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 11 July 2018
From CPRE Norfolk

Representation

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.
attachment 1
attachment 1