Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm

Received 16 June 2018
From Councillor Greg Peck (Reepham Division, Norfolk County Council)

Representation

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.