement that for each phase a code of construction practice and associated pollution control plans are submitted to and approved by the Environment Agency prior to works on that phase. Ecology and Biodiversity We request that the Development Consent Order includes a Requirement that the Environment Agency pre-approves methodologies proposed in the Ecological Management Plan to safeguard wetland habitats. We have suggested schemes where the applicant could work with the Environment Agency to satisfy the NPS EN-1, paragraph 5.3.4 which states ‘The applicant should show how the project would take opportunities to conserve and enhance biodiversity conservation interests’. We have noted an error in naming an RBMP in the document Volume 6, Annex 2.5 – Water Framework Directive Surface Water Assessment. Groundwater We have advised of the need for the applicant to obtain a licence or an exemption for dewatering activity. We have advised that further detail, correction or amendment is required for the documents Environmental Statement (Addendum): Volume 7, Environmental Statement: Volume 6, Annex 2.4, Environmental Statement: Volume 6, Annex 1.2 and Environmental Statement: Volume 6, Annex 1.4. Contaminated Land We have advised that the abandoned MoD pipeline detailed in Environmental Statement: Volume 4, Annex 4.4, may still have the potential to cause contamination. The characteristics of the site and works should be identified so that risks are analysed, and measures put in place to manage any existing contamination or prevent it occurring. This should be referenced in the CoCP. Environmental Permit We have noted that the applicant has not seeking to dis-apply environmental permits and have advised that these must be obtained prior to any works commencing. We have provided advice on how to apply for the relevant permits. We trust that these comments are useful. Yours faithfully MRS BARBARA MOSS-TAYLOR Sustainable Places - Planning Specialist Direct dial 020847 48010 Direct e-mail [email protected] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Fryett
"Representation regarding the proposal to use Oulton Airfield as the main storage/operating compound for the project as follows: The inappropriateness of the scale of this proposal and its activities concentrated in this location when other options had been previously identified. The serious inadequacies of the immediate road network to cope with such large-scale activities. Local roads are predominantly very narrow, single-track country lanes with numerous very tight bends, small humpbacked bridges and fragile surfaces which can barely cope with current domestic traffic. The only road of any substance in the area is the B1149 and even that has many obstacles and shortcomings. Serious concerns and strong objection to any proposal which would bring traffic through Oulton Street from either direction. The roads (The Street and New Road) are not able to cope with lorries or large heavy vehicles. There are no footpaths on either side of the roads. Additionally, many houses have no front gardens and their external walls abut the road. Heavy traffic passing through the village would be extremely dangerous and damaging for local residents and other road users resulting in a very serious and unacceptable health and safety risk. This would be seriously detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the residents of Oulton Street and Oulton village. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of Graham Makintosh
"I have requested confirmation that roads can be constructed over/across the installed cables (the final lease area), but this information is still awaited from Orsted. The outline representations which I support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing me is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of Great Melton Farms Limited
"The outline representations which we support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing us is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Local Authorities
Great Yarmouth Borough Council
"Great Yarmouth Borough Council – Response to S56 Consultation Hornsea Project Three Thank you for notifying Great Yarmouth Borough Council. This letter has been written at Officer level in response to the Section 56 (Planning Act) consultation on the above Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm. Please note that no comments have been made in relation to the detail concerning the onshore project area (i.e. landfall and grid connections) as these lie outside of the borough of Great Yarmouth. General comments The principle of this offshore renewable energy proposal is supported, being broadly consistent with national policy and positively contributing to the Government’s Renewable Energy targets and objectives. It is noted that the location of a future operation and maintenance (O&M) base for the Hornsea Project Three Windfarm proposal has yet to be agreed. It is felt that Great Yarmouth should be considered as a strong candidate for this role, the reasons for which have been summarised further below. Great Yarmouth is England’s offshore sector capital with over 50 years of Southern North Sea offshore energy expertise. To date, the port of Great Yarmouth has been critical to the assembly of the Galloper and East Anglia ONE windfarm projects and is the current O&M base for other offshore windfarms at Scroby Sands and Dudgeon. Great Yarmouth is designated as a Centre for Offshore Renewable Engineering (CORE), recognised for its deep water port, skills, supply chain, and supported by strong leadership from both New Anglia LEP and Great Yarmouth Borough Council to procure rapid growth within the offshore wind sector. The town and key areas around the port have the benefit of Enterprise Zone and Assisted Area status, providing benefits and incentives to key supply chain businesses wishing to grow or start up in Great Yarmouth. In securing a possible O&M base for the Hornsea Project Three Windfarm at Great Yarmouth, there would be the significant potential to grow the local economy through the existing supply chain and utilise the deep water outer harbour that is already growing in stature in the energy industry, given its proximity and short steaming times to such projects. Further comments relating to the Environmental Statement The Borough Council has reviewed the submitted documents, in particular those matters relating to Offshore Ornithology as set out within Volume 2, Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement (ES) which forms the basis of the following comments. Here, at Table 5.7 it is stated that the presence of Little Terns were not recorded during the aerial surveys in the Hornsea Three array area. It is concerning that the report does not go into further detail to clarify the implications of this statement, such as whether this is perhaps due to the scope or limitation of the site specific surveys (i.e. not being able to identify the Little Terns during the specific survey window(s)), or, whether this provides evidential proof that the Little Terns simply do not interact within the specified survey area in which case it could be interpreted that the likely impact on the species would be negligible as a result of the proposal. Further clarity on this point is sought through the DCO process. Yours sincerely Mr K Balls Senior Strategic Planner "
Other Statutory Consultees
Historic England
"It is important to note that on 1st April 2015 Historic England was vested (retaining the formal title of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) and is now the government service championing England’s heritage and giving expert, constructive advice. There is potential for this development to impact upon the historic environment, and that without mitigation this impact will be significant in relation to some receptors. We are aware that the application includes a comprehensive Environmental Statement and that some amendments have been made to the ES since our letter of September 2017 in relation to the PEIR stage. A detailed discussion of our comments and the developer’s responses is provided in Table 5.4, we have however noted that a number of specific points have not been fully considered and we will address these in our written submission. Likewise we have previously raised concerns in relation to the impact of the Mangreen substation on the significance of a number of designated heritage assets through development within their setting. We are pleased that a specific historic environment visualisations chapter has been produced (see Vol. 6 Annex 5.7) to work alongside the Historic Environment Chapter of the ES. Using this additional material we have been able to confirm that there are only limited views from some of the designated heritage assets we have previously mentioned. The visualisations have however also indicated that the development would erode the rural setting of a number of other highly graded heritage assets, which would result in a high degree of harm to their significance. In particular the three Grade II* listed buildings located close to the substation (Gowthorpe Manor House and Barn and Mangreen Hall). We also have concerns about the impact of the development upon the Grade II* registered park and garden and Grade II* listed church at Intwood, and on a number of Grade II listed buildings such as Keswick Hall and the local Conservation Areas which lie to the north of the development. We will explore these issues further in our written representation with reference to these assets. The application includes an outline Offshore WSI which sets out how the proposed project might mitigate against impact to the historic environment. We will therefore require the draft DCO to include provision for delivery of a project specific WSI (should consent be granted). The WSI must enable the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to avoid and reduce the impact from the development on the historic environment, and develop appropriate methodologies for further investigations conducted within the project area, which will be used to inform the development of mitigation measures. This will inform the delivery of the project in a timely way, by taking these matters into consideration prior to the commencement of construction activities. Therefore, the WSI must be produced and agreed pre-commencement – i.e. before the commencement of pre-construction surveys. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Honingham Aktieselskab
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of John Innes Centre
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and then taken up once works are completed. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down and the impact of severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Kelling Estate LLP
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of Lady M A Prince Smith
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and then taken up once works are completed. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down and the impact of severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of Little Melton Parochial Charity
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and then taken up when works are completed. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down and the impact of severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of Marie Lofty
"The outline representations which I support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing me is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation
"Good morning, Due to the word limit in this section, please refer to the email sent on the 20th July 2018 to the following email address [email protected], for the Marine Management Organisation's relevant representation. Should you have any questions please let me know. Kind regards, Laura "
Other Statutory Consultees
Ministry of Defence
"Dear Sir/Madam, Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Application for a Development Consent Order under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008, Regulation 8 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulation 2009 and Regulation 13 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 I write to confirm the safeguarding positon of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in relation to the above application to construct and operate the Hornsea Offshore wind farm. This scheme will comprise of up to 330 wind turbines, up to 325m in height (to blade tip) to be located in the former Hornsea Zone in the Southern North Sea situated approximately 121 km northeast of the Norfolk. In addition to the turbine structures there will be associated ancillary offshore infrastructure including: up to 3 offshore accommodation platforms, up to 12 collector substations, between 4-6 convertor stations and subsea cabling. The onshore element of the project includes subterranean cabling as well as associated electrical substation and convertor installations to transfer the generated power from the north Norfolk coast to connect with the National Grid to the southeast of Norwich. The MOD has assessed the location and proposed layout of the offshore element of the development scheme proposed. Based upon the coordinates detailed in the application documentation, I can confirm that the scheme will not physically impact upon MOD offshore Danger and Exercise Areas or defence maritime navigational interests. The impacts of the proposed scheme upon defence aviation interests have been considered. The turbines and some of the tall ancillary offshore structures will affect military low flying training activities conducted in this area. As such it will be necessary for these structures to be fitted with appropriate aviation warning lighting to maintain the navigational safety of military aviation. It is noted that in draft consent order at Schedule 11, section 6 (1): Aids to navigation and Section 8 (1) – Air Navigation define conditional requirements obligating the undertaker to exhibit such lights, marks, sounds, signals and other aids to navigation as directed by Trinity House in consultation with Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) and to supply DIO with precise details of the location, dimension and commencement of construction of the offshore development. The MOD is content with the provisions but considers it necessary that they stipulate the requirement for aviation warning lighting to be fitted to relevant offshore structures as identified as necessary for the duration of the construction and operation of the scheme as identified as necessary by DIO. The MOD has also assessed the effects of the proposed wind farm development upon the effective operation of its air traffic and air defence radars. It has been confirmed that the proposed wind turbines will not be in line of sight or detectable to MOD air traffic radars and are not expected to impact upon the operation of air defence radars. However, the MOD has recently identified that in certain conditions the performance of air defence radars may be adversely affected by the proposed wind farm when it is operational. Based upon the technical evidence currently available the MOD does not identify a need for any form of mitigatory measures to address this potential issue to be implemented in relation to the scheme for which consent is currently sought. In relation to the onshore element of the proposed development, the location where the cable comes ashore on the north Norfolk coast is in proximity to the MOD transmitters located at RAF Weybourne. Works no.5 (landfall connection works), works no.6 (onshore connection works), works no.7 onshore connections (transition joint bays and landfall construction compound) and works no.8 onshore connection works will partially occupy the MOD statutory technical safeguarding zones surrounding these transmitter facilities. The application identifies that the foreshore and onshore export cable will be buried along its entire route. It has therefore been determined that the installed onshore cable infrastructure will not impact upon the effective operation of this MOD transmitter facility. The remainder of the onshore cable route does not affect MOD safeguarding interests. I can therefore confirm that subject to the above provisions the MOD maintains no safeguarding objections to this application. I trust this clarifies our position on this consultation. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to consider these points further. Yours sincerely Jon Wilson Senior Safeguarding Officer "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of Mr & Mrs S Carman
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and then taken up once works are completed. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down and the impact of severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of Mr B F Clark
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of Mr R Harrold
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Mr Richard Gordon
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Development Blight 15.1 The proposed area to accomodate the cables is on the edge of and has development potential for the following reasons which will be extinguised as a result of the cables- 15.2 Deliverability – the land is owned by a single landowner and thus there will be no complications in terms of land ownership disputes/issues in terms of a disposal to a develop moving forward. 15.3 Sustainability – the land is located in a suitable location (i.e. close to two main areas of convenience at Harford Bridge and Eaton/Cringleford. These areas provide for a wide range of services. Sustainable development is considered at the forefront of National Planning Policy (especially the National Planning Policy Framework) and therefore a very important factor when Councils’ are considering planning applications for new residential development. 15.4 Self-Build Opportunity- the land is ideally suited for self-build properties in a linear form of development similar to that of the existing development on Intwood Lane. South Norfolk Council are a Vanguard Authority in respect of Self Build dwellings and have recently granted planning permission for a wide range of Self Build dwellings recently in the area, especially a scheme for 15 new dwellings at Mulbarton which is only a short distance 16. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 16.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 16.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Mr Richard Youngs
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & CO on behalf of Mr Robin Buxton
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Transport identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft option and deed has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 clients/members who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of Mr T Cooper
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and then taken up once works are completed. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down and the impact of severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs S B Longe
"I am a resident of Edgefield which is the location and the pipeline is going through part of the village . I am also a Parish Councillor and I have attended many of the meetings at North Norfolk District Council at Cromer regarding this development. Many thanks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Ms K Paul, Mr D Brown & Mr W Barr (Trustees of Gurloque Settlement)
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Loss of Development Land 15.1 Under the current emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan, the South West growth location, which includes Hethersett, will need to accommodate up to 1,500 new homes for the period to 2036. 15.2 Due to existing physical and planning policy constraints, land to the north of Hethersett is the logical location for development to take place (to accommodate up to 1,500 homes). 15.3 The proposed cable route would result in approximately 9.8 hectares of residential development land being sterilised. At a typical density of 30 dwelling per hectare this would result in the loss of approximately 294 dwellings. 16. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 16.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 16.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Ms R Watkinson
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Natural England
"Natural England is a non-departmental public body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (‘NERC Act’). Natural England is the statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England’s wildlife and natural features . Natural England’s remit extends to the territorial sea adjacent to England, up to the 12 nautical mile limit from the coastline. Pursuant to an authorisation made on 9 December 2013 by the JNCC under paragraph 17(c) of Schedule 4 to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England is authorised to exercise the JNCC’s functions as a statutory consultee in respect of applications for offshore renewable energy installations in offshore waters (0-200 nm) adjacent to England. This application was included in that authorisation and, therefore, Natural England will be providing statutory advice in respect of that delegated authority. Natural England has provided a detailed Relevant Representation letter and an associated Annex directly to the Planning Inspectorate's project-specific email address. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Strutt and Parker on behalf of Nethergate Farm Partnership
"- Impact of the project on planned irrigation installations; - Insufficient consultation and engagement; - Lack of compelling case for the requirement of compulsory acquisition rights; - HVAC and HVDC technology; - The location of the booster station; - Concerns regarding the construction and funding of the project; - The cumulative impact of multiple wind farm projects in Norfolk; - Insufficient information relating to Jointing Bays and Link Boxes; - Insufficient information regarding field drainage, soil protective, flood issues and dust control; - Insufficient information relating to access to the Order Limits; - Insufficient information relating to access for landowners to severed land; "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of Nicholas E Evans-Lombe
"The outline representations which I support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing me is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Norfolk Boreas Ltd
"Dear Sirs, Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010080 Norfolk Boreas Limited (Norfolk Boreas) has received notification that the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm (Hornsea Project Three) has been accepted for examination. Please accept this letter as Norfolk Boreas’ representation that it has an interest in the Hornsea Project Three application, and wishes to be treated as an interested party for the purposes of the examination process. Norfolk Boreas has notified PINS of its intention to submit an application for Development Consent for the Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm. Submission of the Norfolk Boreas DCO application is currently expected to be in June 2019, with section 42 consultation including publication of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, anticipated to take place in October 2018. In principle, Norfolk Boreas supports Hornsea Project Three as it will provide an important contribution towards meeting the government's renewable energy targets, and will enable the UK to continue its growth in the offshore wind sector. Whilst the siting of the offshore array, export cable route and the onshore connection points differ between Norfolk Boreas and Hornsea Project Three, the onshore cable routes will cross at Reepham. In addition, Norfolk Boreas’ sister project, Norfolk Vanguard, follows the same onshore cable route as Norfolk Boreas and therefore will also cross the Hornsea Project Three onshore cable route at Reepham. If consented, there is the potential for interaction between the projects and Norfolk Boreas is keen to ensure, where appropriate and to the extent necessary, that this is considered during the Hornsea Project Three examination. Norfolk Boreas has undertaken a preliminary review of the documents provided in support of the Hornsea Project Three application and its initial comments, focusing primarily on the cumulative effects as assessed in the Environmental Statement (ES) and the in-combination assessment contained in the Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment, are set out below. In general, Norfolk Boreas welcomes the findings of the cumulative and in-combination assessments between Norfolk Boreas and Hornsea Project Three where Norfolk Boreas has been included. However, it is noted that for a number of pertinent topics where Norfolk Boreas has been referenced by name within the relevant chapter, detailed assessment has not been included. Given the similarity of the nature of Hornsea Project Three and Norfolk Boreas, Norfolk Boreas is keen to continue to work collaboratively with Orsted, particularly in relation to the following topics in which cumulative effects with Norfolk Boreas have not been assessed in detail: • Marine mammals • Offshore ornithology • Commercial fisheries • Traffic and Transport • Socio-economics • Aviation and radar • Noise and Vibration • LVIA • Historic Environment In particular, and to the extent available, Norfolk Boreas would welcome sight of further detail from Hornsea Project Three on the assignation of its construction traffic to local road links, particularly in relation to the proposed cable crossing point at Reepham. Norfolk Boreas hopes that this additional data can be shared as part of the continued dialogue between the two projects. Yours faithfully Jake Laws Consents Manager, Norfolk Boreas Limited "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Norfolk Coast Partnership
"I am responding to the Orsted consultation on Hornsea Project Three of November-December 2017 on behalf of the Norfolk Coast Partnership, guardians of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Norfolk Heritage Coast. Orsted plans show the cable coming ashore at Weybourne and heading south, crossing the A148 in the High Kelling area. In this area, the southern boundary of the AONB skirts the north side of Holt then runs eastward along the A148 road. Thus the onshore cable will run through a strip of the AONB between Weybourne and Holt, a direct distance of approx. 7.5km. The North Norfolk Heritage Coast designation stops at Kelling Hard, just to the west of the planned cable landfall. The AONB seaward boundary in this area is at low water mark and the Heritage Coast designation stretches seaward, with no official seaward boundary, so we also have some interest in the initial length of the offshore cable route. In addition, this is a very environmentally-sensitive area with SPA, SAC, SSSI, EMS and MCZ designations involved or close by. My comments relate to the potential effects of the development on the landscape quality of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and North Norfolk Heritage Coast (referred to collectively as ‘the AONB’), with consideration also given to development beyond its boundaries where this may have impacts on the views from the AONB and indirect impacts on the landscape of the AONB. Other than these considerations, I have not commented on the impact of this windfarm and cable route outside of the AONB boundary. I have not assessed or commented on any impacts on the wider marine environment. I have not assessed or commented in detail on impacts on the wildlife of the area. The current 2014-19 Norfolk Coast AONB Management Plan has a Policy (PC5) to ‘Support the development of renewable energy in the area in ways and locations that contribute to the area’s local economy and jobs and maintain its natural beauty.' However, the National Planning Policy Framework emphasises that the impact of a proposed development is an important consideration, including the cumulative landscape and visual impacts. It states that ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’. As renewable energy schemes, and particularly large wind power schemes, can have a highly significant impact on the natural beauty of the landscape, we approach each project on an individual basis. AC v DC We note that AC technology involves a wider cable route, more cables, use of an onshore cable relay station and/or an offshore station. Thus we suggest the use of DC technology is preferable. We suggest that the criteria for selection of AC or DC technology should be based on ‘best value for money’ rather than ‘least cost’, taking into a number of other factors including impact on the local area and community. Onshore We question the decision to come ashore at Weybourne, given the long onshore cable route required to connect to the National Grid. We also question why the previous route, of the Dudgeon cables or Hornsea One or Two, cannot be reused or other collaborative ways of working be investigated to minimise local disruption. Landscape It is apparent that the construction of the onshore elements of Hornsea Three has the potential to impact on landscape and visual amenity. Orsted are proposing a number of measures to reduce the landscape and visual impacts, retain landscaping where possible and enhance and compliment landscape features going forward. It is requested that good communications are maintained with the Norfolk Coast Partnership and other relevant organisations to ensure that these measures remain appropriate and are effectively implemented. We have identified a number of sensitive landscapes and habitats and request that the impact on these is minimised through careful planning and delivery. These sites include (working south from the landfall site): • Weybourne Cliffs SSSI • The shingle beach and shingle ridge, where its natural movement and profile should not be disrupted • The reedbed and pond to the west of the beach car park – which the Norfolk Coast Partnership is seeking funding for a community project to restore • Weybourne Beck (aka Spring Beck) – which has a published Catchment Management Plan (available from Norfolk Coast Partnership or Norfolk Rivers Trust) • Kelling Heath SSSI – a valuable heathland landscape • The Glaven River, running to its source near Selbrigg Pond – a rare chalk river with its northern stretch running through the AONB to the sea, of high ecological value and sensitive to pollution (e.g. run off during construction) Ecology Orsted describe a range of measures to mitigate any effects on the area’s ecology (with specific reference to biosecurity, invasive species, protective buffer zones, trees and hedgerows, amphibians and reptiles, water voles, otters, badgers, bats, and wintering birds) and nature conservation for implemented prior to, during and post construction of the onshore elements of Hornsea Three, and the long-term management measures to be set in place for reinstated and enhanced habitats. It is requested that good communications are maintained with the Norfolk Coast Partnership and other relevant organisations to ensure that these measures remain appropriate and are effectively implemented. Access The Norfolk Coast Path National Trail and other circular routes, public rights of way and permissive paths in the area are well used by visitors and locals and any disruption and closure of paths should be minimised. There will be particular disruption to users of the Norfolk Coast Path National Trail at Weybourne. Orsted recognise the sensitive nature and high usage of the beach and the coastal footpath and propose measures for allowing continued access. It is requested that good communications are maintained with the Norfolk Coast Partnership and other relevant organisations to ensure that these measures remain appropriate and are effectively implemented. Relay stations We thank Orsted for planning to site any relay stations to the southern end of the potential area for their location, i.e. outside of the AONB, and confirm that we would object if this changed to within the AONB as we consider that it would have a significant impact on the designated landscape. Construction We suggest that construction traffic should use carefully selected routes within the AONB, to minimise disruption, damage and pollution. This area is important for tourism, with visitors valuing its natural wilderness and tranquillity, and all efforts should be made to minimise the visual impact and disruption of construction and operation. Historic environment The area is well known for its historic environment, including human remains, burial mounds/tumuli (on Kelling Heath and Fox Hill), listed buildings and scheduled monuments and it is important to deal with these sites sensitively, to minimise any impacts. It is suggested that construction activity should be preceded by agreement of an appropriate archaeological written scheme of investigation, submitted to and approved by Norfolk County Council. Off shore infrastructure If the AC transmission option is adopted, we recognise the potential effect on visual amenity of any offshore booster/compensator platform which would be visible near to the coast from important areas within the AONB. We propose that this impact should be properly assessed, including the cumulative effects of this and other existing infrastructure. We suggest that the cable should be brought ashore in a way which does not alter/impede the coastal processes, e.g. of shingle/sand movement. We are pleased that the offshore cable route has been selected to avoid impacts on the Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds MCZ and its chalk reef habitat and suggest that any impacts on the marine EMS, MCZ and SAC should be minimised. Light pollution We are particularly concerned about light pollution, both of the temporary works and of the permanent infrastructure (including any offshore relay station). We have recently had two Dark Sky Discovery Sites designated very close to this area, one at Kelling Heath Holiday Park and one at Wiveton Downs. These sites are designated because they meet specified low light levels and visibility of stars , with little light pollution. Accordingly, we request details of light levels for the temporary works and for the permanent infrastructure. We request that careful consideration is given to the design and use of lighting through-out the project to minimise any light pollution, e.g. through careful use of appropriate lighting technology, levels used and shielding. Community The longshore economy is important to the Norfolk Coast Partnership and we suggest that any impacts on the local fishing industry, either those who are based at Weybourne itself or those who fish in the area affected by construction, is minimised. We recommend use of local products, suppliers and contractors and hope that this is maintained through-out the project life. We suggest that the wider community and landscape should benefit from the project and we note that Orsted has implemented community funding schemes in other areas, including an area at the western end of the Norfolk Coast AONB. We recognise a very important gap relating to local children and young people, who do not receive information about the environmental importance of their local area or the opportunities available to them for a career in the environment sector. Some initial ideas for filling that gap include: • An education programme for local schools, teaching children about their local environment and also about the value of Norfolk’s protected landscapes. This could be combined with other topics, such as renewable energy. • An apprenticeship scheme, allowing local young people to gain experience in the environment sector. This could be combined with other topics, such as renewable energy. • An undergraduate/graduate scheme helping students to learn about the Norfolk environment and go on to gain. We request that the Norfolk Coast Partnership is involved in exploring possibilities for community benefit. END"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Norfolk Vanguard Limited
"Dear Sirs Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010080 Norfolk Vanguard Limited (Norfolk Vanguard) has received notification that the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm (Hornsea Project Three) has been accepted for examination. Please accept this letter as Norfolk Vanguard's representation that it has an interest in the Hornsea Project Three application, and wishes to be treated as an interested party for the purposes of the examination process. In principle, Norfolk Vanguard supports Hornsea Project Three as it will provide an important contribution towards meeting the UK government's renewable energy targets, and will enable the UK to continue its growth in the offshore wind sector. As you will be aware, Norfolk Vanguard submitted an application for the Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Farm on 26 June 2018. Whilst the siting of the offshore array, export cable route and the onshore connection points of the two projects differ, the onshore cable route for the projects will cross at Reepham, Norfolk. In addition, Norfolk Vanguard's sister project, Norfolk Boreas (which is due to submit a separate application for Development Consent in Q2 2019), will follow the same onshore cable corridor and therefore also cross the Hornsea Project Three onshore cable route at Reepham. In short, if consented, there is the potential for inter-action between these projects and Norfolk Vanguard is keen to ensure, where appropriate and to the extent necessary, that this is considered during the Hornsea Project Three examination. Norfolk Vanguard have undertaken a preliminary review of the documents provided in support of the Hornsea Project Three application and initial comments, which focus primarily on the cumulative effects as assessed in the Environmental Statement (ES), and the in-combination assessment contained in the Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment, are set out below. In general, Norfolk Vanguard welcome the findings of the cumulative and in-combination assessments as they relate to the Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Farm. It should be noted however, that as Norfolk Vanguard’s design envelope has been refined from that presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), and new data based on a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission solution is now included in the ES, some of the impacts and mitigations described by Hornsea Project Three in relation to cumulative effects may need to be revised accordingly. Given the similar nature and interaction between the projects, Norfolk Vanguard wish to continue to work collaboratively with Orsted, particularly in relation to the assessment of cumulative effects in respect of the following topics: • Marine mammals; • Offshore ornithology; • Commercial fisheries; • Aviation and radar; • Onshore archaeology; and • Traffic and transport. In particular, and to the extent available, Norfolk Vanguard would welcome sight of further detail from Orsted on the assignation of their construction traffic to local road links, particularly in relation to the proposed cable crossing point at Reepham. Norfolk Vanguard hope that this additional data can be shared as part of our continued dialogue with Orsted. Yours faithfully, Rebecca Sherwood Consents Manager, Norfolk Vanguard Limited "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of S H Back
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Loss of Development Land 15.1 Under the current emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan, the South West growth location, which includes Hethersett, will need to accommodate up to 1,500 new homes for the period to 2036. 15.2 Due to existing physical and planning policy constraints, land to the north of Hethersett is the logical location for development to take place (to accommodate up to 1,500 homes). 15.3 The proposed cable route would result in approximately 9.8 hectares of residential development land being sterilised. At a typical density of 30 dwelling per hectare this would result in the loss of approximately 294 dwellings. 16. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 16.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 16.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Saltcarr Farms Limited
"Saltcarr Farms are owners of the land at Oulton Airfield, which is the proposed location of the applicant’s main construction compound for the project. As a landowner affected by the project, Saltcarr Farms wish to register as an interested party. The applicant is currently in discussions with Saltcarr Farms regarding the project and heads of terms have been issued by the applicant’s agent, which we are considering. The Onshore Order Limits Plan No. 35 shows the area of land for which temporary possession is proposed to be taken for ‘Works No. 13 Main Construction’, and ‘Works No. 14 Access’. Whilst Saltcarr Farms are willing to discuss terms for the temporary use of 7.5 acres of land, at present on these plans it is proposed to occupy land that will affect Saltcarr Farms ability to continue to farm their surrounding land. Saltcarr Farms require access to the straw barn on the western section of the old runway (included within the Onshore Order Limits) and require access to the fields immediately north and south, to be able to continue farming these areas, particularly given the occupation timescales that are proposed which we understand could be up to 10 years. The Access to Works Plan No. 35 shows access off Oulton Street on to Oulton Airfield, which is Saltcarr Farms main access to their land. Saltcarr Farms would like to be consulted on potential traffic generation and any construction traffic management plan (CTMP) drafted for the site, as traffic will affect Saltcarr Farms continued use of their land and their relationship with the local residents. An outline CTMP accompanies the DCO application (document reference number A8.2), which includes reference to wheel wash facilities if deemed necessary. Saltcarr Farms has an 850 sow pig breeding unit on the land adjacent to the runways and access road, which house High Health Status Herd pigs. These pigs are a high value product and a key revenue for Saltcarr Farms that is worth over £1 million per annum, and biosecurity is of paramount importance for the herds to maintain their value and to comply with strict contractual requirements. The project will bring additional risks of disease transfer (e.g. via vehicular traffic) that will need to be proactively managed. Saltcarr Farms are in discussions with the applicant about possible biosecurity measures and this will need to addressed and agreed in advance of the land being used by the applicant for construction purposes. If a suitable mitigation plan cannot be agreed with the applicant Saltcarr Farms will need to consider the re-location of the pigs elsewhere at considerable cost and may also have knock on impacts for its supply contract. There is a commercial solar farm development on the land immediately to the west, which is the subject of a lease and an option for an extension. The solar farm development land itself is not included in the Onshore Order Limits Plan but it does include the access to the solar farm development. It should be noted that the conditions of this lease and option for extension, including the occupier’s rights, will be required to be maintained. The inclusion of the access road within the DCO Order Limits will need to ensure that all existing rights are maintained and are not extinguished by exercise of the DCO powers. Otherwise this will lead to a breach in the terms of the agreements with the solar farm operator. Saltcarr Farms reserve the right to amend or make further representations but in the meantime will continue negotiations with the applicant with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
ScottishPower Renewables
"This is a relevant representation submitted by ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) on behalf of East Anglia Two Limited and East Anglia One North Limited (“the Project Companies”). SPR (on behalf of the Project Companies) may wish to participate in the Examination of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application for Hornsea Project Three. Specifically, SPR may wish to make representations in relation to cumulative and incombination issues. SPR reserve the right to make further comments through the Examination process including, but not limited to, seeking protective provisions within the Hornsea Project Three DCO. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Bidwells on behalf of Sir Edward Evans-Lombe
"As presently planned, the Orsted cable line will run about 55kms to the Swardeston National Grid receiving station and The Vattenfall Line will run about 60km to the Necton receiving station. These lines will actually cross each other at Salle. Vattenfall have ‘booked’ their Necton destination with the National Grid. These arrangements appear to run contrary to common sense because Orsted’s landing point is much closer to Necton than Vattenfall’s and Vattenfall’s landing point is much closer to Swardeston than Orsted’s. It is calculated that, if Orsted and Vattenfall swapped destinations, 22kms of cable would be saved. If both lines came ashore close to each other east of Cromer and then ran together to the closest National Grid receiving station, possibly Swardeston, or a new receiving station at or near North Walsham, up to 80km of cable line would be saved. These savings of line would lead to substantial savings of installation cost and public amenity. If the “East of Cromer Solution” was adopted, these savings would be massive. Further, it appears it might be possible for Orsted to connect with The National Grid at Walpole to the west of Kings Lynn where loss of amenity would be minimal. The making of a Development Consent Order as proposed should be made conditional on Vatenfall agreeing to give up it’s “booking” of Necton, thus making it available to Orsted. The Applicants should be required to investigate the East of Cromer Solution and the Walpole Solution and report to the Planning Authority. Plan showing 'Vattenfall Norfolk Vanguard/Boreas & Orsted - Hornsea Project Three Proposed Onshore Cable Routes, North Norfolk' to follow by separate email. The outline representations which I support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing me is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Brodies LLP on behalf of Spirit Energy Nederland B.V.
"‘Spirit Energy’ is the trading name used by Spirit Energy Limited and its subsidiaries which collectively as a group conduct European oil and gas operations. Spirit Energy (“Spirit”) is headquartered in the UK and collectively operates and/or holds interests in 27 producing fields and more than 70 exploration licences across the UK, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark. Spirit Energy North Sea Limited (UK Company Number: 04594558), Spirit Energy Resources Limited (UK Company Number: 02855151) and Spirit Energy Nedlerland B.V. (Company Number: 34081068) are each entities operating under the ‘Spirit Energy’ trading name. Each of these entities own and operate assets located in the Southern North Sea (on both sides of the UK/Netherlands median line) including platforms, pipelines, seabed infrastructure and licensed blocks. Spirit has interests that lie within or near to the application area. Spirit Energy Nederland B.V. wishes to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm. Proximity • Spirit has experience of operating near to the eastern Irish Sea Walney Wind Farms. The Hornsea 3 array leading edge is significantly closer to Spirit’s assets – at half the distance than Spirit currently experience in the Irish Sea. • The eastern leading edge is in close proximity to our operational Greater Markham Area interests; (gas platforms: Chiswick, Grove and J6A and subsea infrastructure: Kew and Grove G5). • Spirit consider safe and efficient gas production would be significantly hindered through access constraints affecting ability to undertake maintenance interventions and emergency repairs. Capacity to develop existing licences and decommission existing infrastructure would also be restricted. • The economic viability of the whole Greater Markham area assets in both UK and Netherlands waters are reliant on being able to operate without hinderance to the maximum possible capacity. Shipping and Navigation • Vessels supporting Spirit platforms, subsea infrastructure and pipelines require sufficient sea room to operate. This includes setting up and being on standby outside of 500m safety zones, working in ‘drift off’ positions and being accessible by helicopter. • If the leading edge of Hornsea 3 is too close to our existing assets, there is potential for our vessels to be in a ‘drift on’ situation with any Hornsea 3 construction vessels/ wind turbines or for the windfarm vessels to be in a ‘drift on’ position to our assets creating a collision or allision risk with insufficient time to react. • Platform and vessel Radar Early Warning Systems (REWS) are identified as impacted by individual and cumulative wind turbine signatures, significantly reducing their effectiveness and leaving insufficient threat response time. • Access for the maintenance or decommissioning of subsea infrastructure and pipelines is not properly considered in the application. This may be for a short notice intervention of days or a managed campaign of several months. • Third party shipping is likely to be displaced more closely to Spirit assets if they track around the eastern leading edge of the array. Further displacement by fishing vessels would be caused by the Markham’s Triangle MCZ. Vessels transiting around the south east tip of the proposed array are likely to be drawn toward the Grove platform as a fixed way point. There would be a cumulative impact of increasing vessel numbers (displaced shipping vessels and Hornsea 3 vessels) along with hindered reduced effectiveness of REWS. • Proximate windfarm piling would interfere with safety of diving operations that may be required at any of our assets. This has not been considered as part of the application. Aviation • The application indicates that due to the significant number of flights utilised by windfarm developers, available airspace may be affected. Whilst already hindered due to weather any additional constraint adds to the cumulative burden and has significant operational impacts. • Flights from Humber to the Spirit Greater Markham Area would be made logistically difficult due to the collective effect of the Hornsea projects. Flights from Norwich would need to be routed around Hornsea 3 adding around 10km to each Chiswick flight. • In poor flying conditions and in the event of missed approach landings, a safe distance in all directions is required before obstacles are encountered. • Helicopter operations supporting J6A, Chiswick and Grove gas platforms are identified as having constrained airspace. Access is needed at all times when the platforms are manned and helicopters are considered the primary means of escape. • Helicopter operations supporting mobile rigs undertaking maintenance and decommissioning activities for platforms, pipelines and subsea infrastructure have not been appropriately evaluated in the application. These may need to be located anywhere Spirit has infrastructure including closer to the turbines and supporting infrastructure than the application has considered. Development • A number of licences held by Spirit are wholly or largely within the application area or proposed exclusion zones that would be difficult if not impossible to progress if windfarm construction commenced. • An incorrect assumption has been made that licences are not developed in their later terms. Whilst one operator may relinquish a licence they may be re licenced by the Oil and Gas Authority. The proposal would have the effect of impeding future exploration and production; sterilising UK hydrocarbon resource. • It is not clear within the application what proportion of the windfarm development would be possible without constraining existing oil and gas infrastructure. This would allow valuable discussion on compromise. Risk assessment methodology • Throughout the Hornsea 3 application, risk assessment assumptions have allowed issues to be screened out, whereas Spirit consider many of the same issues as important and requiring additional scrutiny and active management. Engagement • Spirit continues to be fully committed to engaging with Orsted throughout the planning, development and operation of their projects. • Spirit is liaising directly with OPRED as regulator and Oil & Gas UK as industry body to ensure they remain fully informed as to the potential implications on its activities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Brodies LLP on behalf of Spirit Energy North Sea Limited
"‘Spirit Energy’ is the trading name used by Spirit Energy Limited and its subsidiaries which collectively as a group conduct European oil and gas operations. Spirit Energy (“Spirit”) is headquartered in the UK and collectively operates and/or holds interests in 27 producing fields and more than 70 exploration licences across the UK, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark. Spirit Energy North Sea Limited (UK Company Number: 04594558), Spirit Energy Resources Limited (UK Company Number: 02855151) and Spirit Energy Nedlerland B.V. (Company Number: 34081068) are each entities operating under the ‘Spirit Energy’ trading name. Each of these entities own and operate assets located in the Southern North Sea (on both sides of the UK/Netherlands median line) including platforms, pipelines, seabed infrastructure and licensed blocks. Spirit has interests that lie within or near to the application area. Spirit Energy North Sea Limited wishes to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm. Proximity • Spirit has experience of operating near to the eastern Irish Sea Walney Wind Farms. The Hornsea 3 array leading edge is significantly closer to Spirit’s assets – at half the distance than Spirit currently experience in the Irish Sea. • The eastern leading edge is in close proximity to our operational Greater Markham Area interests; (gas platforms: Chiswick, Grove and J6A and subsea infrastructure: Kew and Grove G5). • Spirit consider safe and efficient gas production would be significantly hindered through access constraints affecting ability to undertake maintenance interventions and emergency repairs. Capacity to develop existing licences and decommission existing infrastructure would also be restricted. • The economic viability of the whole Greater Markham area assets in both UK and Netherlands waters are reliant on being able to operate without hinderance to the maximum possible capacity. Shipping and Navigation • Vessels supporting Spirit platforms, subsea infrastructure and pipelines require sufficient sea room to operate. This includes setting up and being on standby outside of 500m safety zones, working in ‘drift off’ positions and being accessible by helicopter. • If the leading edge of Hornsea 3 is too close to our existing assets, there is potential for our vessels to be in a ‘drift on’ situation with any Hornsea 3 construction vessels/ wind turbines or for the windfarm vessels to be in a ‘drift on’ position to our assets creating a collision or allision risk with insufficient time to react. • Platform and vessel Radar Early Warning Systems (REWS) are identified as impacted by individual and cumulative wind turbine signatures, significantly reducing their effectiveness and leaving insufficient threat response time. • Access for the maintenance or decommissioning of subsea infrastructure and pipelines is not properly considered in the application. This may be for a short notice intervention of days or a managed campaign of several months. • Third party shipping is likely to be displaced more closely to Spirit assets if they track around the eastern leading edge of the array. Further displacement by fishing vessels would be caused by the Markham’s Triangle MCZ. Vessels transiting around the south east tip of the proposed array are likely to be drawn toward the Grove platform as a fixed way point. There would be a cumulative impact of increasing vessel numbers (displaced shipping vessels and Hornsea 3 vessels) along with hindered reduced effectiveness of REWS. • Proximate windfarm piling would interfere with safety of diving operations that may be required at any of our assets. This has not been considered as part of the application. Aviation • The application indicates that due to the significant number of flights utilised by windfarm developers, available airspace may be affected. Whilst already hindered due to weather any additional constraint adds to the cumulative burden and has significant operational impacts. • Flights from Humber to the Spirit Greater Markham Area would be made logistically difficult due to the collective effect of the Hornsea projects. Flights from Norwich would need to be routed around Hornsea 3 adding around 10km to each Chiswick flight. • In poor flying conditions and in the event of missed approach landings, a safe distance in all directions is required before obstacles are encountered. • Helicopter operations supporting J6A, Chiswick and Grove gas platforms are identified as having constrained airspace. Access is needed at all times when the platforms are manned and helicopters are considered the primary means of escape. • Helicopter operations supporting mobile rigs undertaking maintenance and decommissioning activities for platforms, pipelines and subsea infrastructure have not been appropriately evaluated in the application. These may need to be located anywhere Spirit has infrastructure including closer to the turbines and supporting infrastructure than the application has considered. Development • A number of licences held by Spirit are wholly or largely within the application area or proposed exclusion zones that would be difficult if not impossible to progress if windfarm construction commenced. • An incorrect assumption has been made that licences are not developed in their later terms. Whilst one operator may relinquish a licence they may be re licenced by the Oil and Gas Authority. The proposal would have the effect of impeding future exploration and production; sterilising UK hydrocarbon resource. • It is not clear within the application what proportion of the windfarm development would be possible without constraining existing oil and gas infrastructure. This would allow valuable discussion on compromise. Risk assessment methodology • Throughout the Hornsea 3 application, risk assessment assumptions have allowed issues to be screened out, whereas Spirit consider many of the same issues as important and requiring additional scrutiny and active management. Engagement • Spirit continues to be fully committed to engaging with Orsted throughout the planning, development and operation of their projects. • Spirit is liaising directly with OPRED as regulator and Oil & Gas UK as industry body to ensure they remain fully informed as to the potential implications on its activities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Brodies LLP on behalf of Spirit Energy Resources Limited
"‘Spirit Energy’ is the trading name used by Spirit Energy Limited and its subsidiaries which collectively as a group conduct European oil and gas operations. Spirit Energy (“Spirit”) is headquartered in the UK and collectively operates and/or holds interests in 27 producing fields and more than 70 exploration licences across the UK, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark. Spirit Energy North Sea Limited (UK Company Number: 04594558), Spirit Energy Resources Limited (UK Company Number: 02855151) and Spirit Energy Nedlerland B.V. (Company Number: 34081068) are each entities operating under the ‘Spirit Energy’ trading name. Each of these entities own and operate assets located in the Southern North Sea (on both sides of the UK/Netherlands median line) including platforms, pipelines, seabed infrastructure and licensed blocks. Spirit has interests that lie within or near to the application area. Spirit Energy Resources Limited wishes to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm. Proximity • Spirit has experience of operating near to the eastern Irish Sea Walney Wind Farms. The Hornsea 3 array leading edge is significantly closer to Spirit’s assets – at half the distance than Spirit currently experience in the Irish Sea. • The eastern leading edge is in close proximity to our operational Greater Markham Area interests; (gas platforms: Chiswick, Grove and J6A and subsea infrastructure: Kew and Grove G5). • Spirit consider safe and efficient gas production would be significantly hindered through access constraints affecting ability to undertake maintenance interventions and emergency repairs. Capacity to develop existing licences and decommission existing infrastructure would also be restricted. • The economic viability of the whole Greater Markham area assets in both UK and Netherlands waters are reliant on being able to operate without hinderance to the maximum possible capacity. Shipping and Navigation • Vessels supporting Spirit platforms, subsea infrastructure and pipelines require sufficient sea room to operate. This includes setting up and being on standby outside of 500m safety zones, working in ‘drift off’ positions and being accessible by helicopter. • If the leading edge of Hornsea 3 is too close to our existing assets, there is potential for our vessels to be in a ‘drift on’ situation with any Hornsea 3 construction vessels/ wind turbines or for the windfarm vessels to be in a ‘drift on’ position to our assets creating a collision or allision risk with insufficient time to react. • Platform and vessel Radar Early Warning Systems (REWS) are identified as impacted by individual and cumulative wind turbine signatures, significantly reducing their effectiveness and leaving insufficient threat response time. • Access for the maintenance or decommissioning of subsea infrastructure and pipelines is not properly considered in the application. This may be for a short notice intervention of days or a managed campaign of several months. • Third party shipping is likely to be displaced more closely to Spirit assets if they track around the eastern leading edge of the array. Further displacement by fishing vessels would be caused by the Markham’s Triangle MCZ. Vessels transiting around the south east tip of the proposed array are likely to be drawn toward the Grove platform as a fixed way point. There would be a cumulative impact of increasing vessel numbers (displaced shipping vessels and Hornsea 3 vessels) along with hindered reduced effectiveness of REWS. • Proximate windfarm piling would interfere with safety of diving operations that may be required at any of our assets. This has not been considered as part of the application. Aviation • The application indicates that due to the significant number of flights utilised by windfarm developers, available airspace may be affected. Whilst already hindered due to weather any additional constraint adds to the cumulative burden and has significant operational impacts. • Flights from Humber to the Spirit Greater Markham Area would be made logistically difficult due to the collective effect of the Hornsea projects. Flights from Norwich would need to be routed around Hornsea 3 adding around 10km to each Chiswick flight. • In poor flying conditions and in the event of missed approach landings, a safe distance in all directions is required before obstacles are encountered. • Helicopter operations supporting J6A, Chiswick and Grove gas platforms are identified as having constrained airspace. Access is needed at all times when the platforms are manned and helicopters are considered the primary means of escape. • Helicopter operations supporting mobile rigs undertaking maintenance and decommissioning activities for platforms, pipelines and subsea infrastructure have not been appropriately evaluated in the application. These may need to be located anywhere Spirit has infrastructure including closer to the turbines and supporting infrastructure than the application has considered. Development • A number of licences held by Spirit are wholly or largely within the application area or proposed exclusion zones that would be difficult if not impossible to progress if windfarm construction commenced. • An incorrect assumption has been made that licences are not developed in their later terms. Whilst one operator may relinquish a licence they may be re licenced by the Oil and Gas Authority. The proposal would have the effect of impeding future exploration and production; sterilising UK hydrocarbon resource. • It is not clear within the application what proportion of the windfarm development would be possible without constraining existing oil and gas infrastructure. This would allow valuable discussion on compromise. Risk assessment methodology • Throughout the Hornsea 3 application, risk assessment assumptions have allowed issues to be screened out, whereas Spirit consider many of the same issues as important and requiring additional scrutiny and active management. Engagement • Spirit continues to be fully committed to engaging with Orsted throughout the planning, development and operation of their projects. • Spirit is liaising directly with OPRED as regulator and Oil & Gas UK as industry body to ensure they remain fully informed as to the potential implications on its activities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Swannington, Alderford and Little Witchingham Parish Council
"Traffic concerns and the 8 year build length."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Strutt and Parker on behalf of The Honourable Henry Thomas Unthank Darling
"- Insufficient consultation and engagement; - Lack of compelling case for the requirement of compulsory acquisition rights; - HVAC and HVDC technology; - The location of the booster station; - Concerns regarding the construction and funding of the project; - The cumulative impact of multiple wind farm projects in Norfolk; - Insufficient information relating to Jointing Bays and Link Boxes; - Insufficient information regarding field drainage, soil protective, flood issues and dust control; - Insufficient information relating to access to the Order Limits; - Insufficient information relating to access for landowners to severed land; "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of The Rampton Property Trust C/o Matthew Rampton
"The outline representations which I support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing me is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
"Relevant Representation for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Our involvement with Hornsea Project Three The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the RSPB) has been involved with the Hornsea Three project as a member of the Onshore Ecology and Offshore Ornithology Expert Working Groups (EWG). This involvement follows the RSPB’s engagement and attendance at the Examinations of Hornsea Project One and Two. Through this process we have endeavoured to inform the design of the scheme to minimise the risk of harm to the natural environment and in particular its ornithological interests. Despite welcome constructive pre-application consultation and discussions, serious concerns with the offshore aspects of the Application remain. Onshore Ornithology The RSPB considers that further, inexpensive measures, can (and should) be undertaken by Ørsted to ensure that the construction of the export cable route avoids possible adverse effects on the pink-footed goose population of the North Norfolk Coast SPA and Ramsar site. We will continue to discuss this with Ørsted in the hope that it will be possible to secure these measures. Offshore Ornithology The Project site lies within the foraging range of seabirds from the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for kittiwake and England’s only gannet breeding colony. The proposed revision of this SPA (the Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA) is likely to result in a boundary extension and adding gannet, guillemot, puffin and razorbill to the qualifying features. In relation to the Hornsea Three project we are concerned about the potential impacts on gannet, guillemot, kittiwake and razorbill (all SPA or pSPA species). Offshore the issues are more fundamental and far more significant in terms of the project, concerning the methodologies used to assess the risk of harm to seabirds and the use of those outputs to evaluate the likely impacts of the scheme. Methodology In particular: • We remain concerned that the survey effort across the Hornsea Three area has been inadequate with only 20 months being undertaken (an improvement from the 12 originally suggested). We welcome the work undertaken at the recommendation of the RSPB and Natural England (NE) reviewing historical boat-based survey work for Hornsea One and Two but this, while welcome, does not provide sufficient evidence that a minimum of two complete years of survey data, as recommended by NE and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, was not necessary. • We do not agree with breeding guillemot and razorbill being screened out from the assessment. While we agree that it is unlikely that birds recorded at the proposed development site are breeding birds from the pSPA, it remains likely that a large proportion of these birds are associated with the pSPA colony, such as juveniles and non-breeders that will subsequently breed at the colony. The pSPA is the closest breeding colony to the site therefore birds present in the breeding season are most likely an important constituent of that colony and must be considered in the assessment. • We also do not agree that herring gull should be screened out of the Environmental Impact Assessment. While Hornsea 3 lies outwith the mean maximum foraging range presented in Thaxter et al., (2012), the species is currently red listed in Birds of Conservation Concern and considered to be at a high risk of collision. Numbers in the Hornsea 3 survey area can be relatively high in the breeding season (221 in June 2017), therefore further consideration should be made in the assessment. • We have concerns about the manner in which biological seasons have been defined by Ørsted’s consultants. These should follow the definition of ‘Breeding Season’ as presented in Furness (2015), not ‘migration free breeding season’ except where colony specific evidence suggests otherwise. • We do not agree with the way Ørsted’s consultants have used the Band Extended Model and Avoidance Rates to calculate the likely collision risk impacts for gannet and kittiwake. The 2014 BTO Avoidance Rate Review Report, commissioned by Marine Scotland, and the subsequent peer reviewed paper (Cook et al,2018) demonstrated that insufficient information exists for a robust Avoidance Rate to be set for gannet and kittiwake for use with the Band Extended Model. Consequently, and as recommended by the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) Option 3 of the Band Extended Model cannot be used to calculate the collision risk for these species. Despite this, the approach is used by the Applicant in their Habitats Regulations Assessment document. Furthermore, the assessment fails to use the Avoidance Rate for kittiwake with the Basic Band Model as recommended by the SNCBs. • We do not agree with the changes in Nocturnal Activity Factor, a parameter used in collision risk modelling, for kittiwake and gannet. The supporting analysis does not include all available data and, does not account for the distinction between the definition of daylight as used in the Band Model and with the official concept of ‘twilight’ and ‘night’, including civil, astronomical and nautical twilight. Nor does it account for the potential interaction between survey timing and diurnal behavioural patterns. Seabird foraging activity often peaks at first and last light. There is a danger that these peaks are not accounted for in the assessment either because they have been removed from the analysis by an overly simplified definition of day and night or because the survey was carried out at a time of much lower activity • We have concerns with the correction factors applied to in-combination assessment estimates of mortality. These are to ‘correct’ for the differences in the consented and as-built scenarios for other offshore wind farms and for perceived inaccuracy in the Nocturnal Activity Factors applied to gannet and kittiwake collision risk estimates. These corrections represent an oversimplification, failing to distinguish between projects that still have permission to theoretically build out to consented capacity or where a new consent would be needed for further development. In addition, the changes in Nocturnal Activity Factor are not justified as discussed above and it is likely that this has led to the in-combination impacts of the scheme being downplayed. • We continue to disagree (as we did with Hornsea One and Two) about the Apportioning Rates used to evaluate the proportion of the guillemot, kittiwake and razorbill populations in the Hornsea Three area that will have come from the Flamborough and Filey SPA/ pSPA. The analysis is not suitably precautionary and does not fully take account of all available tracking data. • The Population Viability Analysis model used to evaluate the impacts of Hornsea Three on the gannet and kittiwake populations of the pSPA (and SPA in the case of kittiwake) have been run over only 25 years, whereas Ørsted are seeking approval for the scheme to run for 35 years. If the model is updated accordingly the impacts on gannet and kittiwake will be higher. These and other areas of disagreement between the RSPB and Ørsted have been aired extensively at the Hornsea Project One and Two Examinations and, despite these extensive discussions there remains significant differences of opinion between the parties as to how the impacts should be assessed. As mentioned above the RSPB is grateful for the helpful pre-application discussions and we are continuing to discuss and explore options with Ørsted to ensure that the Examining Authority has all the information it needs to consider the issues without unnecessarily consuming Examination time. Offshore ornithology impacts As a result of the methodology concerns set out above, the RSPB considers that the impacts have not been adequately assessed and, as such do not consider that the risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA/pSPA and its species can be ruled out, alone or in-combination: • The impact upon the kittiwake population of the SPA/ pSPA alone and in-combination with other plans and projects. • The impact upon the gannet population of the pSPA in-combination with other plans and projects. • The screening out of the breeding guillemot and razorbill population of the pSPA means that the Habitats Regulations Assessment has not considered the impacts of Hornsea Three upon these species. In addition, we do not think that herring gull should not have been screened out from the Environmental Impact Assessment. Conclusions For the reasons outlined above, we consider that it is not possible to ascertain no adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA/pSPA and its species, alone or in-combination. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Strutt and Parker on behalf of The Trustees of the BE Brooks 1983 Settlement
"- Incorrect information contained within the Compulsory Acquisition Statement of Reasons document; - Insufficient consultation and engagement; - Lack of compelling case for the requirement of compulsory acquisition rights; - HVAC and HVDC technology; - The location of the booster station; - Concerns regarding the construction and funding of the project; - The cumulative impact of multiple wind farm projects in Norfolk; - Insufficient information relating to Jointing Bays and Link Boxes; - Insufficient information regarding field drainage, soil protective, flood issues and dust control; - Insufficient information relating to access to the Order Limits; and - Insufficient information relating to access for landowners to severed land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bidwells on behalf of The Trustees of the H G Back Settlement
"The outline representations which I support are detailed below as prepared by the National Farmers Union in conjunction with the Land Interest Group of which Bidwells representing me is a member. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Wash and North Norfolk Marine Partnership
"Dear Ørsted The Wash and North Norfolk Marine Partnership (WNNMP) delivers a Management Scheme (under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) - Regulation 39) that supports Relevant Authorities in meeting statutory duties to The Wash and North Norfolk coast European Marine Site (EMS). The WNNMP supports synergistic working between coastal and marine managers and enables stakeholder and local community participation in the management of the coast through three geographically distinct Advisory Groups. It is, therefore, considered appropriate that the WNNMP provide comment on the proposal. As the offshore cable corridor approaches the 6 nm coastal boundary, it takes a westward trajectory avoiding the North West corner of the Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) and passes through the North East corner of the EMS, as shown in the Plan to Accompany the Section 56 Notice. This change in trajectory will result in a significant increase in the footprint of the offshore cable corridor, increasing disturbance to natural features and interference with industry and economy, compared to a continuous near-linear trajectory from the windfarm site through the NW corner of the MCZ. It is questioned why such a significant diversion is made, given that a near-linear MCZ cable corridor would lie predominantly over course sediments, the biota of which are less sensitive to physical disturbance than that associated with fine sand and mixed sediments that dominate the proposed cable corridor through the EMS. It is, however, recognised that the cable corridor avoids the chalk reef feature within the MCZ, which is supported. It is recommended that the significant change in nearshore cable corridor trajectory is reconsidered in favour of a route that passes directly through the North West Corner of the MCZ, minimising damage to the sea-bed, industry and economy. Yours sincerely, Sam Lew - WNNMP Project Manager "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of Trustees of the Educational Foundation of Alderman John Norman
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Transport identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft option and deed has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 clients/members who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
UK Power Networks on behalf of UK Power Networks Plc
"Application by Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Ltd. of 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG for a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) under the Planning Act 2008 ("the Application") The reference number for the Application is: EN010080. I am writing on behalf of Eastern Power Networks plc. Eastern Power Networks plc is the occupier of premises in the land to be used under the above Order. It is also entitled to the benefit of rights in, over, on or under such land and is the owner of Electric Lines and/or Electrical Plant (as those terms are defined in Section 64(1) of the Electricity Act 1989) in, on, over or under the land to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order. These premises, rights and apparatus have been acquired for and are used for the purposes of its statutory undertaking. Eastern Power Networks plc objects to the making and confirmation of the Order unless at the cost of the acquiring authority there are first provided to it on no less favourable tenure suitable alternative sites and suitable alternative rights in, on, over or under land in substitution to those to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order and in, on over or under which there are first installed and commissioned Electric Lines and Electrical Plant in substitution for those in the land to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order, before that land is acquired and/or temporarily used so that my client can carry out its statutory functions and contractual obligations no less efficiently than previously. Please treat this letter as an objection by Eastern Power Networks plc to the relocation/extinguishment of rights and apparatus mentioned above because their relocation will be detrimental to the carrying on of its undertaking. No alternative land, rights and apparatus for those proposed to be acquired under the above Order are in place. Eastern Power Networks plc reserves the right to amend or supplement its objections in the light of any information that later becomes available. The above objection(s) will be deemed to be withdrawn upon signature of an appropriate deed of Undertaking by an authorised signatory of the Acquiring Authority. All future correspondence relating to this matter should be sent to Shaun Barrell at [email protected] or by hard copy to UK Power Networks Legal Department, Energy House, Carrier Business Park, Hazelwick Avenue, Three Bridges, West Sussex, RH10 1EX. Yours faithfully UK Power Networks "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irelands Arnolds Keys on behalf of William Gaymer
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of William Young Dereham Limited
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brown & Co on behalf of WJF Ross Limited
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Strutt and Parker on behalf of Woodlands Farm Partnership
"- Insufficient consultation and engagement; - Lack of compelling case for the requirement of compulsory acquisition rights; - HVAC and HVDC technology; - The location of the booster station; - Concerns regarding the construction and funding of the project; - The cumulative impact of multiple wind farm projects in Norfolk; - Insufficient information relating to Jointing Bays and Link Boxes; - Insufficient information regarding field drainage, soil protective, flood issues and dust control; - Insufficient information relating to access to the Order Limits; - Insufficient information relating to access for landowners to severed land; "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of D N Gray & Co
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Parish Councils
Cawston Parish Council
"Traffic In Cawston We have concerns regarding the traffic impact through the village of Cawston. This relates to the fact that Link 89 through Cawston does not appear to have been fully assessed and therefore the sensitivity the village has not been addressed and appropriately mitigated. In particular, we feel that the impact of increased traffic movements on buildings, infrastructure, underground services, the environment and road safety, has not been given adequate consideration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Brooks
"We have already expressed our concerns about this potential major construction project (see Consultation Report Annex 2) and hope these will be taken into account. However we would like to strongly re-iterate the following points: 1) Such a huge project installing 80 metre wide cable corridors, and massive cables, will mean major disruption to all roads, businesses and amenities in the area surrounding Weybourne, Kelling and beyond for many years to come. 2) The vehicles transporting these huge cables, plant and machinery will cause constant disruption and damage to the narrow country roads, inconveniencing local residents and workers. 3) People will be put off visiting the area, thereby affecting the thriving tourist trade. 4) The unique wildlife, eco-systems and environment are bound to be adversely affected by such a major intrusion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Diocese of Norwich
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Easton and Otley College
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of H Jones (Farms) Ltd
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Mr and Mrs Nigel Darling
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr R H Peaver
"As a resident of Edgefield, I am keen to preserve as far as possible the unspoilt, rural, light-pollution free and noise-free environment of the surrounding countryside, and am therefore grateful for the opportunity to keep informed about possible planning decisions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Mrs Julie Dacre
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Mrs S Bulwer-Long
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Local Authorities
North Norfolk District Council
"Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Application Ref: EN010080 Submission of Relevant Representation North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) has been notified by Ørsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Limited that, as of 08 June 2018, their application for Development Consent Order (DCO) in respect of Hornsea Project Three (HPT) has been accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008. This letter forms the Relevant Representation of NNDC and sets out a summary of the issues that are considered to be relevant to the nationally significant infrastructure project as it passes through the North Norfolk district. Principle of Development North Norfolk District Council is fully supportive of the principle of renewable energy development in helping to tackle the challenges faced by climate change. NNDC recognises the national importance of having a balanced supply of electrical generation including increasing renewable energy supplies from offshore turbines in helping decarbonise the UK’s energy sector. At a local level NNDC has made a significant contribution of its own through, amongst other things, the grant of planning permission for in excess of 150MW capacity of solar farms, with electrical output capable of powering over 40,000 homes, in North Norfolk. Whilst recognising the national importance of Hornsea Project Three, North Norfolk District Council believes it is essential to ensure that key design and construction decisions do not result in unacceptable or adverse impacts on residents or businesses within North Norfolk, acknowledging the important contribution that agriculture and tourism plays in the economic prosperity of the District underpinned by the nationally and internationally recognised coast, landscape and biodiversity interests. Keys Aspects of the Project Affecting North Norfolk North Norfolk District Council’s jurisdiction extends inland from the Mean Low-Water mark along the coastline. The proposal would affect land within NNDC stretching from the intertidal area at Weybourne and inland along the proposed cable route and 80m wide working corridor until it passes out of the district into Broadland District Council near to Corpusty and Saxthorpe. The key design/construction decisions affecting North Norfolk include: • Choice of transmission system; • Phasing of the Project and Associated Construction Timetable(s); • Method of bringing offshore cables onshore at Weybourne; • Working Corridor of onshore cable route; • Use of Horizontal Directional Drilling onshore; • Onshore HVAC Booster Station; • Impact of construction traffic; • Landscape & Biodiversity Mitigation; • Community Benefits Choice of Transmission System - High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) vs High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) The final chosen method of transmission of electricity to the onshore gird connection location will have a fundamental bearing on the overall impact of the project. Whilst it is recognised that Ørsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Limited wish to keep their options open to using either HVAC or HVDC, this does currently present a wide project envelope and increases the level of uncertainty for affected parties until such time as the final transmission method is chosen. Table 3.37 in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement seeks to compare the components involved in the different HVAC / HVDC transmission systems. It has been the understanding of NNDC since the pre-application stage that a HVAC system will require an onshore booster station, with a site identified onshore near to the village of Edgefield; together with an offshore booster station, at a yet unidentified location, within a search zone approximately 19-22 nautical miles offshore from Cromer. However, table 3.37 creates uncertainty as to whether these booster stations are required with the reference that these components ‘May be required’. However, the accompanying comments within that table suggest ‘HVAC: onshore and/or offshore booster station required’. As part of the examination process, North Norfolk District Council believes it will be important for there to be absolute clarity about the components required for each transmission type so that the worst-case scenario in relation to the HVAC option can be fully assessed. This is critical to ensure the impact of the development is properly understood and so that weight can be afforded by the decision maker as to whether one type of electrical transmission should be preferred over the other with the potential for the Development Consent Order to specify the transmission system to be used where there is compelling evidence to do so. In the opinion of North Norfolk District Council, HVDC would result in the need for fewer buried cables and would have the least damaging impact on the district of North Norfolk when considering the project as a whole, particularly as this would negate the need for the booster station near Edgefield. Phasing of the Project and Associated Construction Timetable(s) Section 3.8 of Chapter 3 – Project Description sets out the Construction Phasing if the Development Consent Order is granted. This is also set out at para 2.15 of the Development Consent Under Explanatory Memorandum in terms of maximum durations. It indicates that construction could commence 2020/21 and could take up to seven years if built out in a single phase or up to 10 years if built out in two phases, with a maximum period of six years between the end of the first phase and commencement of the second phase. NNDC understands that the onshore elements of the proposed project would take three years to construct in a single phase but this could span a six-year period in a two phase scheme (assuming a three-year gap between phases). If reference is made to the DCO Explanatory Memorandum (together with the example two phase programme at Figure 3.39 (Chapter 3: Project Description) then the duration of the project could well exceed 15 years if a gap of six years between the end of the first phase and commencement of the second phase is allowed by the DCO. Clarity over Construction timetabling is a matter that NNDC would seek to be considered further, as part of the examination process, in order that any adverse impacts of construction in a single or two phase programme can be properly understood and appropriately managed for the benefit of residents and businesses within the District. The possibility of any extended construction window (certainly if it was to extend over 15 years) would be considered totally unacceptable to NNDC and local communities most of which are dependent on the tourism economy and the Council believes that the examination should explore how the project, and any grant of DCO, could reduce the maximum construction envelope down to an acceptable level. This may include specifying a maximum gap between the end of the first phase and commencement of the second phase. In respect of a two-phase scheme it will be important during the examination to understand which components will be installed in the first phase which may help to reduce any future adverse consequences during the second phase. For example, in a two-phase construction the Environmental Statement does not appear to give consideration as to whether cable ducting could be laid for all of the development in phase one which would help reduce the adverse impacts of having to re-open or dig new trenches to lay cables for phase two. By laying ducting, a simpler cable pull through process would be possible in phase two which would help reduce disturbance impacts and speed up project completion. It would also help reduce the impacts from construction traffic in phase two by reducing the need for vehicles bringing imported stabilised backfill material over a wide time period (see section Impact of Construction Traffic). Completing the majority of trench works in phase one would also allow time for soils to recover and reduce the length of time taken out of agricultural production. The Council believes the examination panel will also need to satisfy itself that the benefits of any landscape mitigation works planned in phase one are not damaged or undermined by a protracted phase two timetable which may include re-opening trenches. It is important that all mitigation works are delivered at an early stage so as to make the impact of the works acceptable in planning terms. Any phase one mitigation landscaping damaged or requiring removal during phase two would take time to recover and so may not deliver the level of mitigation expected over the planned lifetime of the project. Method of bringing offshore cables onshore at Weybourne At the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) stage, NNDC advised that: ‘Whilst the method of construction in the nearshore/landfall location needs to be considered further and in more detail, initial consideration is that a Horizontal Direct Drilling (HDD) approach would prove to be the least likely to have impacts on nearshore processes during construction and would be preferred. This should (in consideration with other marine environmental factors) be at an extent where HDD exit points have minimal impact on nearshore coastal processes. Likewise buried cabling as identified in the reports would be preferred to minimise impacts to coastal processes with low profile protection being the secondary position. Impact of the proposed cables on tides and, in particular, waves and the influences this may have on coastal sediment transport are important factors that the Environmental Statement will need to include and PEIR seems to be making progress in covering these important issues’. Some nine months after the PEIR response from NNDC it is disappointing that Ørsted are still discussing the possibility of open cut trenching techniques to bring the offshore cable onshore to the Transition Joint Bays (TJBs). Para 3.6.12.23 of the Environmental Statement Project Description refers to Open cut installation requiring beach closures of up to one month per cable. It is understood there would be 6 offshore cables using HVAC transmission or there would be 4 offshore cables (plus one HVAC cable) with HVDC transmission. This would suggest potential beach closure of up to six months in the worst case HVAC scenario. The District Council therefore believes it will be very important for the examination to establish and understand the impact of nearshore works, the timing of works and how impacts on public footpaths and rights of way, including public access to the beach, for recreation can be managed without significant detriment to amenity. The associated economic impact of beach closures therefore needs to be properly assessed and mitigation considered as part of the examination process. The examination stage will also need to consider the impact of open cut trenching on the Weybourne intertidal area (including effects on the Marine Conservation Zone, adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest and nearby Special Area of Conservation) so that, where the evidence can justify it, the scope of the project is narrowed down to exclude inappropriate trenching techniques in any subsequent grant of DCO. Based on the evidence seen to date, NNDC remains firmly of the view that HDD techniques (long HDD drill) should be used to bring the offshore cables onshore as this will have the least damaging impact on the nearshore (especially with a two-phase project), will result in fewer adverse impacts on coastal processes and will reduce the potential to destabilise the cliffs at Weybourne compared to open trenching techniques. Working Corridor of onshore cable route Ørsted have for some time made clear that the working corridor of the onshore cable route would typically be 80m wide - consisting of a 60m central section comprising three no. 5m wide and up to 2m deep trenches (tapering to 1.5m at base) either side of a 6m wide haul road. Each side of the cable corridor would include additional 10m wide strips of land on which topsoil and subsoil would be stored. Figure 3.32 within the Environmental Statement Project Description shows an indicative layout (albeit it appears to only show 12 cables rather than the 18 cables required for the 6 circuit HVAC worst case scenario). The District Council believes it would be very helpful at examination stage to understand the likely layout for the HVDC solution which it is understood would consist of 8 HVDC cables and 3 HVAC cables. This may result in a reduction in the number of trenches needing to be dug and would mean less soil disturbance, which would be welcomed, particularly when passing across currently active agricultural land. The Council believes there is currently a lack of clarity generally about the ‘best-case scenario’ with this project which it is hoped will be made clearer through examination. Use of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) onshore NNDC welcomes the use of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) techniques so as to avoid sensitive or designated sites so as to minimise any potential impacts upon them. Figure 3.2 within Environmental Statement Volume 3, Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation sets out in some detail the intended locations for Hydraulic Directional Drilling including locations: A - HHD only, B – HDD with haul road over, C – HDD with haul road over or Open Cut, and D – HDD and ducting laydown. The Council believes it will be important at examination stage to ensure the correct HDD method has been chosen along the onshore cable route. For example, Figure 3.2 - Sheet 1 suggests the use of type B – HDD with Haul Road over within an area marked as woodland. The loss of woodland should be avoided. Sheet 5 also refers to HDD (type B) passing through a hedgerow marked as having high and very high bat activity. Again such options should be avoided or, where there are justifiable reasons as to why species harm cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation should be put in place. Onshore HVAC Booster Station Whilst NNDC has a preference for HVDC transmission because of the overall reduction in likely adverse impacts, if HVAC transmission is utilised then an Onshore Booster Station is understood to be needed in the area east of Edgefield and north of Corpusty and Saxthorpe (as indicated on sheets 9 and 10 of 2.4.2 - Works Plan - Onshore - Plans and Drawings) and as set out in Section 3.7.5 of Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement – Project Description. Whilst there remains some confusion as a result of Table 3.37 in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement about which components would be required for a HVAC system, Ørsted has previously stated their intention early at the pre-application stage to construct a booster station in North Norfolk as part of a HVAC system. NNDC have therefore worked with Ørsted to find the least harmful location having regard to the technical constraints of site selection and having regard to, amongst other things, landscape character and visual impact. Paragraph 3.7.5.4 of the Project Description states ‘…The equipment will either be housed within a single or multiple buildings, in an open yard or a combination of the above.’ The District Council believes it is disappointing that, at this stage of the project, the design of the HVAC booster stations has not been refined further so that there is greater clarity about what is proposed. An indicative onshore booster station layout has been provided but this is shown in limited detail so as to gauge overall impact or assess how and whether proposed landscaping mitigation will be effective. Volume 6, Annex 4.5 sets out Photograph Panels, Wirelines and Photomontages and includes a series of five viewpoints which include wireline models and Year 1 and Year 15 photomontages. Paragraph 2.1.1.3 of that document suggests: ‘Where wirelines indicate that views of the onshore HVAC booster station would be very limited photomontages have not been produced. This approach was consulted on and agreed with South Norfolk District Council (SNDC) and Norfolk County Council (NCC) as noted in Table 4.4 of volume 3, chapter 4: Landscape and Visual Resources. North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) and Broadland District Council (BDC) were also consulted but at the time of finalisation of this report had not responded’. It should be made clear that whilst NNDC was invited to comment on the photomontage methodology, this consultation took place on 21 Dec 2017 with responses requested by 12 Jan 2018 (or approval would be assumed). The District Council does not believe this represents meaningful consultation as the Council offices were only open for business for 11 days during this period, which is insufficient given the scale of this project and its potential impact on the District. NNDC had previously made a significant contribution in providing advice to Ørsted to assist them in refining a list of potential sites and continued to offer to support regarding the design of the HVAC booster station and to agree the specification of landscape mitigation planting. To date this opportunity has not been taken up by Ørsted or its appointed consultants. The District Council therefore believes that Para 2.1.1.3 is disingenuous as the specific question about wireframes and photomontages was never properly discussed with NNDC. Irrespective of whether specific or genuine consultation has taken place, the key issues which need to be determined regarding any cable booster station during examination is whether the visual impacts of the proposed facility are acceptable in whatever form it may take within the wide envelope presented. The following issues should therefore be established: • What is the best-case booster station scenario for a HVAC solution; • What is the worst-case booster station scenario for a HVAC solution; • Agreeing the likely external form of any buildings to be sited; • Agreeing the external colours for any building(s) to be erected including walls, roofs, windows and doors with the purpose of reducing the visual impacts; • Establishing what any solution without buildings would look like (including colour); • Establishing the specification and maintenance/management of mitigation planting necessary to achieve the minimum screening of the buildings set out in the photomontages for Years 1 and 15; • Understanding expected growth rates for mitigation planting; • Understanding the impact of a two-phase project on the HVAC booster station site and associated landscape mitigation; • Understanding the likely visual impact of any external lighting needed on site. Whilst many of the above issues may form part of a suite of subsequent planning conditions, it will nonetheless be important for the District Council and communities most closely affected by this development to understand the likely best and worst case impacts of the development and to understand whether mitigation is achievable. This may also give weight to determining whether one transmission system should be favoured over another. Impact of construction traffic Within North Norfolk it is assumed that the main traffic generators connected with Hornsea Project Three will come from construction traffic associated with: • Bringing the offshore cables onshore at Weybourne • Construction of the cable corridor; and • Construction of the HVAC Booster Station (assuming HVAC transmission is used) North Norfolk has many small and narrow country roads with restricted widths and limited opportunities for larger vehicles to pass each other. Traffic levels vary but tourism during March to October (heighted during the summer months especially near coastal locations) means that the timing of any construction works will be critical to minimising adverse highway impacts. Volume 3, Chapter 7 of the Environmental Statement considers Traffic and Transport and Table 7.9 sets out the ‘maximum design scenario considered for the assessment of potential impacts on traffic and transport’ and Table 7.12 sets out the daily construction vehicle movements split out into construction staff and HGVs and Table 7.18 indicates the Impact of Hornsea Project Three Construction Traffic Flows including percentage change due to construction traffic (Maximum daily change) for HGVs and total vehicles. An Outline Traffic Construction Management Plan has been provided which seeks to ‘establish the principles that will be implemented by the principal contractors to minimise the adverse impacts associated with the transport of materials, plant and staff required for construction of the onshore elements of Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm’ At the examination it will be important to understand the highway implications for the best-case scenario (assumed HVDC) and the worst case scenario (assumed HVAC) so that residents and businesses can properly understand the impact of construction traffic, where it is planned to go, in what volumes and for what duration. At present it is difficult to cut through the information presented in order to gauge an understanding of the different scenarios. There is particular concern in respect of access north of the A148 from the point at which cables come onshore, with evidence submitted suggesting a significant increase in HGV traffic. Construction of the HVAC booster station near Edgefield (Link ID 59) will also see a significant increase in HGV movements and one of the largest percentage increases in total vehicles within North Norfolk. It is likely that focus in the examination will be on the accuracy of the figures presented including baseline date and expected traffic movements. In particular, within Table 7.12, Link IDs 1, 50, and 55 within NNDC area show no daily construction movements and no percentage changes. It will be important to understand how such commitments and mitigation strategies can be secured in any subsequent consent to minimise adverse effects on sensitive receptors, as well as consideration of whether delivery of equipment and cables should be outside of daytime hours when traffic volumes on these routes are highest. Consideration will also need to be given to construction phasing and what will happen in the event of significant delay between first and second phases including construction compounds, temporary access routes and mobilisation works within North Norfolk. Landscape & Biodiversity Mitigation NNDC recognise that Ørsted have undertaken desktop studies and Phase 1 Habitat Surveys together with site specific surveys in accordance with best practice recommendations in order to inform the baseline data which underpins Environmental Statement Volume 3, Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation. Figure 3.2 (Sheets 1 to 5) set out the range of ecological constraints including, amongst other things, the location of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), County Wildlife Sites as well as data for Great Crested Newts, reptiles and bat activity. Figure 3.2 also sets out in some detail the intended locations for Hydraulic Directional Drilling including locations: A - HHD only, B – HDD with haul road over, C – HDD with haul road over or Open Cut, and D – HDD and ducting laydown. The Use of HDD section above identifies some issues to consider at examination stage regarding HDD types to be employed along the cable corridor route. Section 3.10 of the Environmental Statement Volume 3, Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation sets out Measures to be adopted as part of Hornsea Three and these are welcomed by NNDC and should be secured with any consent. It will also be important for Ørsted to set out and quantify landscape mitigation to offset the loss of hedgerows and trees which will provide the opportunity for both landscape and ecological enhancements sufficient to at least outweigh any adverse impacts. Consideration will also need to be given to the timing of enhancement/mitigation works, particularly in view of the potential for the project to be split into two phases. Community Benefits In respect of potential community benefits, NNDC recognises that the DCO process has to work within the sphere of planning law and under the notion that planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development. NNDC recognises that, once built, the scheme is likely to be relatively benign. However, the authority believes that it is important that the proposals sufficiently address any harmful impacts associated with construction including potential damage to coastal areas, loss of trees and hedgerows along and associated with the cable corridor, damage to roads and verges from traffic together with consideration of harm to the economic prosperity of businesses affected by any extended or multi-phased construction activities. The Council believes it will therefore be important for the examination panel to carefully consider and understand the package of CIL compliant benefits being put forward by Ørsted as part of the consent process and how those benefits would be secured. Outside of the DCO process, North Norfolk District Council will seek to negotiate with Ørsted to secure a range of benefits for the wider community of North Norfolk. Summary Whilst NNDC is supportive of the principle of the Hornsea Project Three offshore wind development being proposed by Ørsted, the Council believes it will be important to ensure the project is managed and delivered in a way that does not result in significant adverse impacts on local communities and businesses close to the landfall and along the onshore cable route. Given the current size of the project envelope, NNDC has genuine concerns about certain aspects of the proposal and it is requested that these matters, as set out above, are taken forward as part of the examination stage so that there can be greater clarity about the proposals and confidence that an acceptable DCO outcome can be achieved for the residents, businesses and communities of North Norfolk. Yours sincerely Geoff Lyon Major Projects Manager "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Simon Moores
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Sir John White and Kyle White
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (U.K.) Ltd (Savills (U.K.) Ltd) on behalf of Trustees of J S Mott Will Trust being Lady Emma Suffield and William Edwards
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Trustees of Salle Park Trust being Sir David Chapman, Grant Pilcher, Michael Dewing and William Edwards
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Trustees of Sir Charles Mott Radcliffe Will Trust being Lady Emma Suffield and William Edwards
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STEONLEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Trustees of Stinton Hall Trust being Sir David Chapman, Grant Picher, Micheal Dewing and William Edwards
"The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Other Statutory Consultees
Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Hornsea Three Offshore Windfarm project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as water and sewerage undertaker for the above site: Anglian Water is in principle supportive of the above project. Impact on existing assets: We have been in dialogue with the applicant regarding the location of proposed crossings of Anglian Water’s existing water and water recycling assets within the onshore cable route. Groundwater sources: There are existing boreholes for a public water source in the vicinity of the proposed cable route at Marlingford. It is essential to protect the aquifer and Anglian Water’s existing assets from contamination from any activities that might cause pollution. We would expect mitigation measures to be put in place to prevent any pollution of the Chalk aquifer from surface activities. Protective provisions: We have previously requested the inclusion of specific wording for the benefit of Anglian Water as part of the Section 42 consultation conducted in 2017. It is noted that specific protective provisions have been included in the current version of the DCO (Schedule 6, Part 9 of the Draft DCO) as requested. The wording as proposed differs somewhat from that sought by Anglian Water and we would ask for clarification of what is the purpose of the intended changes before the DCO is finalised. Connections to water supply/public sewerage networks: Anglian Water is not aware of any water supply or wastewater requirements made upon them for the above project. Should a water supply or wastewater service be required and once agreement has been reached, there are a number of applications required to deliver the necessary infrastructure as outlined in the Water Industry Act 1991. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Ward
"As a resident of Edgefield village which is in the area that this project will effect I am concerned that the environmental impact of this project is fully explored and understood before development is undertaken. I want to see that this impact is minimized as much as possible and that the local wildlife is disturbed as little as possible and the local residents are not blighted by noise or light pollution from the booster station. The planning of this project needs to take into account the disruption of large vehicles on small lanes and time frames need to be set to reduce this with the local population in mind rather than Orsted's costs. Similarly it is vital that environmentally friendly means of excavating for the cable are a priority in order to keep the integrity of the top soil and drainage systems that are within the cable corridor are appropriately moved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Butikofer on behalf of Holt County Division
"Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Application Ref: EN010080 Submission of Relevant Representation I am writing as the County Councillor for Holt Division in North Norfolk, as such my area covers Weybourne, Kelling, High Kelling and Holt. I have been notified by Ørsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Limited that, as of 08 June 2018, their application for Development Consent Order (DCO) in respect of Hornsea Project Three (HPT) has been accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008. This letter forms my Relevant Representation and sets out a summary of the issues that in my role as a representative of the area I am most concerned about. It explains what I am most concerned about and consider especially relevant to my division in North Norfolk. Principle of Development Although not fundamentally opposed to the principle of renewable energy development in helping to tackle the challenges faced by climate change, I believe this area is taking too much of the pressure of national infrastructure development; particularly when previous projects in this area, and across the wider area of North Norfolk are considered. Onshore solar farms nearby at East Beckham and previous wind farm projects such as Dudgeon to name just two through this same area, should I believe be taken into consideration. It is therefore essential to ensure that key design and construction decisions do not result in unacceptable or adverse impacts on residents or businesses within North Norfolk, ours is a unique and fragile economy and we simply cannot afford for it to be undermined. It is crucial that the important contribution that agriculture and tourism plays in the economic prosperity of the whole District and most importantly in these small villages is underpinned by the nationally and internationally recognised coast, landscape and biodiversity interests. Keys Aspects of the Project Affecting Holt County Division The proposed landfall site is once again at Weybourne Beach, with the inward cable route then passing inland through the villages of Kelling and High Kelling creating an 80m wide working corridor. The key design/construction decisions affecting Holt Division include: • Choice of transmission system; • Phasing of the Project and Associated Construction Timetable(s); • Method and timing of bringing offshore cables onshore at Weybourne; • Working Corridor of onshore cable route; • Impact of construction traffic; Choice of Transmission System - High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) vs High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) The final chosen method of transmission of electricity to the onshore gird connection location will have a fundamental bearing on the overall impact of the project. Whilst I recognise that Ørsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Limited wish to keep their options open to using either HVAC or HVDC, this does currently present a very wide project envelope and increases the level of uncertainty for affected parties until such time as the final transmission method is chosen. As the NNDC report states ‘Table 3.37 in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement seeks to compare the components involved in the different HVAC / HVDC transmission systems. It has been the understanding of the local Council NNDC since the pre-application stage that a HVAC system will require an onshore booster station, with a site identified onshore near to the village of Edgefield; together with an offshore booster station, at a yet unidentified location, within a search zone approximately 19-22 nautical miles offshore from Cromer. However, table 3.37 creates uncertainty as to whether these booster stations are required with the reference that these components ‘May be required’. However, the accompanying comments within that table suggest ‘HVAC: onshore and/or offshore booster station required’ I completely support the view taken by North Norfolk District Council which says ‘it is important for there to be absolute clarity about the components required for each transmission type so that the worst-case scenario in relation to the HVAC option can be fully assessed. This is critical to ensure the impact of the development is properly understood and so that weight can be afforded by the decision maker as to whether one type of electrical transmission should be preferred over the other with the potential for the Development Consent Order to specify the transmission system to be used where there is compelling evidence to do so. In the opinion of North Norfolk District Council, HVDC would result in the need for fewer buried cables and would have the least damaging impact on the district of North Norfolk when considering the project as a whole, particularly as this would negate the need for the booster station near Edgefield.’ Phasing of the Project and Associated Construction Timetable(s) NNDC’s response is clear on this issue which is far from what we have seen from Ørsted, timing of this project has changed at every meeting I have attended. The notes below from NNDC’s report show clearly a potential 15 year window of construction, yet last week at a public meeting we were categorically told it was 8 maximum. ‘Section 3.8 of Chapter 3 – Project Description sets out the Construction Phasing if the Development Consent Order is granted. This is also set out at para 2.15 of the Development Consent Under Explanatory Memorandum in terms of maximum durations. It indicates that construction could commence 2020/21 and could take up to seven years if built out in a single phase or up to 10 years if built out in two phases, with a maximum period of six years between the end of the first phase and commencement of the second phase. NNDC understands that the onshore elements of the proposed project would take three years to construct in a single phase but this could span a six-year period in a two phase scheme (assuming a three-year gap between phases). If reference is made to the DCO Explanatory Memorandum (together with the example two phase programme at Figure 3.39 (Chapter 3: Project Description) then the duration of the project could well exceed 15 years if a gap of six years between the end of the first phase and commencement of the second phase is allowed by the DCO. Clarity over Construction timetabling is a matter that NNDC would seek to be considered further, as part of the examination process, in order that any adverse impacts of construction in a single or two phase programme can be properly understood and appropriately managed for the benefit of residents and businesses within the District. The possibility of any extended construction window (certainly if it was to extend over 15 years) would be considered totally unacceptable to NNDC and local communities most of which are dependent on the tourism economy and the Council believes that the examination should explore how the project, and any grant of DCO, could reduce the maximum construction envelope down to an acceptable level. This may include specifying a maximum gap between the end of the first phase and commencement of the second phase. In respect of a two-phase scheme it will be important during the examination to understand which components will be installed in the first phase which may help to reduce any future adverse consequences during the second phase. For example, in a two-phase construction the Environmental Statement does not appear to give consideration as to whether cable ducting could be laid for all of the development in phase one which would help reduce the adverse impacts of having to re-open or dig new trenches to lay cables for phase two. By laying ducting, a simpler cable pull through process would be possible in phase two which would help reduce disturbance impacts and speed up project completion. It would also help reduce the impacts from construction traffic in phase two by reducing the need for vehicles bringing imported stabilised backfill material over a wide time period (see section Impact of Construction Traffic). Completing the majority of trench works in phase one would also allow time for soils to recover and reduce the length of time taken out of agricultural production. The Council believes the examination panel will also need to satisfy itself that the benefits of any landscape mitigation works planned in phase one are not damaged or undermined by a protracted phase two timetable which may include re-opening trenches. It is important that all mitigation works are delivered at an early stage so as to make the impact of the works acceptable in planning terms. Any phase one mitigation landscaping damaged or requiring removal during phase two would take time to recover and so may not deliver the level of mitigation expected over the planned lifetime of the project.’ Method of bringing offshore cables onshore at Weybourne It is essential that construction works on the beach are done ‘out of season’ as far as possible to mitigate the impacts on local businesses totally dependent on the tourist trade in the area for survival. This area forms part of a larger project by NNDC ‘The Deep History Coast Project’, to bring tourists into the area out of season to help sustain these communities. Any works done in this area must be fully mitigated to minimise beach disruption for users, in terms of noise, access and visibility. It is completely unacceptable that Ørsted have so far failed to respond to concerns already raised by NNDC as reported below. ‘At the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) stage, NNDC advised that: ‘Whilst the method of construction in the nearshore/landfall location needs to be considered further and in more detail, initial consideration is that a Horizontal Direct Drilling (HDD) approach would prove to be the least likely to have impacts on nearshore processes during construction and would be preferred. This should (in consideration with other marine environmental factors) be at an extent where HDD exit points have minimal impact on nearshore coastal processes. Likewise buried cabling as identified in the reports would be preferred to minimise impacts to coastal processes with low profile protection being the secondary position. Impact of the proposed cables on tides and, in particular, waves and the influences this may have on coastal sediment transport are important factors that the Environmental Statement will need to include and PEIR seems to be making progress in covering these important issues’. Some nine months after the PEIR response from NNDC it is disappointing that Ørsted are still discussing the possibility of open cut trenching techniques to bring the offshore cable onshore to the Transition Joint Bays (TJBs). Para 3.6.12.23 of the Environmental Statement Project Description refers to Open cut installation requiring beach closures of up to one month per cable. It is understood there would be 6 offshore cables using HVAC transmission or there would be 4 offshore cables (plus one HVAC cable) with HVDC transmission. This would suggest potential beach closure of up to six months in the worst case HVAC scenario. The District Council therefore believes it will be very important for the examination to establish and understand the impact of nearshore works, the timing of works and how impacts on public footpaths and rights of way, including public access to the beach, for recreation can be managed without significant detriment to amenity. The associated economic impact of beach closures therefore needs to be properly assessed and mitigation considered as part of the examination process. The examination stage will also need to consider the impact of open cut trenching on the Weybourne intertidal area (including effects on the Marine Conservation Zone, adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest and nearby Special Area of Conservation) so that, where the evidence can justify it, the scope of the project is narrowed down to exclude inappropriate trenching techniques in any subsequent grant of DCO. Based on the evidence seen to date, NNDC remains firmly of the view that HDD techniques (long HDD drill) should be used to bring the offshore cables onshore as this will have the least damaging impact on the nearshore (especially with a two-phase project), will result in fewer adverse impacts on coastal processes and will reduce the potential to destabilise the cliffs at Weybourne compared to open trenching techniques. ‘ Working Corridor of onshore cable route Ørsted have for some time made clear that the working corridor of the onshore cable route would typically be 80m wide - consisting of a 60m central section comprising three no. 5m wide and up to 2m deep trenches (tapering to 1.5m at base) either side of a 6m wide haul road. Each side of the cable corridor would include additional 10m wide strips of land on which topsoil and subsoil would be stored. Figure 3.32 within the Environmental Statement Project Description shows an indicative layout (albeit it appears to only show 12 cables rather than the 18 cables required for the 6 circuit HVAC worst case scenario). It would be very helpful at examination stage to understand the likely layout for the HVDC solution which it is understood would consist of 8 HVDC cables and 3 HVAC cables. This may result in a reduction in the number of trenches needing to be dug and would mean less soil disturbance, which would be welcomed, particularly when passing across currently active agricultural land. I like the Council believe there is currently a lack of clarity generally about the ‘best-case scenario’ with this project which it is hoped will be made clearer through examination. Impact of construction traffic Again the report by NNDC sets out a comprehensive view, however I should like to reiterate that as the County Councillor responsible for this area I am particularly concerned about the impact on our fragile infrastructure, and homes built on the very edge of roads with large vehicles and their associated vibrations passing. ‘Within North Norfolk it is assumed that the main traffic generators connected with Hornsea Project Three will come from construction traffic associated with: • Bringing the offshore cables onshore at Weybourne • Construction of the cable corridor; and • Construction of the HVAC Booster Station (assuming HVAC transmission is used) North Norfolk has many small and narrow country roads with restricted widths and limited opportunities for larger vehicles to pass each other. Traffic levels vary but tourism during March to October (heighted during the summer months especially near coastal locations) means that the timing of any construction works will be critical to minimising adverse highway impacts. Volume 3, Chapter 7 of the Environmental Statement considers Traffic and Transport and Table 7.9 sets out the ‘maximum design scenario considered for the assessment of potential impacts on traffic and transport’ and Table 7.12 sets out the daily construction vehicle movements split out into construction staff and HGVs and Table 7.18 indicates the Impact of Hornsea Project Three Construction Traffic Flows including percentage change due to construction traffic (Maximum daily change) for HGVs and total vehicles. An Outline Traffic Construction Management Plan has been provided which seeks to ‘establish the principles that will be implemented by the principal contractors to minimise the adverse impacts associated with the transport of materials, plant and staff required for construction of the onshore elements of Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm’ At the examination it will be important to understand the highway implications for the best-case scenario (assumed HVDC) and the worst case scenario (assumed HVAC) so that residents and businesses can properly understand the impact of construction traffic, where it is planned to go, in what volumes and for what duration. At present it is difficult to cut through the information presented in order to gauge an understanding of the different scenarios. It is likely that focus in the examination will be on the accuracy of the figures presented including baseline date and expected traffic movements. In particular, within Table 7.12, Link IDs 1, 50, and 55 within NNDC area show no daily construction movements and no percentage changes. It will be important to understand how such commitments and mitigation strategies can be secured in any subsequent consent to minimise adverse effects on sensitive receptors, as well as consideration of whether delivery of equipment and cables should be outside of daytime hours when traffic volumes on these routes are highest. Consideration will also need to be given to construction phasing and what will happen in the event of significant delay between first and second phases including construction compounds, temporary access routes and mobilisation works within North Norfolk.’ Landscape & Biodiversity Mitigation NNDC recognise that Ørsted have undertaken desktop studies and Phase 1 Habitat Surveys together with site specific surveys in accordance with best practice recommendations in order to inform the baseline data which underpins Environmental Statement Volume 3, Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation. Figure 3.2 (Sheets 1 to 5) set out the range of ecological constraints including, amongst other things, the location of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), County Wildlife Sites as well as data for Great Crested Newts, reptiles and bat activity. Figure 3.2 also sets out in some detail the intended locations for Hydraulic Directional Drilling including locations: A - HHD only, B – HDD with haul road over, C – HDD with haul road over or Open Cut, and D – HDD and ducting laydown. The Use of HDD section above identifies some issues to consider at examination stage regarding HDD types to be employed along the cable corridor route. Section 3.10 of the Environmental Statement Volume 3, Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation sets out Measures to be adopted as part of Hornsea Three and these are welcomed by NNDC and should be secured with any consent. It will also be important for Ørsted to set out and quantify landscape mitigation to offset the loss of hedgerows and trees which will provide the opportunity for both landscape and ecological enhancements sufficient to at least outweigh any adverse impacts. Consideration will also need to be given to the timing of enhancement/mitigation works, particularly in view of the potential for the project to be split into two phases. Summary As I said at the beginning whilst I am not against the principle of offshore wind development it is critical to me and more importantly the people I represent, that if we are to take more of this national burden locally the project must be managed and delivered in a way that does not result in significant adverse impacts on local communities and businesses close to the landfall and along the onshore cable route. Given the current size of the project envelope, NNDC has genuine concerns about certain aspects of the proposal and it is requested that these matters, as set out above, are taken forward as part of the examination stage so that there can be greater clarity about the proposals and confidence that an acceptable DCO outcome can be achieved for the residents, businesses and communities of North Norfolk. Yours sincerely Sarah Butikofer County Councillor for Holt Division (Norfolk County Council) District Councillor (North Norfolk District Council) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr C Carter
"(1) Concern re. the proposed positioning of the HVDC Converter / HVAC Substation in a completely different site instead of adjoining the Norwich Main National Grid Substation for the Norwich area, which has easy access from the main A140 Norwich to Ipswich Road. The proposed siting is adjacent to a country "B" road, and would therefore necessitate numerous HGV movements during the construction phase on this local road. (2) The height of the proposed HVDC Converter / HVAC Substation would dominate the surrounding areas and could lead to an industrial complex in a country area, instead of siting it adjoining the Norwich Main National Grid Substation which already has mature screening masking it from the surroundings. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Mrs C Barratt
"I am writing on behalf of our client. Our client, since purchasing the farm over 25 years ago, has transformed it into a working, conservation and environmental farm. Our clients specific concerns relating to the holding and the farm business are that Orsted have; Placed to much weight on the potential short term disturbance to residential dwellings in the vicinity (most being some distance from the project) compared to mitigation of long term damage and impact to the environment and the farming business. Taking no account of some of the infrastructure across the farm. Subsequently a requirement for a compound. Further consultation is required to understand the requirement, visual impact and noise etc. As well as the length of time needed on site. Our client's other concerns are outlined in the ‘Outline Representations’ detailed below prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and lease. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Susan N Lowther
"I would like consideration to be given to the proposed substation being built adjacent to the Norwich substation that already exists in Mangreen. Any obstacles can be overcome with a little extra financial input. Then the small but beautiful hamlet of Mangreen would not be blighted on both sides, and destruction of the natural habitat of wildlife here would be kept to a minimum. Considerable attention be paid to minimising the visual impact of the site (e.g. low buildings, surrounding mounds, trees etc) and avoiding the destruction of old hedgerows, trees etc "
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Farmers Union
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and deed. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of Taylor Wimpey (East Anglian) Ltd
"Our client is one of the UK's largest residential developers. Hornsea Project 3 Offshore Wind Farm potentially impacts their land, which has planning permission for 91 new homes, at Hethersett. Our client needs to fully understand any potential conflicts that may arise especially in terms of timings and the physical implications. All other concerns are covered in the outline representations which are detailed below prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and lease. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of The Trustess of the B E Bulwer-Long Settlement being Alexander G Lane and Mills and Reeve Trust Co. Ltd
" The outline representations are detailed below on behalf of our client prepared by NFU and LIG. ………………………………………………………………………………… IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ORSTED (HORNSEA PROJECT THREE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE HORNSEA THREE AGENTS KNOWN AS THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the Hornsea Three Agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Project order. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Strutt & Parker, Bidwells, Irelands, Brown & Co and Cruso & Wilkin (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar Offshore Wind Farm schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive and proactive face to face meetings with Orsted and their agents. Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 Orsted and their agents have been meeting LIG but due to the lack of specific information there has been no progression in negotiations in the last two months over June and July 2018. 2.3 Heads of terms were sent out on the 20th April 2018 which do not at the present time contain the specific detail for the scheme. Further specific detail has been requested from Orsted at the last meeting held on 9th July 2018. 2.4 Orsted have still not sent out a draft option and lease to the agents or landowners after many requests to see these documents. It is imperative that the NFU and agents acting (LIG) see these documents to make sure that the terms are reasonable. The time period where incentive payments are offered must be long enough for LIG to look at the terms offered in detail and negotiate. Orsted must not force the hand of landowners. 3.0 Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 The NFU and the land agents LIG believe that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4.0 HVAC v HVDC Cables 4.1 It was made clear at the statutory consultation carried out at the end of November 2017 that Orsted would be applying for a DCO on both HVAC and HVDC cables. This will involve building a booster station or converter substation. 4.2 It has been highlighted that the use of DC technology for offshore windfarms is still maturing and that there are certain risks by only taking forward DC technology. If Orsted could confirm that they are taking forward DC technology this would greatly reduce the impact on land operations and farm businesses as the width of the lease area required will be less and it is likely that no link boxes will be required. Landowners and their agents have been asking for information from Orsted to confirm why they cannot use DC technology and the only reasons forthcoming have been cost, risk and the length of the scheme. There is confusion out there with landowners as another developer Vattenfall who are also proposing a NSIP project the Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas Cable Project have confirmed that they will be using DC technology. 5. Booster Station 5.1 LIG would like further clarification as to why the proposed Booster station is not being built on a brown field site? Whilst the cost of this may be greater for Orsted there would be significantly less impact on farmers and their agricultural businesses. 6. Construction and Funding 6.1 Orsted have stated that they will need at least 8 years to lay all the cables and that this would be carried out in two phases. Construction works of two phases of two and half years with a three year gap in between. If the project was constructed in one phase with high intensity it has been stated that it would be possible to do this with a minimum duration of three years. Two of the reasons given for a two phase programme are constraints in the supply chain and/or the timing of auctions for the Government’s Contract for Difference process which offshore wind farms currently rely on to secure a price for the electricity produced by a project. Therefore Orsted are indicating that they do not have the necessary funding to build the project at the present time in one phase. We have grave concerns that Orsted do not have the funding to deliver the second proposed phase of the project and so should not be applying for this phase of the project within this current DCO application. 6.2 The project involves laying 6 large cables over a width of 60 metres along some of the most productive Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification farmland in Norfolk. The cables will be buried so most farming operations can take place on top of them and we believe that this will be a minimum depth of 1.2m. 6.3 At the present time Orsted have not been able to confirm whether they will be ducting the cables and that their preference is to just lay the cables in open trenches. If the cables were in ducts this would enable Orsted to lay the ducts during the first phase for the whole project. 7. Cumulative Impact 7.1 Cumulative Affect Assessment has been addressed in the PEIR but the detail is exceedingly broad with no mention of the Vattenfall Boreas scheme only Norfolk Vanguard. These are two major schemes affecting landowners and occupiers in Norfolk which are programmed to be constructed at approximately the same time but one is running north to south (Hornsea 3) and the other east to west (Vattenfall) across the county, therefore greatly affecting the number of landowners affected and taking more land out of agricultural production than is necessary. 8. Jointing bays and Link Boxes 8.1 It is understood from other projects that ‘Jointing Bays’ should be all underground and will not interfere with agricultural operations. 8.2 It is understood that link boxes will be needed if the cables are HVAC cables and they are normally placed at least every 600 to 800 metres on a cable run near to the jointing bays. No clarification has been received on how many link boxes will be needed at the end of every run. Link boxes do stand proud above ground level and so greatly interfere with agricultural operations and are a hazard to farm machinery. It is extremely important to have further design information on link boxes and the siting of them. This includes any link boxes to be located in a cluster and how will they be marked/identified/fenced. The preference is that all link boxes are located within fence boundaries. 9. Field Drainage 9.1 Land drainage is one of the main issues which landowners and occupiers are concerned about on this scheme and some detail has been agreed in the heads of terms but it is not satisfactory. 9.2 To date insufficient detail has been received by LIG on behalf of their clients and members in regard to how reinstatement of field drainage will take place. 9.3 No information has been provided on how field drainage will be reinstated in the documents as part of the DCO application. As no draft Option and Lease has been made available it has not been possible to see whether drainage reinstatement is covered satisfactorily in the proposed option and lease. 10. Soils 10.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is one of the main issues of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. Again LIG does not know how soil reinstatement and aftercare will be dealt with in the Option and Lease. Furthermore no measures have been set out after soil has been reinstated. What measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place? An aftercare plan should be included in a code of construction. 11. Flood Issues 11.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 12. Dust/Irrigation 12.1 Clarification is needed on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on irrigation be minimised? 13. Access routes to the Order Limits 13.1 At the present time Orsted has provided no detail in regard to how it is proposing to gain access to the order limits. There is a question over whether access may be needed along private access roads and/or to create access. 14. Access to land and the Haul Road 14.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and occupiers are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Furthermore no detail has been provided on how the haul road may be constructed and if it is possible to use tracking for the haul road which can be laid on the surface of the land and taken up. No specific detail has been given on the time the haul road will be down for severing land. If it is down for the full construction period of 8 years this is unacceptable interference. 15. Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 15.1 The NFU and the Hornsea Three Agents known as LIG intends to lodge full Written Representations in due course and request to make oral representations at the compulsory acquisition hearing or any other hearings which may be held. 15.2 NFU and LIG represents approximately 50 members/clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. Louise Staples NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 20th July 2018. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HORNSEA PROJECT THREE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND LAND AGENTS (LIG). ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ NFU AGRICULTURE HOUSE STONELEIGH PARK STONELEIGH WARWICKSHIRE CV8 2TZ REF Louise Staples, MRICS, FAAV Rural Surveyor "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Highways England
"See attached document."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Shell U.K. Limited
"See attached document."