Mona Offshore Wind Farm

Representations received regarding Mona Offshore Wind Farm

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

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC
"In capacity of agent for our clients (being in respect of Owners / Occupiers of land proposed to be affected by the intended scheme ) I anticipate the potential need to submit representations on ,for instance -: • The draft Development Consent Order • The Book of Reference • The Outline landscape & Ecology Management Plan • The Outline Construction Fencing Plan • Outline Soil Management Plan • The Tree & Hedgerow Plan • The Published Soils & Agricultural Land classification Date Technical Report • The Outline Biosecurity Protocol • Matters applying to construction /installation of cables and ancillary apparatus. • Mitigating damage and land reinstatement methodology ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Johnston
"Whilst I agree in principle for this, and the Awel Y Mor wind farm, my concern is the impact the construction and additional traffic in my area of [REDACTED] From the maps and documents I have seen posted along routes etc, it appears that the proximity to my property of this added traffic will come quite close. I would like to know what impact this will have on the local residents of [REDACTED] and nearby properties. [REDACTED] is a small village, which already has increasing traffic numbers to which this extra traffic will be a major cause of concern."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hefin Williams
"I am registering an interest as the cables are crossing my land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Johnston on behalf of Suzanne Johnston
"Whilst I agree in principle for this, and the Awel Y Mor wind farm, my concern is the impact the construction and additional traffic in my area of [REDACTED] From the maps and documents I have seen posted along routes etc, it appears that the proximity to my property of this added traffic will come quite close. I would like to know what impact this will have on the local residents of [REDACTED] and nearby properties. [REDACTED] is a small village, which already has increasing traffic numbers to which this extra traffic will be a major cause of concern."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tan-y-Mynydd Trout Fishery Limited
"The planned route for the underground onshore cables to the St Asaph substation is proposed to pass to the South of the fishery. The proposed route will cross the line of a natural spring and associated brook from which water is taken to supply the 5 lakes on the trout fishery. It is vital that the construction works to excavate the cable tenches and the subsequent infilled trenches do NOT interfere with the natural course of the water coming off Moelfre mountain that we rely upon for our supplies to the lakes. In the event that the line and or extent of water flowing down this water course is affected temporarily or worse still permanently that the viability and even existence of the trout fishery will be negatively impacted. We therefore request that suitable monitoring regimes (before work, during construction and long term post installation) be required of the project. In the event that the water course is negatively impacted by th project we require an assurance that suitable compensation arrangements (entirely at the cost of the project) will be put in place to make good any negative revenue and/or asset value implications."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond
"Dear Sir / Madam, We refer to the above application for development consent. 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 role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within its area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be registered as an interested party due to the impact the developments may have on navigation within Trinity House’s area of jurisdiction. Trinity House is likely to have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order(s) throughout the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [REDACTED] and to Mr Steve Vanstone at [REDACTED] Yours faithfully, Russell Dunham ACII Senior Advisor (Legal and Data Protection)"
Local Authorities
Llanddulas and Rhyd Y Foel Community Council
"Potential impact on local community"
Local Authorities
Prestatyn Town Council
"Representation of the views of and on behalf of Prestatyn Town Council and the public represented within Prestatyn."
Members of the Public/Businesses
NATS
"The proposed development has been examined by our technical safeguarding teams and conflicts with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects to the proposal. The reasons for NATS’s objection relate to the impact on the air traffic radars at Lowther, St Annes and Great Dun Fell"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Banfield
"This project crosses the sole access to our property. I am a hospital consultant and my wife is a GP, so we are liable to need to maintain 24/7 access to enable us to attend patients."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Wilson
"curious about the impact of this and other associated developments, individually and in the cumulative sense, in terms of the effect on pre-existing users of the same marine space, associated environmental values and other possible future uses. The areas described within this application and indeed already occupied by Offshore renewables within the Central Irish sea, are geographically very large / extensive, and will invariably have some adverse effect"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stena Line Ltd
"Stena line operates six passenger and freight RoRo vessels in this area on three separate routes. We have engaged with the developers of the project from the outset and have submitted a commentary on their PEIR, identifying what we consider to be increased navigational safety risks to our operation which is amplified by the fact that there is a potential for three other new offshore wind farms to be constructed right on the course lines of these strategic services. The route which is most affected is our Belfast to Liverpool service which is served by two passenger RoRo vessels, capable of carrying 1000 persons and one freight RoRo vessel. Each vessel potentially transiting twice per daily. We acknowledge that the developer has made some concessions to reduce the Red line boundary after cumulative simulation exercises which have resulted in risk reduction. While this is welcomed there is still a residual increased risk above the current situation which will fall to us as operators to continue to manage for the lifetime of the project. We have further expressed concerns in relation to the increased transit time for the three vessels and the effect this will have on not only our increased carbon emissions along with its associated carbon tax. This will additionally have an effect on our bunker consumption and turn-around times in port. We are happy to continue to explore this with the developer and Planning Inspectorate. Kind Regards Capt Michael Proctor DPA & CSO"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Jonathan F Dean
"I strongly support this application Wales can easily reach net zero from offshore wind alone and it is critical for the Welsh countryside that this project proceeds as quickly as practicable The more offshore wind we have the less onshore wind we need, so this project will actively help preserve Welsh landscapes for future generations"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Heneb: Clwyd-Powys Archaeology
"Heneb: Clwyd-Powys Archaeology are the organisation who cover the onshore aspects of the project from an archaeological point of view. We have been involved with the process as Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust up until the merger on April the 1st this year. We will make recommendations on the proposed onshore route and structures, liasing with the onsite contractors."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Griffiths
"To date I have not had opportunity to study the many volumes of documents associated with the Mona project. However I am personally mentioned (name and address) on pages 347 and 469 of the 649 page document D4/FO2 The Book of Reference April 2024. I therefore wish to register as an Interested Party Linda Griffiths"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Conway
"I oppose this plan in Benllech, an area of outstanding natural beauty as it will spoil the view and may also have a knock on effect on tourism bringing money into the area. It will also affect the natural habitat in the sea, counterproductive to any eco friendly benefits it purports to have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Conway
"I believe for an economy dependent upon the tourist industry, it would be a retrograde step in doing anything to effect the viability of the area. Therefore I oppose this application"
Other Statutory Consultees
Health and Safety Executive
"CEMHD5 Contribution to Consultation Will the proposed development fall within any of HSE’s consultation distances? With reference to the Redlined (Mona Onshore Order Limits MO_PRJ_BP_0162_Rev11) areas shown on drawings Location Plan(s) – Onshore Plan Sheets 0 – 11 (inclusive) found in document [MONA OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT, Location Plan, Document Number: MOCNS-J3303-RPS-10008, Document Reference: B1, APFP Regulations: 5(2)(i), February 2024, F01], there are a number of Major Accident Hazard Pipeline(s) and Major Hazard Installation(s): Major Accident Hazard Pipeline(s) Brookes Farm / Llanelian Road (HN009 Part 2a) [HSE Ref: 4130012, Ref: Transco 1895] - Wales and West Utilities Bodfari / Rhosgoch (VN082) [HSE Ref: 7610, Transco Ref: 1862] - Wales and West Utilities Pilkingtons Branch (HN017) [HSE Ref: 7646, Transco Ref: 1897] - Wales and West Utilities Major Hazard Installation(s) Glascoed Road, St Asaph, North Wales, LL17 0LL [HSE ref: H3668] There is currently insufficient information available for HSE to provide its’ public safety Land Use Planning Advice**. However, by way of general guidance, HSE would not advise against the proposed development providing no population(s), either temporary or permanent, is introduced within any of HSE’s public safety zones. ** HSE’s Land Use Planning Methodology [https://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/methodology.htm] Should a new Major Accident Hazard Pipeline be introduced, or existing Pipeline modified prior to the determination of the present application, the HSE reserves the right to revise its advice. If prior to the determination of the present application, a Hazardous Substances Consent be granted for a new Major Hazard Installation or a Hazardous Substances Consent is varied for an existing Major Hazard Installation in the vicinity of the proposed project, the HSE reserves the right to revise its advice. Would Hazardous Substances Consent be needed? The presence of hazardous substances on, over or under land at or above set threshold quantities (Controlled Quantities) may require Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC) under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 as amended. The substances, alone or when aggregated with others, for which HSC is required, and the associated Controlled Quantities, are set out in The Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Wales) Regulations 2015. Hazardous Substances Consent would be required if the site is intending to store or use any of the Named Hazardous Substances or Categories of Substances and Preparations at or above the controlled quantities set out in schedule 1 of these Regulations. Further information on HSC should be sought from the relevant Hazardous Substances Authority."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Traditional & Sustainable Commercial Fishing Association.
"We are The Traditional & Sustainable Commercial Fishing Association members. We fish up to twenty miles from any safe haven all along the north west England coast and North Wales coast. We have recently received a study from cefas regarding the migration route of Sea Bass, we are concerned the construction of the wind farms will disrupted the migration route of sea bass in the areas we fish. This information was never available in the constitution of earlier wind farms in the area and we need to address these concerns asap. Regards Kevin Mckie"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Menna Jones
"I sail this area regularily and will be commenting on how this will effect my enjoyment of my sport."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scottish Whitefish Producers Association Ltd
"Main representation is around the commercial fisheries within and around the array and along export cable routes. The Outline Fisheries Liaison and Coexistence Plan (FLCP) amongst other outline plans are of extreme importance to my members who I represent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
West Coast Sea Products Ltd
"Commerical fishing interest affected by the proposed project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Jennings Building & Civil Engineering Limited
"In capacity of agent for our client (being in respect of Owners / Occupiers of land proposed to be affected by the intended scheme ) I anticipate the potential need to submit representations on ,for instance -: • The draft Development Consent Order • The Book of Reference • The Outline landscape & Ecology Management Plan • The Outline Construction Fencing Plan • Outline Soil Management Plan • The Tree & Hedgerow Plan • The Published Soils & Agricultural Land classification Date Technical Report • The Outline Biosecurity Protocol • Matters applying to construction /installation of cables and ancillary apparatus. • Mitigating damage and land reinstatement methodology ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Rowlings
"Commercial fisherman wanting to know what where and when parts in the local fishing grounds will be affected if any compensation is being allowed incase of lack of fishing whilst farm being made and is there any proof no damages will occur to the commercial cockle and mussel beds what are in the Morecambe bay through to the Liverpool bay"
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr AEM Owen & A Owen Cyf
"In capacity of agent for our client (being in respect of Owners / Occupiers of land proposed to be affected by the intended scheme ) I anticipate the potential need to submit representations on ,for instance -: • The draft Development Consent Order • The Book of Reference • The Outline landscape & Ecology Management Plan • The Outline Construction Fencing Plan • Outline Soil Management Plan • The Tree & Hedgerow Plan • The Published Soils & Agricultural Land classification Date Technical Report • The Outline Biosecurity Protocol • Matters applying to construction /installation of cables and ancillary apparatus. • Mitigating damage and land reinstatement methodology ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr EW Roberts
"In capacity of agent for our client (being in respect of Owners / Occupiers of land proposed to be affected by the intended scheme ) I anticipate the potential need to submit representations on ,for instance -: • The draft Development Consent Order • The Book of Reference • The Outline landscape & Ecology Management Plan • The Outline Construction Fencing Plan • Outline Soil Management Plan • The Tree & Hedgerow Plan • The Published Soils & Agricultural Land classification Date Technical Report • The Outline Biosecurity Protocol • Matters applying to construction /installation of cables and ancillary apparatus. • Mitigating damage and land reinstatement methodology ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr G & Mrs M Williams
"In capacity of agent for our client (being in respect of Owners / Occupiers of land proposed to be affected by the intended scheme ) I anticipate the potential need to submit representations on ,for instance -: • The draft Development Consent Order • The Book of Reference • The Outline landscape & Ecology Management Plan • The Outline Construction Fencing Plan • Outline Soil Management Plan • The Tree & Hedgerow Plan • The Published Soils & Agricultural Land classification Date Technical Report • The Outline Biosecurity Protocol • Matters applying to construction /installation of cables and ancillary apparatus. • Mitigating damage and land reinstatement methodology ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr H & Mrs C Lloyd
"In capacity of agent for our client (being in respect of Owners / Occupiers of land proposed to be affected by the intended scheme ) I anticipate the potential need to submit representations on ,for instance -: • The draft Development Consent Order • The Book of Reference • The Outline landscape & Ecology Management Plan • The Outline Construction Fencing Plan • Outline Soil Management Plan • The Tree & Hedgerow Plan • The Published Soils & Agricultural Land classification Date Technical Report • The Outline Biosecurity Protocol • Matters applying to construction /installation of cables and ancillary apparatus. • Mitigating damage and land reinstatement methodology ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr RW Roberts
"In capacity of agent for our client (being in respect of Owners / Occupiers of land proposed to be affected by the intended scheme ) I anticipate the potential need to submit representations on ,for instance -: • The draft Development Consent Order • The Book of Reference • The Outline landscape & Ecology Management Plan • The Outline Construction Fencing Plan • Outline Soil Management Plan • The Tree & Hedgerow Plan • The Published Soils & Agricultural Land classification Date Technical Report • The Outline Biosecurity Protocol • Matters applying to construction /installation of cables and ancillary apparatus. • Mitigating damage and land reinstatement methodology ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Salt
"I am a neighbour to the project pathway and want to be kept updated on its progress"
Members of the Public/Businesses
ANIFPO
"I wish to be kept inform of developments as a representative of the Northern Irish fishing fleet. We as an industry are under continually spacial squeeze which is compounded by Windfarm developments , therefore I feel it is essential that we as an industry have a representation ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GTC
"Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your email and letter you sent to GTC Pipelines Ltd. Please take this as confirmation that GTC has no existing apparatus within the order limits or planned work areas of this scheme and therefore no objections to scheme. If you require any further information or have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us."
Members of the Public/Businesses
McMahon Design and Management Ltd
"Views on the interaction of the proposed development with existing, planned and future submarine fibre optic cable infrastructure - from co-location, crossings, proximity, operation and maintenance and repair of infrastructure in the future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation
"Since 2017 I have managed fishing gear technology projects on behalf of both NI fish producer organisations. I work with members of both POs who operate out of the 3 main commercial fishing harbours situated on the County Down coast, Portavogie, Ardglass & Kilkeel. As a fisheries scientist employed by the NI fishing industry I provide managers and operators with technical and scientific support on a range of relevant matters. My representation as part of this process will cover the provision of information on fishing activities relevant to the development in addition to scientific input on the implications of the Mona offshore windfarm site in relation to commercial species, habitats and general fishing operations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Revd Canon Brian Mayne
"The process hitherto has been heavily loaded against local residents who are materially affected by the proposals, and insufficient weight given to viable alternatives. I believe that the proposed scheme is being put forward simply on cost grounds and convenience with little or no detailed analysis of the massive and long term environmental destruction the scheme involves."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Virgin Media O2
"Virgin Media owns and operates a subsea telecommunications cable that traverses the Mona development site. Due regard must be given to this cable during construction. There must be no impacts from the construction and operation of this development that will hinder the future operation and maintenance of this cable. Guidance issued by the European Subsea Cables Association must be adhered to."
Members of the Public/Businesses
CLdN RoRo Ltd
"Safety of navigation by the introduction of a narrow navigable corridor creating traffic conflicts. Potential increased response time to a marine casualty. The Crown Estate award process. Restricted weather routeing options for company vessels."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lloyd Roberts
"I am registering my interest in the porject as I am a land owner that the proposed route is taking"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Hussey
"Outline of Principal Submissions relating to application reference number EN10137 I intend to raise via written representations and if appropriate oral representations concerns about this scheme in relation to the following points:- Site Selection • Suitability • Scale • Environmental and Community Impacts • Change in Character Personal Impact • Visual • Noise • Quality of Life • Nuisance • Health and Wellbeing • Change in Behaviour • Privacy • Vibration • EMF’s • Open Space • Leisure and Play • Light Pollution Cumulative Impacts • National Grid and Awel y M?r • Mares Interconnector Traffic • HGV impacts Ffordd William Morgan and Glascoed Road • Cumulative impacts I also wish to extend and would very much welcome a visit by the inspectors to my property as part of the examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martyn Hussey
"Outline of Principal Submissions relating to application reference number EN10137 I intend to raise via written representations and if appropriate oral representations concerns about this scheme in relation to the following points:- Site Selection • Suitability • Scale • Environmental and Community Impacts • Change in Character Personal Impact • Visual • Noise • Quality of Life • Nuisance • Health and Wellbeing • Change in Behaviour • Privacy • Vibration • EMF’s • Open Space • Leisure and Play • Light Pollution Cumulative Impacts • National Grid and Awel y M?r • Mares Interconnector • Lightsource BP Traffic • HGV impacts Ffordd William Morgan and Glascoed Road • Cumulative impacts National Policies Whilst indicating that reference to National Policies should not be made, I feel this is discriminatory given that the applicant refers on numerous occasions to National Policy statements throughout their supporting documentation. I therefore would also like to make reference to the following policies. ? National Policy Statement for Energy ? National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructures EN-3 ? Offshore Transmission Network Review and its 3 Work Streams ? HND Pathway to 2030 ? Welsh Rural Economic Policy ? Planning Policy Wales Finally, I wish to extend and would very much welcome a visit by the inspectors to my property as part of the examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Williams
"I understand the planning application identifies a piece of our land as the proposed route for the cable to run and as such I want to be made aware of all future correspondence and likely impacts"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation
"I represent the significant proportions of the commercial fishing industry in Northern Ireland and West coast of England"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"MCA will be responding to the ExA on matters concerning the safety of maritime navigation and maritime Search and Rescue. MCA will provide comments on the Navigation Risk Assessment, Shipping & Navigation chapter of the EIA Report, and the content of the DCO and DML. The main issues for MCA are concerning vessel routeing, vessels' ability for continued safe passage, that risks to all vessels and craft are at an acceptable level, and the project is not at the detriment to the provision of Search and Rescue, and other emergency response."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Blackpool Airport
"Protecting safe operation of aircraft in and around Blackpool Airport, and the impact of the works on the operation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Public Health Wales
"As the national public health agency of Wales, Public Health Wales (PHW) would like to register as an interested party for this consultation. PHW wishes to have the opportunity to have sight of and be included in correspondence of further documentation submitted by the applicant and to comment on any potential impacts on public health."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Llywodraeth Cymru/ Welsh Government
"Welsh Government representation will be made to support its policies."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sea Watch Foundation
"I am the lead author on the Atlas of distributions and abundance of cetaceans and seabirds of Wales and surrounding waters, published in 2023 on behalf of Natural Resources Wales, and have provided advice including impact assessments to statutory agencies on several proposals for offshore renewable energy in the UK. We are currently undertaking monthly surveys of marine mammals and birds for the Morlais tidal turbine demonstration zone off NW Anglesey, and cetaceans surveys in north Anglesey and off the North Wales mainland coast, for bottlenose dolphins. With this interest, we would like to contribute advice on sites of importance for cetacean and seabird species, and potential impacts on particular species as well as to recommend mitigation measures where appropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Royal Commission Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales
"The RCAHMW is a statutory consultee for marine licensing in Wales, and as such has an interest and role to play in the PINS process and associated Welsh Marine License. We have been consulted on the MONA project from its inception and are happy to say that our views have been noted on and acted on with regard to potential impact of the project on marine archaeology. As such, we are content that the ES and supporting technical documentation is suitable to take forward, and would note that it represents an enhancement of our knowledge of a number of marine archaeological sites in the offshore zone of the scheme. We also note the commitment by the project to archive archaeologically relevant data within the National Monuments Record of Wales, to ensure future site monitoring can always be conducted. We would note, that the ES makes reference to a draft WSI and PAD as being appended to the Offshore Archaeology Technical Report, but we could not locate either of these two documents. They will be needed for the marine license phase of the scheme."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) (Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF))
"Representing Scottish Fishermen's Federation on Commercial Fisheries, Fisheries Liaison and Co-existence Plan (FLCP)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Conwy County Borough Council
"Conwy County Borough Council raised concerns in respect of the Section 42 consultation relating to the following matters: i) the need for that further refinement of the working corridor that was identified in the PEIR is very broad and to identify constraints and assess the impacts of the proposal. ii) the submission of a Traffic Management Plan for Abnormal Indivisible Loads. iii) the need for highway authority consent in respect of signage and for works to apparatus in the highway. iv) the need for consultation with the owners of the bridges over the A55 and railway. v) the need for further assessment of private water supplies. vi) the need for mitigation measures for noise, dust and vibration and for further noise monitoring. vii) works along the cable corridor should be confined to 0800 - 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 - 1300 Saturday. viii) the need for a BS5387 survey for trees and woodlands and for tree/woodland management plans. ix) Further assessment needed on impact on Kinmel Park Registered Historic Park and Garden. x) Concerns that landfall works could affect the stability of the landfill site at Llanddulas Beach. xi) Concerns of impacts on Traeth Pensarn SSSI. xii) Need for assessment of potential impacts of heat radiation on human and animal health."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"MOD comments as submitted by email at 10.57am on 2nd May 2024. The development proposed has the potential to impact on the operation and capability of MOD safeguarded sites and assets."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Design Commission for Wales
"The Design Commission for Wales wish to submit the report from the Design Review we held for the Mona Offshore Wind Farm project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"APPLICATION BY ASSOCIATED BRITSH PORTS LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE MONA OFFSHORE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER Planning Inspectorate Reference Number: EN010137 Section 56 Planning Act 2008: Relevant Representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited This is the section 56 representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) provided in respect of Mona Offshore Wind Limited's (Applicant's) application for a Development Consent Order (Order) to authorise the construction, maintenance and operation of an offshore wind generating station in the Irish Sea off the coast of North Wales with an electrical output capacity of over 350 MW (Scheme). Network Rail is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the majority of the rail infrastructure of Great Britain. The Book of Reference (BoR) identifies 8 plots identifiable on Sheets 1 and 2 of the Land Plans as land that Network Rail owns or has an interest in. The compulsory acquisition powers sought in relation to 6 plots are described in the BoR as being temporary possession. The compulsory acquisition powers sought in relation to 2 plots are described in the BoR as being the permanent acquisition of rights (Compulsory Powers). Network Rail notes that the Compulsory Powers are sought in relation to operational railway land forming part of the operational railway north of the A55, Abergale (being the North Wales Coast Line (Railway Line)). The Applicant proposes to access land owned by Network Rail during construction of the Scheme and carry out the installation of cable circuits beneath the Railway Line. Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Plots in the Order. The Plot constitutes land acquired by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 56 and sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. Network Rail also objects to all other compulsory powers in the Order to the extent that they affect, and may be exercised in relation to, Network Rail's property and interests. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection Network Rail requires: (a) agreements with the Applicant that regulate: (i) the manner in which rights over the Plots and any other railway property are acquired and the relevant works are carried out including terms which protect Network Rail's statutory undertaking and agreement that compulsory acquisition powers will not be exercised in relation to such land; and (ii) the carrying out of works in the vicinity of the operational railway network to safeguard Network Rail's statutory undertaking; (b) the inclusion of protective provisions in the DCO for its benefit. Network Rail welcomes the fact that there are protective provisions for its benefit in the Order and, if necessary, will provide detailed comments on, and amendments to, the protective provisions when it submits its detailed Written Representation. To safeguard Network Rail's interests and the safety and integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Compulsory Powers and any other powers affecting Network Rail in the Order. Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Crown Estate
"The Crown Estate requests to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Mona Offshore Wind Farm. Our interest in the project is that Mona Offshore Wind Limited holds an Agreement for Lease from The Crown Estate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited
"Relevant Representation by Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited 1. Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited is the developer of the Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm project (AyM). AyM was consented by way of a development consent order made by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on 19 September 2023, pursuant to which Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited is the undertaker with powers to construct and operate AyM. 2. Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited is also the holder of an electricity generation licence granted by Ofgem on 28 January 2021. 3. The proposed onshore Order limits for the Mona Offshore Wind project (MOWP) overlap significantly with the Order limits for AyM in the vicinity of the proposed connection points for both projects to the National Grid substation at Bodelwyddan, as described in more detail below. 4. The proposed offshore export cable corridor for MOWP also crosses the area over which AyM holds an agreement for lease from The Crown Estate. 5. The MOWP proposals will also have other interactions with AyM offshore, including potential construction and operational-related interfaces and impacts. 6. This relevant representation outlines the main issues which Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited identifies are required to be considered as part of the examination of the MOWP proposals in relation to the overlap between the projects, and the measures which are required to ensure that the delivery of AyM is not impaired by the MOWP proposals. 7. The proposed MOWP Work Nos. 25 and 26, shown on the Works Plan – Onshore (examination library reference: APP-008) and described in the MOWP draft development consent order (DCO) (examination library reference: APP-023) overlap with Work Nos. 36, 39, 39A and 40 as authorised by The Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Order. In addition, MOWP Work Nos. 30 and 38 (permanent access) overlap with Work Nos. 39 and 41 of the AyM consent. 8. Proposed MOWP Work No. 25 includes the installation of cables and a temporary construction compound (TCC). As was highlighted in Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited's statutory consultation response on the MOWP proposals dated 26th May 2023, any proposals to locate a TCC or cables within the AyM DCO boundary and/or above the installed 400kV cable of AyM require further detailed consideration. In particular, Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited would seek assurance from MOWP that both parties will look to avoid crossing each other’s cables. 9. The MOWP draft development consent order would also confer powers of compulsory acquisition and temporary possession over these areas and Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited would object to the grant of those powers without appropriate protections for AyM. 10. In the light of these interactions, it will be necessary for the development consent order for MOWF to include protective provisions for the benefit of AyM. Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited is discussing these matters with MOWP and will continue dialogue with MOWP to ensure that the MOWP proposals do not adversely affect AyM. 11. Awel y Môr Offshore Wind Farm Limited therefore wishes to register as an Interested Party for the examination of MOWP and would be happy to participate further in the examination to assist the Examining Authority in understanding the interaction between the AyM and MOWP projects and the necessary protections required for AyM."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales
"Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales’s Relevant Representation regarding the Mona offshore windfarm application details advice on the following matters: • Offshore receptors • Onshore receptors • NRW’s Regulation and Permitting Service: Marine Licensing All matters are detailed in full within our supporting document sent under separate cover by email to the Mona Offshore Wind Planning Inspectorate inbox as directed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Cyngor Sir Ynys Mon
"Mae Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn (y Cyngor) yn cadarnhau ei fod yn dymuno cael ei adnabod fel Parti â Buddiant i gymryd rhan yn yr archwiliad o gais Fferm Wynt ar y Môr Mona am Orchymyn Caniatâd Datblygu (GCD). Mae'r gynrychiolaeth hon yn rhoi trosolwg o'r materion allweddol sydd o ddiddordeb i'r Cyngor mewn perthynas â'r prosiect arfaethedig ac yn rhoi amlinelliad cychwynnol o'n sefyllfa bresennol mewn perthynas â'r materion o ddiddordeb. - Morlun, Tirwedd ac Effeithiau Gweledol Ar ôl adolygu'r Datganiad Amgylcheddol (ES), mae'r Cyngor yn cadarnhau ei fod yn fodlon gyda'r asesiad o'r effaith ar y Dirwedd a derbynyddion Gweledol mewn perthynas â'r effaith bosibl ar Ardal o Harddwch Naturiol Eithriadol (AHNE) Ynys Môn a Llwybr Arfordir Cymru. Mae'r Cyngor yn cadarnhau ei fod hefyd yn fodlon bod yr effeithiau posibl wedi'u lliniaru cyn belled ag y bo modd i fynd i'r afael a’r effeithiau a ragwelir ar gyfer y prosiect, gan gynnwys effeithiau cronnol. - Cyfleoedd a buddion economaidd-gymdeithasol Mae'r DA yn cadarnhau bod gan y prosiect y potensial i ysgogi effeithiau economaidd buddiol i Ogledd Cymru trwy greu swyddi a chyfleoedd yn y gadwyn gyflenwi. Trwy gydol ei ymgysylltiad cyn ymgeisio â'r ymgeisydd, mae'r Cyngor wedi cadarnhau'r angen i'r cais am GCD i adnabod chadarnhau sut y bydd y prosiect yn sicrhau y mwyaf o gyfleoedd swyddi, sgiliau a chadwyn gyflenwi lleol a rhanbarthol. Mae trafodaethau wedi tanlinellu pwysigrwydd ymgysylltu'n gynnar ac yn rhagweithiol â rhanddeiliaid allweddol, gan gynnwys darparwyr addysg uwch a'r gadwyn gyflenwi leol a rhanbarthol i ddiffinio anghenion sgiliau a chadwyn gyflenwi y prosiect ac i fod yn rhagweithiol er mwyn sicrhau aliniad a fod cyfleoedd yn cael eu manteisio arnynt er mwyn sicrhau'r manteision economaidd-gymdeithasol mwyaf. Mae'r Cyngor yn croesawu fod Cynllun Sgiliau a Chyflogaeth Amlinellol wedi ei gyflwyno fel rhan o'r cais GCD sy'n amlinellu'r dull arfaethedig o weithio gyda rhanddeiliaid lleol a rhanbarthol i wneud y mwyaf o'r cyfleoedd sy'n gysylltiedig â'r prosiect. Mae'r Cyngor hefyd yn croesawu'r gofyniad (gofyniad 19 o'r GCD drafft) sy'n gofyn am gymeradwyo Cynllun Sgiliau a Chyflogaeth manwl terfynol. Mae'r Cyngor yn bwriadu rhoi sylwadau ar y Cynllun Sgiliau a Chyflogaeth Amlinellol yn uniongyrchol i'r ymgeisydd a bydd yn diweddaru'r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio ar yr adeg briodol mewn perthynas â'i safbwynt ynghylch y Cynllun. Croesawir bod Porthladd Caergybi wedi'i gynnwys ar y rhestr hir o borthladdoedd posibl ar gyfer y camau adeiladu/datgomisiynu a gweithredu a chynnal a chadw. Mae'r Cyngor yn argymell bod ymgysylltu yn parhau gyda’r gweithredwr Porthladd i ganfod sut y gall y Porthladd gefnogi datblygu a chyflawni’r prosiect, a fydd yn ei dro yn sicrhau manteision lleol ychwanegol ac ystyrlon. Mae Cais Porthladd Rhydd ar y cyd rhwng y Cyngor a Stena Line wedi bod yn llwyddiannus yn ddiweddar. Mae'r Cyngor yn hyderus y bydd statws Porthladd , trwy ei hwylustod economaidd a'i hawddfreintiau rheoleiddio disgwyliedig, yn creu amgylchedd busnes sy'n apelio i fuddsoddwyr a busnesau posibl yn y sector ynni. Mae'r Cyngor yn cadarnhau ei fod yn dymuno parhau i ymgysylltu â'r ymgeisydd i nodi sut y gall Porthladd Rhydd Ynys Môn fod o fudd i'r prosiect a sicrhau manteision economaidd-gymdeithasol hirdymor a gwerth chweil i'r Ynys a rhanbarth ehangach Gogledd Cymru."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Territorial Sea Committee (Department of Infrastructure) (Territorial Sea Committee (Department of Infrastructure)) on behalf of Emily Curphey, Chair, Territorial Sea Committee, Isle of Man
"The following comments are made on behalf of the Isle of Man Territorial Seas Committee: Benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology - Crogga and the Mooir Vannin windfarm developments occur within Manx territorial waters, but only Crogga appears to be identified as such. Acknowledging they’re Tier 1 and Tier 2, both operating under Manx jurisdiction should be specifically noted. Offshore ornithology - Welcome applicant’s decision to increase the air draught below the turbines. Note that the great black backed gull is an Isle of Man red list Bird of Conservation Concern, with a decline in the breeding population. While it’s (low) risk in general in the region, it may mask Isle of Man specific impacts. Commercial fisheries - Queries over “this receptor group almost exclusively operates out of ICES Rectangle 36E5” - is not accurate as these vessels also operate within the ICES 37 rectangles, but excluded from the study area. The statement of exclusive operation within ICES 36 rectangles is also used elsewhere (e.g. 6.8.6.13) and may be similarly inaccurate. Shipping and navigation - Reiterate previous statements in respect of the importance of the Island’s lifeline shipping services and their preservation; avoidance of adverse impacts, including timing, frequency and reliability. Continued consideration of cumulative impacts and the interaction with the forthcoming Mooir Vannin is requested alongside other Round 4 projects. Continued direct engagement with the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company is essential. Transboundary Impacts Screening - Appears a contradiction in respect of Manx commercial fisheries (Table 1.1). Commercial fisheries should be scoped in transboundary assessment, recognised in 1.6.1.2 and 1.9.1.1. Commercial Fisheries Technical Report - Request the following: - The Fish and Shellfish ecology study area is significantly greater than the Commercial Fisheries study area. We previously requested expansion of the benthic, fish and shellfish and commercial fisheries study areas to better reflect ecological, jurisdictional or commercial boundaries. Accepted for the former two receptors but not the latter. - Correction to Figure 1.36 (queen scallop), since if this is not accurately scoped then the potential displacement effects on commercial fisheries will also not be adequately scoped. More information can be provided. - Previously requested vessels <15m be included within the dataset; this has not been updated. Unclear how a reasonable assessment of displacement or other impact effects can be estimated. - Queries over queen scallop fishing grounds and treatment of king and queen scallop grounds. Clarification can be provided. - It is still not apparent that adequate inclusion of the Bangor University scallop survey data has been undertaken. Fish and Shellfish Ecology Technical Report - Queries over king and queen scallop data sets. Clarification can be provided. Seascape Visualisations - Previously expressed concerns withdrawn provided the installed wind turbines are of the height shown in the visualisations. However, were there a change to larger turbines, then this would represent a cause for concern, particularly considering cumulative visual impact resulting from other developments. Aviation - Request continued engagement to ensure that any offshore wind farms does not compromise the safety of the Island’s air travel."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eni UK
"Eni UK Limited (Eni UK) wishes to be registered as an interested party in the examination. Eni UK’s Liverpool Bay Development comprises oil and gas fields located in the Eastern Irish Sea, including infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed Mona Wind Project. The Liverpool Bay oil and gas fields are approaching the end of their productive lives, following which Eni UK plans to reutilize three of the depleted gas fields as CO2 storage reservoirs, as part of the proposed HyNet North West Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) development. Simultaneously Eni UK plans to decommission all of the existing oil and gas infrastructure not required for the Hynet CCS development. Eni UK and the Applicant’s project activities will therefore be ongoing simultaneously in the Eastern Irish Sea, which forms the basis of Eni UK’s interested party registration. In this context, we have identified a range of issues which need further consideration as part of the application. These matters include (inter alia): 1. Timing and the potential for simultaneous operations to occur (SIMOPS) a. Cumulative impact of the Applicant’s proposed development and Eni’s activities ongoing simultaneously, potentially in close proximity, in the Eastern Irish Sea. b. Demand on local marine resources created by the Applicant’s proposed development. c. Potential synergies between Eni UK and the Applicant’s activities. d. A commitment by both parties to keep each other informed regarding project status. 2. Proximity of the Applicant’s proposed development to Eni UK’s infrastructure, including in particular the Conwy installation. An example is cable routing included in the Applicant’s proposed development. 3. The potential for overlap or interference in logistics activities, including: a. Diving activities b. Vessel traffic c. Survey activities d. Aviation 4. Stakeholder interests Eni UK looks forward to engaging constructively with the Applicant in relation to these and any other issues what may be identified during the application process. In the meantime, should the Examining Authority require any additional information from Eni UK, please contact myself at [email protected]. Yours faithfully Cath Jones"
Members of the Public/Businesses
McMahon Design & Management Ltd. on behalf of euNetworks
"We are writing on behalf of euNetworks Ltd. in our role as technical advisors and with responsibilities for operations and maintenance on their Rockabill telecoms cable system. We note that the Rockabill cable has been identified within the Mona study area but we have concerns about the potential impacts of the Mona project on the Rockabill cable and specifically with regard to the proximity of wind turbines and potential crossings by inter-array cables. We are in discussions with Mona on these issue but would also like to register as an interested party and be kept up to date on progress. Thanks and regards, Rory Ryan"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
"JNCC would like to register as an interested party for the Mona Offshore Wind Farm DCO application/examination. JNCC are statutory advisors to the UK Government and devolved administrations on issues relating to nature conservation in UK offshore waters (beyond the territorial limit). Our key areas of interest are birds, marine mammals and benthic receptors, as well as Marine Protected Areas, which may be impacted by the Mona Offshore Wind Project. Below we include our advice in relation to the above project, which we will separately submit to [email protected]. Mona Offshore Wind Project Development Consent Order Application – Environmental Statement and Management Plans – EN010137 Thank you for consulting JNCC on the Mona Offshore Wind Project Development Consent Order (DCO) Application including the Environmental Statement (ES) and Management Plans. Notification of acceptance for examination by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero was received on 2 April 2024. The advice contained within this minute is provided by JNCC as part of our statutory advisory role to the UK Government and devolved administrations on issues relating to nature conservation in UK offshore waters (beyond the territorial limit). We have subsequently concentrated our comments on aspects of the documents that we believe relate to offshore waters and defer to comments provided by Natural Resources Wales Advisory (NRW-A) for aspects relating to inshore waters. The advice below relates to marine ornithology, marine mammals, and offshore benthic ecology and is captured under the following headings: ? Overarching comments on the Environmental Statement ? Marine ornithology comments ? Marine mammal comments ? Benthic ecology (offshore) Overarching comments on the Environmental Statement The following documents were reviewed in providing this response: Environmental Statement: ? Volume 1, Chapter 3: Project Description ? Volume 1, Chapter 5: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology ? Volume 2, Chapter 1: Physical Processes ? Volume 2, Chapter 2: Benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology ? Volume 2, Chapter 4: Marine mammals ? Volume 2, Chapter 5: Offshore ornithology ? Volume 2, Chapter 11: Inter-related Effects – Offshore ? Volume 5, Annex 3.1: Underwater sound technical report ? Volume 5, Annex 5.1: Cumulative effects screening matrix ? Volume 5, Annex 5.2: Transboundary impacts screening. ? Volume 6, Annex 1.1: Physical Processes Technical Report ? Volume 6, Annex 2.1: Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Technical Report ? Volume 6, Annex 4.1: Marine mammal technical report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.1: Offshore ornithology baseline characterisation report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.2: Offshore ornithology displacement technical report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.3: Offshore ornithology collision risk technical report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.5: Offshore ornithology apportioning technical report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.6: Offshore ornithology population viability analysis technical report ? Volume 8, Annex 2.2: Climate change risk assessment Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA): ? Stage 1 Screening report ? Stage 2 Information to support an Appropriate Assessment ? Part 1, Introduction and background ? Part 2, Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) assessments ? Part 3, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites Assessments ? HRA integrity matrices ? Marine Conservation Zone Screening Report Offshore Plans: ? Mitigation and monitoring schedule ? Outline underwater sound management strategy ? Outline offshore operations and maintenance plan ? Measures to minimise disturbance to marine mammals and rafting birds from transiting vessels ? Outline marine mammal mitigation protocol ? Offshore In-Principle Monitoring Plan ? Mona Array Area – Site Characterisation Report ? Offshore Cable Corridor Site Characterisation Report Throughout the Environmental Statement and DCO documentation there is little distinction between inshore and offshore, distinguished by the 12nm/territorial waters limit. Given the remit of Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) is divided based on this factor it would be helpful to have impacts broken down into these remits. In particular, it would have been useful to have this delineation identified on all the maps provided. Marine ornithology comments The following documents were reviewed in providing this response: Environmental Statement: ? Volume 2, Chapter 5: Offshore ornithology ? Volume 6, Annex 5.1: Offshore ornithology baseline characterisation report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.2: Offshore ornithology displacement technical report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.3: Offshore ornithology collision risk technical report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.5: Offshore ornithology apportioning technical report ? Volume 6, Annex 5.6: Offshore ornithology population viability analysis technical report HRA: ? Stage 1 Screening report ? Stage 2 Information to support an Appropriate Assessment ? Part 3, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites Assessments ? HRA integrity matrices Overall comments We disagree with several elements of the assessment to offshore ornithology within the ES and the HRA. In addition, there are multiple errors within the tables and text, and errors when using values in subsequent stages of the assessment. Many aspects of the assessment are difficult to follow what has been done or where values have come from. Due to these disagreements, errors, and lack of clarity, we do not have confidence in the results, nor are we able to agree with the overall conclusions, either within the EIA or the HRA, particularly with regards to Skomer, Skokholm and the Seas off Pembrokeshire/Sgomer, Sgogwm a Moroedd Penfro Special Protected Area (SPA). Aspects of JNCC advice appear to have been misinterpreted, for instance foraging values and agreements and disagreements on breeding Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) reference populations. Some aspects of JNCC advice also appear to have been taken on board in some circumstances, then not taken on board in other circumstances, despite being agreed to during pre-application meetings and correspondence. For instance, using a range of displacement rates in the ES, but specific displacement rates being used in the HRA. We advise that the below disagreements, errors, and unclear aspects are addressed through submission of revised documents related to offshore ornithology. We have identified errors to the best of our ability with the time available, but this may not be an exhaustive list of all errors, and we recommend that a full and thorough check of all tables and in-text values is conducted. JNCC can only comment on sites for which we have jurisdiction (UK marine sites wholly or partly in waters beyond 12nm). We note that NRW and Natural England (NE) have been involved in pre-application discussions and defer to those agencies on their respective sites. We also note that a number of SPAs in Irish and Scottish waters are screened in at Likely Significant Effect (LSE), and recommend consultation with the relevant nature conservation advisers. Volume 2, Chapter 5: Offshore ornithology We disagree with the use of the term ‘JNCC avoidance rates’, or similar, to describe the Ozsanlav-Harris report. Although Ozsanlav-Harris et al. (2023) is a JNCC report, it does not in itself constitute our recommended avoidance rates. Referring to it as ‘JNCC avoidance rates’ incorrectly gives the message that JNCC advise use of every number in the report as it appears, which is not necessarily the case. Our advice on implementation of the results of Ozsanlav-Harris et al. (2023) is included in the joint SNCB guidance note on Collision Risk Modelling (CRM). This uses the rates from Ozsanlav-Harris et al. (2023), but species grouping is an important aspect of this. This information is contained within advice which Natural England provided on 7 July 2022 directly to the Applicant and is also used. Those rates should be regarded as and named joint SNCB avoidance rates, whilst the Ozsanlav-Harris et al. (2023) should be named as Ozsanlav-Harris et al. (2023) rates. This has been iterated to Mona Offshore Wind during the Expert Working Group (EWG) several times, for example during the 6th Ornithology EWG held on 19 October 2023, and within JNCC comments provided on 23 November 2023 on the minutes of the 6th Ornithology EWG. The applicant’s response to JNCC comments on the minutes of the 6th Ornithology EWG meeting state “Applicant response: Thank you – we have updated the reference throughout our documents” yet clearly this is not the case. This comment also applies to the HRA Integrity Matrices document and Volume 6, Annex 5.5: Offshore ornithology apportioning technical report. Table 5.13 and Table 5.14: Seasonal definitions differ across tables and documents, so it is not clear which is being used in each circumstance it is used. Sections 5.3.9.10 to 5.3.9.12: We maintain our disagreement over the breeding season BDMPS reference population used for the alone assessment as has previously been advised. In the offshore ornithology EWG07 meeting, we agreed to disagree on EIA breeding reference population "RB - We will need to “agree to disagree” on other species but for gannet and Manx shearwater the lower number should be used", the lower value meaning whichever is lower between the SNCB approach and the applicant's proposed approach. Our agreement log maintains our disagreement with the proposed approach. The Applicant states in Section 5.3.9.12 of Volume 2, Chapter 5: Offshore ornithology that "During the seventh EWG meeting (held 8 December 2023), it was agreed that for the project alone assessment, foraging range populations could be used, however if the foraging range population is greater than the regional seas populations (BDMPS from Furness, 2015) then impacts would also be assessed against this population." This doesn't quite reflect the discussion or minutes of the EWG07 meeting. Our advised approach remains to consider breeding adult birds at colonies within the relevant BDMPS in which the project is located, plus the immatures associated with those colonies. Data should come from the tables in Appendix A of Furness (2015) for both breeding adults and immatures. Table 5.22: We welcome the seasonal restriction on installation of offshore cables throughout the wintering period for works inside the Liverpool Bay SPA, and that this will be secured through DCO requirement. However, it is unclear whether this includes a buffer around the SPA. Disturbance from vessels have been demonstrated for a number of species, and the zone of influence of this type of disturbance has been shown to extend to 2km for red-throated diver and 2.5km for common scoter. JNCC would recommend that the exclusion of operating within the Liverpool Bay SPA during the period stated is extended to within 2.5km of the SPA boundary. Table 5.25: The incorrect Mean Seasonal Peak abundance appears to have been calculated for Atlantic puffin in the non-breeding season. Comparing Volume 6, Annex 5.1: Offshore Ornithology Baseline Characterisation Technical Report, Volume 6, Annex 5.2: Offshore Ornithology Displacement Technical Report, and Volume 2, Chapter 5: Offshore ornithology, suggests that the Mean Seasonal Peak was 22 for Atlantic puffin during the non-breeding season. Therefore, the predicted displacement mortalities during both the non-breeding season and annually may be incorrect. This may then have implications for the subsequent assessment, such as the need for apportioning of impacts, and LSE screening. We recommend a thorough review of the Mean Seasonal Peak calculation and the need for any subsequent assessment. Sections 5.7.2.105 to 5.7.2.106: We note the lack of Population Viability Analysis (PVA) for common guillemot against the reference population relevant to the 1% baseline mortality trigger prompting the need for a PVA within the ES. It is acknowledged that during the breeding season the worst-case scenario of 70% displacement and 10% mortality, an increase in baseline mortality greater than 1% is predicted for common guillemot. It is then stated that PVAs have been carried out on two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) breeding colonies. It is not clear why impacts have been assessed against those colony populations, when the reference population against which the predicted displacement mortalities were assessed was the foraging range breeding BDMPS population. Therefore, we would expect to see a PVA carried out for the breeding season alone impact mortalities against the breeding season reference population. Section 5.7.5: We disagree with the use and presentation of only mean or central collision estimates throughout. The Confidence Intervals associated with collision estimates should also be provided and taken through the assessment to assess the full range of potential effects. This comment also applies to the HRA Integrity Matrices document, Section 1.2.5, and the HRA Stage 1 Screening Report document, Section 1.4.6. Section 5.7.5.13: We note the lack of PVA for breeding season collision impacts to great black-backed gull. Predicted collisions are above 1% baseline mortality during the breeding season, yet a PVA have not been carried out. Therefore, we would expect to see a PVA carried out for the breeding season alone impact mortalities against the breeding season reference population. Tables 5.38; 5.39; 5.42; and 5.44: For some species it would appear, though it is unclear, that impacts for a particular month which is within two BDMPS seasons have been split between the two seasons. Clarity is required if this is the case, and when this has been undertaken, and whether this is an appropriate use of the survey data, for instance when within a month the survey was carried out. For example, if data was calculated at one end of a month, is it appropriate to halve this value and associate one half with the other end of the month? Tables 5.38; 5.39; 5.42; and 5.44: If it is the case that impacts for a particular month which is within two seasons have been split between the two seasons, it is unclear whether this approach is appropriate when put into context of seasonal reference populations (e.g. Furness (2015)). Do the seasonal reference populations used also split populations in the one month between seasons? Section 5.9: We maintain our disagreement over the approach to cumulative (EIA) and in-combination assessments (HRA), and specifically the inclusion of projects with unquantified levels of impact (either because modelling techniques have changed, or their impacts were not quantitatively assessed), and this disagreement has been raised in Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) responses and during the EWGs. In October 2023, the SNCBs supplied bespoke advice to the Mona, Morgan generation and Morecambe generation projects (Proposed methodology for ‘gap-filling’ the Irish Sea R4 cumulative & in-combination assessments, circulated by Natural England), providing a suggested approach to filling in gaps in data on impacts from relevant projects for cumulative/in-combination assessment. The Applicant has not followed this approach and has presented a qualitative approach for the projects with no data. We do not consider that the qualitative assessments presented by the Applicant are sufficient and do not consider that conclusions can be drawn without reasonable scientific doubt, regarding the accumulating scale of impact to some species. We therefore reiterate that our advice for a pragmatic method to address the lack of impact assessments for a number of historical Offshore Wind Farms (OWFs) in the region remains as detailed in the original SNCB advice. Sections 5.9.2; 5.9.3; and 5.9.4: In the cumulative assessment, the abundance estimates at Erebus offshore wind farm are incorrect for several species. This was also the case in the Section 42 PEIR, and JNCC responded to these errors in our Section 42 PEIR response. However, the same errors remain. The abundance estimates to use should be those within Table 5-1 for common guillemot and Table 5-3 for Atlantic puffin in the Project Erebus: Supplementary Environmental Information Addendum Report (2022). The abundance estimates for gannet should be those within Table 23 of the Erebus: Offshore Ornithology 11.4 Technical Appendix – Displacement Analysis (2021). The abundance estimates for kittiwake should be those within Table 18 to 20 of the Erebus: Offshore Ornithology 11.4 Technical Appendix – Displacement Analysis (2021). Sections 5.9.3 and 5.9.4: In the cumulative assessment, the collision estimates for gannet at Erebus are incorrect. The collision estimates to use should be those within Table 5-31 of the Project Erebus: Supplementary Environmental Information Addendum Report (2022). Sections 5.9.2; 5.9.3; and 5.9.4: Impacts in the cumulative tables often do not add up to the totals at the foot of the tables, and have multiple other errors in them, such as figures apparently attributed to the wrong wind farms, seasonal impacts not adding up to annual impacts. Section 5.9.3: For the ES cumulative assessment, it appears that collision estimates from other offshore wind farm projects have been adjusted to account for different avoidance rates. However, it is not stated that this has been done, nor how this has been done. Therefore, we cannot replicate the findings, or determine whether the method or results are correct. Volume 6, Annex 5.5: Offshore ornithology apportioning technical report Table 1.4: The last column in Table 1.4 should be titled “Proportion of adult birds (%)” not “Proportion of immature birds (%)”. Section 1.3.3: No information is provided on the number of adults and immatures identified from Digital Aerial Surveys (DAS). Without an understanding of the number of birds identified to age classes, as a proportion of the total number of birds (per species), it is hard to know whether a representative sample was identified, and whether this was appropriate to use when applying a ratio of adults and immatures to unidentified birds. Section 1.3.3: We disagree with the calculation of kittiwake age classes. This approach was not raised by the applicant during EWG meetings or subsequently, and therefore JNCC has not agreed to this approach. The Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two approach to apportioning to age class referred to in Section 1.3.3.5 relies on reliable counts of first year birds, i.e. in the case of kittiwake first summer birds which by August of that year have largely transitioned to adult plumage and therefore indistinguishable from adults. Therefore, the identification rate of first summer kittiwake is questionable and calculations derived from this, for example, applying survival rates to define an age class structure is also questionable. It is noticeable that more recent projects such as Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project Four and the East Anglia projects have not used this approach. Further, we advise that stable age structures are not derived using population viability analysis, and the method outlined in this report is effectively a manual version of this, which we do not recommend. We therefore disagree with the percentage of kittiwake adults and immatures in the breeding season in Table 1.6. Section 1.3.3: We disagree with the methods of apportioning impacts between adults and immatures during the non-breeding season. We advise that the same approach is taken as for the breeding season, as has been advised previously during EWG meetings and correspondence, by using the proportions of adults and immatures identified by surveys, and otherwise assuming all adult-type birds are adults. Section 1.3.5: We disagree with the method of apportioning impacts to SPAs during the non-breeding season. We recommend that to calculate apportion impacts to colonies in the non-breeding season, this should be based on the proportion of the SPA adult birds, across the BDMPS total of birds of all ages, for each relevant non-breeding BDMPS season, as has been advised previously during EWG meetings and correspondence. Table 1.7: It is not clear whether sabbatical birds have been removed from the assessment or not. There is suggestion that they haven't, yet the heading of Table 1.7 suggests that sabbatical rates are considered within the HRA. Volume 6, Annex 5.6: Offshore ornithology population viability analysis technical report Table 1.4: The BDMPS and baseline mortality values for great black-backed gull appear to be associated with the wrong seasons. For the annual assessment the BDMPS should be 44,753 with a baseline mortality of 4,252. For the non-breeding season, the BDMPS population should be 17,742 with a baseline mortality of 1,685. The PVA logs in Appendix A2.1 and A2.2 appear to have associated the correct reference populations per season, therefore the PVA itself appear to have used the correct values, but the values in Table 1.4 are incorrect. Table 1.12 and Table 1.13: The extremely high predicted growth rates associated with great black-backed gull are at odds with the general trend in Global and European (where non-breeding great black-backed gull in UK waters are likely to originate) and UK breeding populations being that of decline (albeit with range expansion). For example, Burnell et al. (2023) highlights the overall declines in breeding great black-backed gull in Britain and the UK since the previous national census (Seabird 2000) of -55% and -52%, respectively. England has suffered a smaller decline (-3%), with the breeding population of the Isles of Scilly increasing slightly (14%). Given the overall picture of decline, we question whether increases in population of ~12,000% predicted by the PVA would ever be realised in reality, and hence the reliability of the PVA predictions. We recommend a sense check of the PVA input and outputs before having reliance on the outputs. HRA Stage 1 Screening Report There are multiple discrepancies between the main text of the HRA Stage 1 Screening Report and the appendix tables of the same document. All values (text and tables) should be double-checked and updated where necessary. The HRA Stage 1 Screening Report provides very little information to cross reference which values from other documents have been used, and through what calculation, in order to generate results. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to follow what values have or have not been used. We strongly recommend that the HRA Stage 1 Screening Report contains a clear audit trail of what values and parameters have been used, where they have been used, and how they have been applied. Without this, we cannot confidently replicate the results, and hence we cannot have confidence in the results. Table 1.2 and Table 1.7: We disagree with the application of foraging ranges for Atlantic puffin. Although breeding season apportioning has not been carried out, our view is that it should be when using the correct Mean Season Peak value (see comment on Atlantic puffin MSP error), therefore it is important to use the correct foraging range. It is not accurate to state, in Tables 1.2 and 1.7 of the HRA Stage 1 Screening Report, that “JNCC requested (via their S42 response) that all SPAs to the north of the Mona Offshore Wind Project within 265.4km be considered for Atlantic puffin.”. In JNCC correspondence to the Applicant on 28 June 2023, we advised “We confirm that the foraging range to use for Atlantic puffin is 265.4km (MM+SD). Woodward et al. (2019) state (page 138) that “As was the case for common guillemot and razorbill, foraging distances travelled by Atlantic puffin from Fair Isle are higher than those at most other sites (RSPB dataset), although they are not as exceptional when compared to other sites as those of the other two auk species” and “Observations of birds carrying fish have been made at distances of 250km from the Faeroe Islands (Harris & Wanless 2011), offering further speculative evidence that Atlantic puffins forage at longer distances than the other auk species. Hence the distances observed from Fair Isle and Hermaness should not necessarily be considered exceptional until more data and data from additional colonies have been collected, particularly data from colonies where local prey availability may be greater”. Therefore, we advise using the generic mean max +1SD value as stated in Table 5.”. Therefore, we advised that the foraging range within Table 5 of Woodward et al. (2019) (137.1 ± 128.3 = 265.4km) should be applied to all SPAs. There is no exception to this value for Atlantic puffin. This value should be used throughout. Table 1.2 and Table 1.7: We disagree with the application of foraging ranges for common guillemot and razorbill. It is not accurate to say, in Tables 1.2 and 1.7 of the HRA Stage 1 Screening Report, that “JNCC requested via their S42 response all SPAs to the north of the Mona Offshore Wind Project within 153.7km be considered for common guillemot” and “JNCC requested via their S42 response all SPAs to the north of the Mona Offshore Wind Project within 164.6km be considered for razorbill”. We do recommend that these values are applied in certain circumstances. However, these circumstances are not “all SPAs north of Mona”, the circumstances are for all Northern Isle SPAs. Therefore, it is unclear whether the correct SPAs and other sites have been screened in with regard to Atlantic puffin, common guillemot, and razorbill. It is therefore also unclear whether the calculations in Volume 6, Annex 5.5: Offshore Ornithology apportioning technical report are correct, and subsequently, any of the values relevant to these species and SPAs in the HRA. Section 1.4.6.17: We disagree with the use of only specific displacement rates and mortality ranges in the HRA displacement assessment. We advise that the full range of displacement and mortality ranges previously advised are used and presented within the HRA to assess the full range of potential effects. It is odd that the full range of displacement rates and mortality rates have been presented and assessed within the ES, yet specific rates have been used within the HRA. Whilst we would not base our advice solely on the worst-case likely scenario, it is important to look at the range likely to scenarios in order to determine whether there is a realistic possibility of impact that would need further consideration (i.e. through Appropriate Assessment). It is important to follow the stepwise process of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process in order to systematically consider the impacts of a Plan or Project to an appropriate level. Section 1.4.6.30: While we have accepted the approach to LSE screening and Appropriate Assessment in this case, it should be noted that the LSE test is a course filter, as per our advice given during pre-application meetings, our response to the Section 42 PEIR, and as summarised in Table 1.2 of the HRA Stage 1 Screening report. The screening presented in this application has gone beyond an assessment of whether an impact pathway has the potential to compromise the ability of the site to meet its conservation objectives, and has additionally examined the magnitude of impact, as apportioned to each relevant MPA, and whether this would represent an LSE (e.g. through examining whether mortality would be increased by >1%). We are of the view that this approach may not be appropriate for projects where larger magnitude impacts are expected. Table 1.68: Throughout the HRA, the qualifying features of Skomer, Skokholm and the Seas off Pembrokeshire/Sgomer, Sgogwm a Moroedd Penfro SPA appear to be incorrect. We recommend the features and assemblages are carefully checked against the SPA designation information (found here: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/skomer-skokholm-and-the-seas-off-pembrokeshire-mpa), and the details within the HRA updated. We have advised on errors in the description of features of Skomer, Skokholm and the Seas off Pembrokeshire/Sgomer, Sgogwm a Moroedd Penfro SPA during the Section 42 PEIR response, yet the errors remain. This comment also applies to the Volume 2, Chapter 5: Offshore ornithology, Table 5.10. Section 1.4.6.49: As far as we are able to calculate, we generate different values of apportioned adult impacts for at least great black-backed gull and kittiwake compared to those in the HRA Stage 1 Screening Report appendix tables. Due to the unclear method and values used, it is not known whether there are errors in the calculation, or a different method has been applied, or different values are being used, to those we assume are used. We recommend a thorough check of the values and calculations used to generate the results in the HRA Stage 1 Screening Report, and that the values and method of apportioning impacts are fully presented. Without these, we cannot confidently replicate the results, and hence we cannot have confidence in the results. HRA Stage 2 Information to Support an Appropriate Assessment Part Three: Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites Assessments We disagree with several elements of the assessment to offshore ornithology within the HRA. In addition, there are multiple errors within the tables and text, and errors when using values in subsequent stages of the assessment. Many aspects of the assessment are difficult to follow what has been done or where values have come from. Due to these disagreements, errors, and lack of clarity, we do not have confidence in the results, nor are we able to agree with the overall conclusions of the HRA, particularly with regards to Skomer, Skokholm and the Seas off Pembrokeshire/Sgomer, Sgogwm a Moroedd Penfro SPA. Section 1.4.6.3: The threshold of using 0.05% baseline mortality from the project alone to screen whether impacts should be considered in-combination was not raised by the applicant during EWG meetings or subsequently, and therefore JNCC has not agreed to this approach. We recommend that the Applicant be clear on what this percent increase in baseline mortality would be in absolute mortality terms. We are not aware that similar thresholds have been applied in other cases to screen in or out from in-combination assessment, and note that the East Anglia Two OWF HRA does not refer to such a threshold when considering whether a project should be considered in-combination with other Plans and Projects (https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010078/EN010078-010066-EA2-HabitatsRegulationsAssessment.pdf). We request that the Applicant provide justification for the appropriateness of this approach. Section 1.6.3.20: Note that predicted works (cable repair and reburial) would not need to occur concurrently in order to have the predicted impacts (just within the same non-breeding season). However, we welcome that the assessment is based on the total predicted habitat loss, irrespective of when it may occur. Section 1.6.3.44: We disagree with the interpretation that birds on migration are not specifically part of the Liverpool Bay/Bae Lerpwl SPA citation and therefore are not considered part of the non-breeding season assemblage. The SPA citation refers to non-breeding birds. There are no breeding red-throated divers in England or Wales, and therefore any birds present within the SPA will be non-breeding birds (even when present during the defined breeding season cited). We therefore do not agree that they can be discounted as not part of the protected population. We do note however that as per the SPA Conservation Advice, April and September represent months where smaller numbers of this species can be expected, and significant Impact and Adverse Effect on Integrity (AEOI) is less likely than in ‘core’ months of the non-breeding period. Marine mammal comments The following documents were reviewed in providing this response: Environmental Statement: ? Volume 1, Chapter 5: Environmental impact assessment methodology ? Volume 2, Chapter 4: Marine mammals ? Volume 2, Chapter 11: Inter-related effects – Offshore ? Volume 5, Annex 3.1: Underwater sound technical report ? Volume 5, Annex 5.1: Cumulative effects screening matrix ? Volume 6, Annex 4.1: Marine mammal technical report ? Volume 8, Annex 2.2: Climate change risk assessment HRA: ? Stage 1 Screening report ? Stage 2 Information to support an Appropriate Assessment ? Part 1, Introduction and background ? Part 2, Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) assessments ? HRA integrity matrices Offshore Plans: ? Mitigation and monitoring schedule ? Outline underwater sound management strategy ? Outline offshore operations and maintenance plan ? Measures to minimise disturbance to marine mammals and rafting birds from transiting vessels ? Outline marine mammal mitigation protocol Overall comments JNCC previously provided comment on the Mona Offshore Wind Project Preliminary Environmental Information Report (OIA Reference OIA-09444, dated 1 June 2023). Our current review and subsequent comments have focussed on outstanding issues with particular attention given to the information to support HRA and proposed mitigation measures. We maintain our advice that unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance is not included as a licensed activity in the DCO/marine licence (particularly high order clearance) due to the lack of information available and the over precaution that must be incorporated into the impact assessment at this stage. For example, Section 1.6.2.1 of the draft Sound Management Strategy states the likely maximum size of UXO to be encountered is 130kg Net Explosive Quantity (NEQ), however, it also states the size of device could range between 25kg and 907kg. Without further information on what size of devices will need to be cleared, and confirmation of what clearance method will be used, the impact assessment (and associated mitigation plans) must consider the worst-case scenario, i.e. all clearances will involve high order detonation of a 907kg device. This is contrary with the Government et al. Joint Position Statement (for which an update will be published this month), which states low noise methods of clearance should always be prioritised with high order clearance only to be used in exceptional circumstances. While noise abatement for piling (described as a secondary mitigation measure) is now referred to in the impact assessment and mitigation plans, in practice it is considered last in the mitigation hierarchy i.e. after measures built into the project design and the use of marine mammal observers/acoustic deterrents. We are aware that Defra will be publishing a noise policy paper soon (announced at the Marine Management Organisation, MMO, workshop, 13 March 2024) which will include the expectation from the MMO that all offshore wind pile driving activity in English waters to demonstrate that they have utilised best endeavours to deliver noise reductions through the use of primary and/or secondary noise mitigation methods in the first instance from January 2025. While the array area for this project no longer overlaps with English waters, we strongly recommend that noise abatement and/or the use of alternative hammers are considered as a key part of the noise mitigation plan, with the assumption that it will be used appose to it may/could be. Such an approach will also support future European Protected Species (EPS) licence applications if required (use of alternatives), which are usually applied for post-consent. General comments We highlight the following for information: ? JNCC (in collaboration with the other SNCBs) will be reviewing the current Effective Deterrent Ranges (EDRs) this coming year and identify new ones for activities not currently included (e.g. Acoustic Deterrent Devices, ADDs). Once available, these should be used in future assessments. ? JNCC will be publishing new mitigation guidance specifically for when clearing UXO within the next month. We advise that the most recent guidance is used to inform future UXO clearance licence application and subsequent marine mammal mitigation plans. ? An addendum to the SNCB mitigation guidance for piling will be published in the next two months, to bring the 2010 guidance up to date and reflect the preference for noise abatement to be used to mitigate impacts from noise. HRA Stage 1 Screening report Table 1.6: This document states that the distance to the North Anglesey Marine SAC from the Mona Array Area is 22.58km, whereas in other documents it is stated as 23.67km. Please clarify and ensure consistency between documents. Section 1.4.5, Table 1.125 and Paragraph 1.6.1.5: JNCC agree with the conclusion of potential LSE on the North Anglesey Marine SAC due to underwater sound from piling, and UXO clearance. We advise LSE is unlikely for the other harbour porpoise sites due to their distance from the proposed project. HRA Stage 2 Information to support an Appropriate Assessment We defer to NRW-A regarding SACs in territorial waters e.g. for seals and bottlenose dolphins. We agree with the use of EDRs to assess disturbance within the harbour porpoise SACs and assess overlap in the context of published temporal-spatial thresholds. Table 1.78: We question why the Bristol Channel Approaches SAC has been included here, whilst the West Wales Marine SAC has not? Bristol Channel Approaches SAC lies 274.8km from the Array Area, whereas West Wales Marine SAC is considerably closer (95.4km). Table 1.84: We reiterate our advice that UXO clearance is not included in the DCO as a licensed activity. We do, however, agree with the hierarchy provided here with regard to clearance options, i.e. that low order will be considered before high order, as required in the Government et al. UXO position statement. Table 1.100: This presumes the worst-case scenario that all UXOs would require high order clearance and applies the maximum 26km EDR. Submitting a separate application for UXO clearance once it is known precisely what is required would enable this assessment to be more realistic and not be over precautionary. Outline underwater sound management strategy Overall, we agree in principle with the plan to develop an underwater noise strategy, and that it should identify all potential noise sources associated with the project with further detail provided in associated mitigation plans. We also agree the draft strategy could be finalised post-consent (following refinement of the project design and further surveys being undertaken), provided we are confident the information to be provided within the final strategy will demonstrate potential impacts to marine mammals from noisy activities can be adequately mitigated/managed. The information provided in the current draft is, however, incomplete. We note the following in the draft document provided: ? Generally, the proposed layout is acceptable however we recommend that Section 1.6 (construction activities) includes some information on how the design envelope has changed, rather than only discussing it in Section 1.7. ? Noise abatement for piling is considered a secondary mitigation measure however the implication is that in practice, it will be considered last in the mitigation hierarchy. The use of noise abatement should be given more serious consideration, and we encourage investigating the feasibility of using hammer types that will result in lower levels of noise such as the Menck system mentioned in paragraph 1.8.2.11. ? We reiterate our advice that UXO clearance is not included as a licenced activity in the DCO/marine licence (particularly high order clearance) due to the lack of information available and the over precaution that must be incorporated into the impact assessment at this stage. For example, Section 1.6.2.1 of the strategy states the likely maximum size of UXO to be encountered is 130kg NEQ, however, it also states the size of device could range between 25kg and 907kg. Without further information on what size of devices will actually need to be cleared, and confirmation of what clearance method will be used, this strategy (and associated mitigation plans) must consider the worst-case scenario presented within the ES (907kg) and describe mitigation measures that will reduce those predicted impacts. ? We do, however, agree to UXO clearance being included in this document at this stage as the strategy represents a holistic view of all noisy activities. ? In line with the Governments Joint Position Statement (for which an update will be published this month), low noise methods of clearance should always be prioritised with high order clearance only to be used in exceptional circumstances. ? JNCC do not recommend the use of scare charges prior to UXO clearance as a form of soft start (Section 1.5.4.3). ? It is unclear why this document only appears to be focussing on two marine mammal species (bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise). Without mitigation, all marine mammals are sensitive to injury and disturbance from piling and UXO clearance; and as European Protected Species, all cetacean species are protected from both throughout their natural range. While some species may be more abundant in the development area, the current wording suggests (incorrectly) that only two species are at risk. Mitigation and monitoring schedule The purpose of this document is to demonstrate how the Mona Offshore Wind Project has considered mitigation and monitoring commitments regarding environmental impacts identified through the Environmental Impact Assessment. Table Ref 29-34: JNCC agrees with the commitment to develop and adhere to a Marine Mammal Mitigation Plan; see below for comments on the plan provided. Ref 35: The Underwater Sound Management Strategy (UWSMS) is J16 of the Marine Plan, and not J19 as stated here. Outline Offshore Operations and Maintenance Plan We encourage the developer to submit spatial and temporal information data on all licensed noisy activities to the Marine Noise Registry (MNR), including geophysical surveys which do not require a marine licence. This information will be added to other data provided for licensed activities therefore helping generate a more accurate picture of impulsive noise occurring in UK waters. The MNR is an online platform administered by JNCC for industry and regulators to enter activity information including location, date, and source property data. Outline marine mammal mitigation protocol In line with our previous advice that UXO clearance is not included as a licenced activity in the DCO/deemed marine licence, we do not recommend that a single mitigation plan is developed for this and piling. Instead, a separate Marine Mammal Mitigation Protocol (MMMP) should be developed to support any future licence application. To support this, we highlight that: ? Defra will be publishing an update to the Government et al. UXO position paper in the next month. This strengthens the requirement to prioritise low noise methods of clearance and provides guidance on suitable evidence to support the use of such methods. ? JNCC will be publishing new mitigation guidelines specifically for when clearing UXOs in the next month. These should be considered when designing mitigation plans for this activity. ? JNCC do not advocate the use of scare charges as a soft start for UXO as their scaring effect is not proven (Lewis 1996, Keevin and Hempen 1997), and would result in unnecessary additional noise being emitted into the environment. ? The mitigation zone should cover the full range of predicted injury and not be restricted to the 1km referred to in the 2010 guidelines. A minimum radius of 1km should be applied. ? Two marine mammal observers should be used to reflect the size of the mitigation zone. If Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) is to be used to supplement the visual searches, an additional team member will be required to monitor this (so three in total). ? UXO clearance should not be undertaken at night or during periods of limited visibility. JNCC recently published guidance on the use of PAM as mitigation, which may be found here https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/fb7d345b-ec24-4c60-aba2-894e50375e33. We recommend that this guidance is considered when finalising the piling MMMP. An update to McGarry et al. (2017) reviewing evidence to support the use of ADDs is being finalised and will be available soon and additional guidance for when using ADDs is currently being developed; refer to the JNCC webpage for updates. JNCC currently advise that a visual search is undertaken prior to activating ADDs and visual searches should be adapted to accommodate this. Paragraph 1.7.2.3 states that ‘PTS onset ranges will be further reduced by the application of ADDs’. This is incorrect. The Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) onset range remains the same, the ADD is used to encourage animals to leave this area before the sound source is activated. Volume 6, Annex 4.1: Marine mammal technical report We previously requested that a qualitative review of survey coverage during baseline aerial surveys be provided to better understand the value of the survey data. For example, was coverage even and were key areas of the Mona array areas covered by the surveys? We note the proportion of the survey area analysed has increased from 12 to 15% however our previous comment remains valid. It would also be beneficial to understand how this increase have been achieved and what benefits are provided. Benthic ecology (offshore) The following documents were reviewed in providing this response: Environmental Statement: ? Volume 1, Chapter 3: Project Description ? Volume 1, Chapter 5: Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology ? Volume 2, Chapter 1: Physical Processes ? Volume 2, Chapter 2: Benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology ? Volume 2, Chapter 11: Inter-related Effects – Offshore ? Volume 5, Annex 5.1: Cumulative effects screening matrix ? Volume 5, Annex 5.2: Transboundary impacts screening. ? Volume 6, Annex 1.1: Physical Processes Technical Report ? Volume 6, Annex 2.1: Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Technical Report HRA: ? Stage 1 Screening report ? Stage 2 Information to support an Appropriate Assessment ? Part 1, Introduction and background ? HRA Integrity Matrices ? Marine Conservation Zone Screening Report Offshore Plans: ? Offshore In-Principle Monitoring Plan ? Mona Array Area – Site Characterisation Report ? Offshore Cable Corridor Site Characterisation Report The following advice relates to the offshore environment, extending out from the 12nm limit. For benthic ecology advice within 12nm, we defer to Natural Resources Wales (NRW). Overall comments JNCC are of the opinion that not all seabed impacts have been fully considered and it was not always clear that the correct footprint values have been utilised within the analysis or between chapters. Further detail of this is provided in the below sections. JNCC do not agree with the values attributed within the assessment of significant effects, covered in Sections 2.9 and 2.11 of Volume 2, Chapter 2. The magnitude of impact has been assessed too low, incorrect assumptions of feature sensitivity has been applied to the seapens and burrowing megafauna communities Important Ecological Features (IEF), and the subsequent adverse significance has been under-represented. As an example, taking the ‘as is’ situation with a ‘Low’ magnitude of impact and a ‘High’ sensitivity, the adverse significance would be ‘Minor or Moderate’, as detailed on page 17 of Volume 1, Chapter 5, but has been reported as ‘Minor’. We believe it would be more appropriate to take the worst-case scenario and apply a ‘Moderate’ adverse significance. We would therefore recommend that, as a minimum, all significance of effect be reassessed taking into account the worst-case scenario. In Section 5.3.6.8 and Table 5.4, of Volume 1 Chapter 5, the spatial extent of the impact is defined as "Geographical area over which the impact may occur". Including the whole licence area as the spatial extent is not proportionate to the identified impact pathway especially if the whole area has no opportunity to be impacted. This then gives an unrealistic percentage of impact area and subsequently a magnitude of impact that is not representative. Some more detailed examples are covered for specific sections below but we would recommend that all magnitude of impacts are re-assessed taking this into account. JNCC have concerns around the expected decommissioning of the infrastructure, in particular around the decommissioning of gravity-based infrastructure and the full removal of all cables. Lessons learnt from the oil and gas industry have shown that the decommissioning of gravity-based infrastructure is not always feasible, or possible, leading to permanent habitat change. The impacts of this scenario should be considered. JNCC welcomes the proposal to remove all cabling from the Array Area and Cable Corridor. Based on our current experience, this is not always possible, especially when the cable is buried. Leaving buried cables in situ and removing un-buried sections would normally include protection of the cut end with rock dump increasing the final footprint of the project. Although JNCC acknowledge future advancement of decommissioning technology may solve this issue, this scenario has not been considered. Volume 1, Chapter 3: Project Description Section 3.5.4.3, page 10: “If Mona infrastructure crosses any out of service cables, these will be removed where feasible.” It is not clear if any remediation (i.e. rock dump for protection) will be carried out on the cut ends of the out of service cables left on the seabed. Table 3.4, page 12: As the cable corridor includes both the inshore and offshore (outside 12nm) waters, it is not possible to determine the maximum design parameters for sandwave clearance in the offshore. We assume that the majority of sandwave clearance within this area will be inshore. Table 3.11 and 3.12, page 22, and Tables 3.14 to 3.17, pages 25 to 28: Values for the maximum seabed area (total foundations and scour protection for all foundations) were found to be incorrect in all six of the above listed tables. Assuming the values for the maximum seabed area per foundation and scour protection per foundation are correct, the total foundations and scour protection for all foundations values were found to be significantly underestimated (see table below). By our calculations, the following totals should be: Table 3.11: Original total = 284,360m2; corrected total* = 401,472m2; underestimated difference = 117,112m2 Table 3.12: Original total = 10,745m2 ; corrected total* = 35,336m2; underestimated difference = 24,591m2 Table 3.14: Original total = 735,488m2; corrected total* = 1,038,336m2; underestimated difference = 302,848m2 Table 3.15: Original total = 24,964m2 ; corrected total* = 60,116m2; underestimated difference = 35,152m2 Table 3.16: Original total = 612,084m2; corrected total* = 724,896m2; underestimated difference = 112,812m2 Table 3.17: Original total = 24,941m2 ; corrected total* = 74,508m2; underestimated difference = 49,567m2 * This is based on our interpretation of the data within the ES, notwithstanding our comments above on the numerous numerical errors throughout the ES. Section 3.5.8.7, page 23: Drill arisings from drilling of pin piles will create cuttings piles. A maximum seabed impact area should be calculated for these as cutting piles will impact the local environment and should be considered in more detail. Section 3.13.2.3, page 80: Wording in relation to cable decommissioning was found to be inconsistent between documents. This section suggests cables “may be retrieved” at decommissioning while Volume 2, Chapter 2, ‘Mona ES Benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology’ (Table 2.18, page 79) states all cables “will be removed” at decommissioning. JNCC assume all cables will be removed at decommissioning but this needs to be clarified by the applicant. Section 3.13.2.4, page 80: JNCC would expect all mattresses (concrete and frond) and rock bags used for cable protection to be removed at decommissioning. Section 3.13.2.5, page 81: We would agree that the cable installation and removal impacts would have the same temporary impact. However, if cables were left in situ and required protection through rock dump (for example through cut ends or free spans), this would increase the permanent impact to the seabed and should be considered further. Volume 2, Chapter 1: Physical Processes Section 1.9.5.10, page 83: We believe that the total Offshore Substation Platforms (OSP) footprint should be 20,180m2 and not 19,500m2 as detailed in comments above regarding the tables in Volume 1, Chapter 3. Note, the calculations detailed here are based on our interpretation of the data within the ES, notwithstanding our comments above on the numerous numerical errors throughout the ES. Volume 2, Chapter 2: Benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology Table 2.8, page 31: We agree that Jack up vessel events on their own would be a temporary habitat loss/disturbance. However, jack up events regularly require extra stabilisation through rock dumping, particularly in softer seabed environments and/or within high dynamic environments. The extra rock dump required for jack up events has not been accounted for and should be considered a permanent impact and be included within the long term habitat loss/habitat alteration impact during construction, operation and maintenance, and also during decommissioning. Foundation removal does not address gravity-based structures for turbines or OSPs. If these are not possible to decommission (see comments above), they should be treated as a permanent habitat change. Introduction of additional rock protection has not been considered. For example, at cable cut ends if not fully removed, at cable free spans, jack up vessel stabilisation (as discussed above), cable crossings and protection, or scour protection. Table 2.18, page 84: We welcome the suggested removal of all scour protection, cable protection, and crossing protection. However, the detail provided within this table contradicts details provided in Volume1, Chapter 3, Section 3.13.2.4, page 80 (see previous comment). Furthermore, if rock dump were to be used for protection, it is highly unlikely that the rock will be able to be removed and would therefore remain a permanent impact. Table 2.18, page 85: Changes in physical processes will occur at all three phases, not just the operation and maintenance phase. Decommissioning will affect physical processes, although at a much smaller scale, with the addition of rock dump and infrastructure that will be permanently left in situ. Section 2.9.2.27, page 103: We would not agree with a reduction in the sensitivity of the seapens and burrowing megafauna communities from ‘High’ to ‘Medium’. We acknowledge that seapens have not been recorded within the site-specific surveys to date but seapens do not have to be present to define this OSPAR T&D habitat, as also acknowledged within this section. For this reasoning, it would not be appropriate to reduce the sensitivity to ‘Medium’ and it should remain as ‘High’. This would also apply to all subsequent sections (e.g. Section 2.9.2.32). Section 2.9.2.51, page 110: We agree that the seabed will recover after the removal of the jack-up vessel’s spud cans but only when no rock dump has been used for stabilisation or scour protection of the spud cans (see comment on Table 2.8 above). Section 2.9.5.10, page 146: JNCC do not agree with a low magnitude of impact, considering over two million square meters (Section 2.9.5.7) of seabed will be permanently impacted/changed. Section 2.9.5.7 highlights the impact area and gives a percentage of that compared with the Mona benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area (0.17%). This is not helpful as those areas include large portions that will not be directly impacted by the operations. A more useful area comparison for calculating the impact percentage would be of the total direct and indirect (temporary) impact areas. Combining the Long-term habitat loss and Temporary habitat loss areas would provide a more meaningful impact percentage and subsequent meaningful magnitude. Section 2.9.5.22, page 150: JNCC do not agree with the suggestion that the permanent presence of cable and scour protection should be considered as permanent habitat alteration rather than permanent habitat loss. The permanent introduction of hard substrates into a soft sediment environment would be a permanent habitat loss that leads to a regime shift of that habitat (i.e. a permanent habitat alteration). It should therefore be considered as permanent habitat loss. This should be taken into account when re-assessing the magnitude of impact (Section 2.9.5.23, page 151). Section 2.9.6.6, page 153: JNCC recognise that settlement and subsequent recruitment on clean artificial structures is very complex. It should not be expected that colonisation will consist entirely of already present flora and fauna. Opportunistic colonisation will occur from flora and fauna that would not normally be recorded in the area due to the clean artificial surfaces allowing for opportunistic settlement. This has the potential to alter subsequent settlement and recruitment that can lead to a different final community composition. Additionally, temporal variation will also determine the final community composition (e.g. studies have shown different community composition depending on the time of year when the artificial structure was introduced). Please contact JNCC with any questions regarding the above comments."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wilson Fearnall on behalf of Michael and Sally Leach
"The Mona project has not adequately considered and mitigated the potential affects to Nant Ganol and other properties in close proximity to the construction areas in and around Y Nentydd. There is limited design information or lack of detail in Code of Construction Practice, PEIR, draft DCO and Work Plans. Inadequate information provided for accurate assessment on the significance impacts to the Property from: o Construction traffic, vehicle movements and haul road construction o Noise o Vibration o Lighting o Dust/Fumes o Soil Storage and Management o Environmental impacts and mitigation areas o Footpath and PROW diversions o Decommissioning o HDD locations and working requirements o Construction compounds and storage locations o Temporary and Permanent Works access routes o Construction Programme Further detailed proposals necessary in order to consider impacts and mitigation options ahead of DCO examination process. Despite the baseline noise assessment location at LT10 limited assessment has been carried out in the adjacent area despite several properties clearly lying within high impact noise zones for evening and weekend working."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Limited
"Mona is one of the three Round 4 Irish Sea offshore wind farms planned in the vicinity of the Morecambe Generation project. The Environmental Statement for the Morecambe Generation DCO application (due to be submitted in May 2024) has identified a number of potential cumulative impacts in combination with Mona, broadly covering ornithology, marine mammals, shipping and navigation, aviation and commercial fisheries. It may also be appropriate to have co-operation or co-existence agreement(s) between the projects. The Morecambe Generation project is supportive in principle of the Mona DCO application and would like to register an interest, based on the possible need to provide more information to inform and support the Mona OWF examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wilson Fearnall on behalf of Mr & Mrs J T Owen
"The Mona project has not adequately considered and mitigated the potential affects to Nant Fawr and other properties in close proximity to the construction areas in and around Y Nentydd. There is limited design information or lack of detail in Code of Construction Practice, PEIR, draft DCO and Work Plans. Inadequate information provided for accurate assessment on the significance impacts to the Property from: o Construction traffic, vehicle movements and haul road construction o Noise o Vibration o Lighting o Dust/Fumes o Soil Storage and Management o Environmental impacts and mitigation areas o Footpath and PROW diversions o Decommissioning o HDD locations and working requirements o Construction compounds and storage locations o Temporary and Permanent Works access routes o Construction Programme Further detailed proposals necessary in order to consider impacts and mitigation options ahead of DCO examination process. Despite the baseline noise assessment location at LT10 limited assessment has been carried out in the adjacent area despite several properties clearly lying within high impact noise zones for evening and weekend working."
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Grid
"Relevant Representation of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc in respect of the Mona Offshore Wind Farm Development Consent Order (the “Order”) This relevant representation is submitted on behalf of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (“NGET”) in respect of Mona Offshore Wind Limited’s (the “Applicant”) application for the Order which seeks powers to enable the construction of an offshore wind farm with an approximate capacity of 1500MW in the Irish Sea (“Project”), and in particular NGET’s infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed limits of the Order (“Order Limits”). NGET will require appropriate protection for retained and future apparatus including compliance with relevant standards for works proposed within close proximity of its apparatus. NGET’s rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus must also be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. Further, where the Applicant intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGET’s existing or future interests in land or apparatus, NGET will require appropriate protection and further discussion is required on the impact to its apparatus and rights. Existing NGET infrastructure within/in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits: NGET owns or operates the following infrastructure within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits for the Project. These assets form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales. The details of the electricity assets are as follows: Substation: • Bodelwyddan 400kV Substation Associated overhead and underground apparatus including cables Overhead Lines: • 4ZB 400kV OHL Bodelwyddan - Deeside - Pentir 1 Bodelwyddan - Deeside - Pentir 2 • GM Route 400kV OHL Bodelwyddan - Deeside - Pentir 2 Associated cable fibre Cable Apparatus: • Pentre-Mawr Cable Compound • Deeside - Pentir 1 Cable • Bodelwyddan 4 St Asaph 132kv Cable Sections 01 And 02 Future NGET infrastructure within/in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits: The proposed Order Limits overlap with land required for the following future NGET infrastructure which are required for future generation connections (subject to obtaining the necessary consents and land rights): · The extension of the existing Bodelwyddan 400 kV substation (Substation Extension); and · Reconfiguration of the existing overhead line section 4ZB166-168 (OHL Works). The Substation Extension works and the footprint of the Substation Extension sit wholly within the red-line boundary of the Project which also overlaps with land required for the OHL Works. The draft Order includes powers for the Applicant to undertake electrical works to connect to the new Substation Extension (Work No. 26) and acquire new rights within plot 11-203 (being the location of the Substation Extension). The draft Order seeks powers for the Applicant within plots 11-197, 11,198, 11-199, 11-200, 11,206, 11-207, 11-208, 11-209, 11-210 and 11-211 to place permanent landscaping, ecological and environmental works, including watercourse realignment and attenuation pond(s); temporary construction compound and laydown area; and access during construction. NGET has engaged with the Applicant at the DCO pre-application stage and has submitted consultation responses to make it clear to the Applicant that the Applicant must have regard to the Substation Extension, OHL Works and enabling works in developing its scheme. NGET will require a form of protective provisions which includes protection in respect of Substation Extension and OHL Works and ensures that the Applicant is not permitted to carry out connection works within the Substation Extension area, OHL Works area or operational land without the agreement of NGET. In order to avoid serious detriment to NGET and its undertaking, the Applicant must not be granted powers of compulsory acquisition in respect of any land required for the Substation Extension or OHL Works. Protection of NGET Assets: As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGET’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. As such, NGET has a duty to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the draft Order Limits. As noted, NGET’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew, repair and refurbishment 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. NGET will require protective provisions to be included within the Order for the Project to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET is liaising with the Applicant in relation to such protective provisions, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. NGET requests that the Applicant continues to engage with it to provide explanation and reassurances as to how the Applicant’s works pursuant to the Order (if made) will ensure protection for those NGET assets which will remain in situ, along with facilitating all future access and other rights as are necessary to allow NGET to properly discharge its statutory obligations. NGET will continue to liaise with the Applicant in this regard with a view to concluding matters as soon as possible during the DCO Examination and will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. Compulsory Acquisition Powers in respect of the Project: The Applicant is seeking compulsory powers over a number of plots which include both existing and future NGET overhead line assets and/or interests. As noted, where the Applicant intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGET’s interests in land, NGET will require further discussion with the Applicant and NGET will require its standard Protective Provisions to be included within the Order NGET reserves the right to make further representations as part of the Examination process in relation to specific interactions with its assets but in the meantime will continue to liaise with the Applicant with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eversheds Sutherland on behalf of Stephen Sprei at Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"We are instructed by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (“Network Rail”) in relation to the application made by Mona Offshore Wind Ltd (“the Applicant”) for development consent to construct and operate the Mona Offshore Wind Project development (“the DCO Scheme”). This section 56 Representation is made on behalf of Network Rail. Network Rail is a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the country’s railway infrastructure and associated estate. Network Rail owns and operates Great Britain’s railway network and has statutory and regulatory obligations in respect of it. Network Rail aims to protect and enhance the railway infrastructure and therefore any proposed development which is adjacent to and interfaces with the railway network or potentially affects Network Rail’s land interest will be carefully considered. The DCO Scheme includes cables that interface with the railway network and therefore will require certain standard protections for the benefit of the railway. Network Rail recognises the protective provisions for its benefit that are included in Part 8 of Schedule 10 to the draft DCO. Whilst Network Rail does not object in principle to the DCO Scheme, in addition to protective provisions for the benefit of Network Rail being included in the DCO Scheme, Network Rail requires the Applicant to enter into an Asset Protection Agreement and a Framework Agreement. Network Rail require a Framework Agreement to be entered into to manage the direct interface that the DCO Scheme has with the operational railway. It is noted that works detailed in Schedule 1 to the draft DCO relate to works on or adjacent to Network Rail’s existing operational railway and railway infrastructure. Network Rail requires that this work is covered by the Asset Protection Agreement. Asset Protection Agreements are always required by Network Rail where works are significantly close in location and disruptive in nature to the operational railway network. Such agreements are well precedented to ensure the appropriate and necessary technical, engineering and safety requirements for working on, over or near Network Rail’s operational railway are applied to the DCO Scheme. Due to the location of the Applicant’s proposed works, Network Rail requires an Asset Protection Agreement in order to carry out its statutory duty. It is acknowledged that discussions with the Applicant to date are on-going. If the following criteria are met, then it is anticipated that Network Rail would be in a position to withdraw the objections made above:- 1. Network Rail’s required amendments to the protective provisions are to be included in the draft DCO for the DCO Scheme; 2. the Applicant enters into a Deed of Undertaking/Framework Agreement to provide formal protection for Network Rail’s statutory undertaking; 3. any required easement and Asset Protection Agreements or any other required agreements are entered into in respect of the acquisition of addressing both the acquisition of rights over Network Rail’s operational land and carrying out of works on or adjacent to Network Rail’s operational land; and 4. Network Rail is granted with clearance and any necessary regulatory consents. Entry into any of the agreements above is subject to internal clearance being granted within Network Rail following internal consultation with affected stakeholders across the business. Network Rail reserves its position, both in representation and in submissions at hearings, to seek the amendments to the draft DCO to ensure protective provisions are inserted for the benefit of Network Rail’s operational infrastructure, which is affected by the DCO Scheme."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Forsters LLP on behalf of The Executors of the Late Sir David Watkin Williams-Wynn. Bt.
"We act for The Executors of the Late Sir David Watkin Williams-Wynn. Bt. & The Trustees of the Wynnstay 1967 Settlement (Trustees Richard Williams and Capt Timothy Bell) (“the Estate”). The Estate objects to the DCO application, and an overview of representations are: 1. No proper reasoning or justification has been provided for the selection of the sites and why the Estate’s site is considered more desirable when compared to neighbouring sites. This is despite numerous requests. 2. The extent of the land acquired is too large for the intended purposes as such it is inappropriate. Land subject to the DCO should only be what is reasonably necessary to carry out the scheme. 3. The land which is sought is high-quality agricultural land that is irreplaceable. The loss of land will adversely impact the Estate’s ability to be sustainable in terms of agriculture, as well as the amenity and visual impact this will have on the Estate and its well established tenants and community it supports. 4. The proposed access route, is inappropriate, there are other sensible alternatives. There is little need to dissect multiple fields especially since no justification for doing so has been given. By dissecting the fields, the Estate’s land will be sterilised, thus adversely impacting the Estate. 5. The potential impacts of the physical structure of the proposed substation and associated works, which include altering the watercourse, result in alterations to the natural subterranean water flows. This could result in poorer quality land surrounding the Estate’s land. Any mitigation has not been adequately addressed. 6. The impact of the additional substation is compounded due to existing infrastructure and further extensions to the grid’s infrastructure, making this a monolithic development which is taking land from the natural environment. Existing infrastructure on the Estate’s land is currently not visible from other areas, the extension of that substation and any additional infrastructure required will result in severe visual impacts that cannot be mitigated. 7. The nature of the interests to be acquired goes beyond what is necessary. Seeking a freehold interest for a substation and the access road is not standard. 8. The proposed environmental mitigation is not adequate and taking additional land to implement mitigation measures is not appropriate. There are suitable alternatives that can be carried out on existing habitats and reserves in close proximity. 9. The Estate has severe concerns about the potential impact of electro-magnetic fields, particularly in relation to fields #2 and #44. No correspondence has been received from the promoter regarding the affects the electro-magnetic fields may have and how any harm can be mitigated. 10. The substation is core and non-contiguous, thus further breaking up the Estate. As a result, this will reduce the Estate’s ability to keep the deer population in check which in turn will have an impact on the wider estate management. 11. The Estate has sought to engage constructively with Mona, but efforts have not been reciprocated. There has been a lack of consistency and transparency."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Iwan Roberts
"Mr. Iwan Roberts [REDACTED] 3rd May 2024 The Secretary of State Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities National Infrastructure Planning Committee The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House 2 The Square Briston BS1 6PN By Post and Email [email protected] [email protected].; [email protected] Dear Sirs MONA OFFSHORE WIND LTD SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008 DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER EN010137 I am a progressive dairy farmer and crop and graze the land within plots 06-101 to 06105 inclusive which are affected by cables for the Mona Offshore windfarm. I have held it on grazing licence for in excess of 15 years although more recently and currently I occupy the land under a farm business tenancy. I wish to object to the installation of these cables on this land for the following reasons: 1) This is some of the most productive land that I farm and is extremely conveniently located to my main holding ideal for cropping and spreading manure – its loss even temporarily will not be limited to the immediate income it generates but will necessitate a review of my business and likely a downsizing of the herd or youngstock followers to the detriment of herd genetics and the wider long term business. 2) The extent of the land taken is vastly beyond what is necessary to build the scheme and the inevitable extreme disruption to the land in terms of topsoil subsoil mixing, compaction and general damage to soil structure on this heavy clay soil which will inevitably render it much less productive than before. 3) A substantial amount of drainage has been installed on the land in the last 5 years which will be rendered obsolete by the disruption proposed by installing these cables 4) The proposals will reduce a highly productive block of land of some 23 acres to 2 separate severed areas of about 4.25 acres each. No provision for access to these areas has been made which will be uneconomic to farm in any event. 5) No provision has been made for any stock and cropping accommodation works which will be required at all times to ensure that livestock and crops will be safely and securely enclosed and watered at all times with adequate access. 6) It would be preferable if the cables could be routed a different way and on less productive land or even better on poles or pylons which would minimize the overall disruption altogether. Please can Mona Offshore consider these alternatives to avoids the impact on me. Yours sincerely Iwan Roberts CC National Infrastructure Commission, 7th Floor, Windsor House, Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0TL [email protected] 2 of 9"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Elizabeth W Wade
"MONA OFFSHORE WIND LTD SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008 DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER EN010137 I am one of the owners of plots 06-101, 06-102, 06-103, 06-104, 06-105 and wish to object to the proposed cable route on the following non exhaustive grounds: The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable options for power transmittal methods – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The Promoter has failed to consider a combination of different power transmittal methods and reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The current power transmittal proposals will not cater for the full generation capacity of Mona Offshore Windfarm leading to a bottleneck in the power supply. This also curtails the capacity for future upgrades. This would not be the case in the event of different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. Locally the land take is extremely excessive and this could be significantly reduced by different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The land has special value to us and future proposals over other land locally and cannot be replaced – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. Requests to consider alternative arrangements have been brushed aside with little or no consideration by the Promoter. There is little or no regard for the impacts on us which is very unfair – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The scheme, certainly to the extent that our land is concerned, has been designed for the convenience of the Promoter and also minimising their costs in order to maximise their return on investment rather than on the basis of there being a compelling case in the public interest overriding the harm done to us as the impacted landowners – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. In addition to consultation failings and lack of any meaningful sincere engagement beyond the minimum necessary lip service believed to be necessary to secure these draconian CPO powers, the Promoter has sought to discourage and disincentivise proper debate at Public Inquiry by declining to produce hard copies of the documents to statutory objectors. As can be seen from the DCO notice received on 26 March 2024 they will charge up to £7,000 to provide hard copies of their reports and documents. One of the co-owners, my mother is in their late 80’s unable to drive and with vision difficulties and unable to read a computer screen and yet the Promoter expects her to travel to either Llandudno or Rhyl in order to inspect hard copies of the document as the Promoter’s charges for them are simply prohibitive. In addition to the above summary please see formal letter of objection dated 3rd May 2024 submitted by post and email to the planning inspectorate and National Infrastructure Commission. We look forward to explaining the above issues in detail to the inspector at the Inquiry Elizabeth Wade"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
G W Parry
"MONA OFFSHORE WIND LTD SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008 DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER EN010137 I am one of the owners of plots 06-101, 06-102, 06-103, 06-104, 06-105 and wish to object to the proposed cable route on the following non exhaustive grounds: 1) The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable options for power transmittal methods – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 2) The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 3) The Promoter has failed to consider a combination of different power transmittal methods and reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 4) The current power transmittal proposals will not cater for the full generation capacity of Mona Offshore Windfarm leading to a bottleneck in the power supply. This also curtails the capacity for future upgrades. This would not be the case in the event of different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 5) Locally the land take is extremely excessive and this could be significantly reduced by different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 6) The land has special value to us and future proposals over other land locally and cannot be replaced – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 7) Requests to consider alternative arrangements have been brushed aside with little or no consideration by the Promoter. There is little or no regard for the impacts on us which is very unfair – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 8) The scheme, certainly to the extent that our land is concerned, has been designed for the convenience of the Promoter and also minimising their costs in order to maximise their return on investment rather than on the basis of there being a compelling case in the public interest overriding the harm done to us as the impacted landowners – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 9) In addition to consultation failings and lack of any meaningful sincere engagement beyond the minimum necessary lip service believed to be necessary to secure these draconian CPO powers, the Promoter has sought to discourage and disincentivise proper debate at Public Inquiry by declining to produce hard copies of the documents to statutory objectors. As can be seen from the DCO notice received on 26 March 2024 they will charge up to £7,000 to provide hard copies of their reports and documents. One of the co-owners, my mother is in their late 80’s unable to drive and with vision difficulties and unable to read a computer screen and yet the Promoter expects her to travel to either Llandudno or Rhyl in order to inspect hard copies of the document as the Promoter’s charges for them are simply prohibitive. In addition to the above summary please see formal letter of objection dated 3rd May 2024 submitted by post and email to the planning inspectorate and National Infrastructure Commission. We look forward to explaining the above issues in detail to the inspector at the Inquiry GW Parry"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heneb:Gwynedd Archaeology
"On 1st April 2024, the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts merged to form a single organisation, called Heneb. The planning advice section of Heneb:Gwynedd Archaeology (formerly Gwynedd Archaeological Planning Service) has been invited as a statutory consultee to register as an interested party for the above application (letter received by post from EnBW 8th April 2024). We were involved in early stage consultations in our capacity as archaeological advisor to the local planning authorities of north-west Wales (Gwynedd, Isle of Anglesey, Eryri National Park Authority, and the western part of Conwy). At that stage, all terrestrial and intertidal works fell outside our geographical area. As of 1st April 2024, Heneb:Gwynedd Archaeology has acquired curatorial responsibility for the whole of Conwy county. As such, the landfall site and cable connections now fall within our remit. We would therefore request to be added to the Archaeology and Heritage Engagement Forum (AHEF) – Onshore so that we are included in relevant future discussions and correspondence. The archaeological planning advisor at Heneb:Clwyd-Powys Archaeology who has been advising on this scheme has been on extended sick leave since 1st March 2024. Consequently we have not had the opportunity to discuss this scheme and coupled with the above recent changes, have had limited time to review scheme documents independently. We note however that regular detailed discussions have been held about the approach to onshore archaeology and that consultees have been satisfied with the approach taken to date. We do not presently feel in a position to be able to provide informed comments on the scheme or the submitted documents and would request the opportunity to submit a detailed representation when we have reviewed the submitted information. We anticipate that we will be providing comments on the following points, insofar as they relate to works and historic assets within Conwy county (and, whilst the Heneb:Clwyd-Powys Archaeology advisor is absent, within Denbighshire) landward of mean low water springs (MLWS): -the scope and adequacy of archaeological assessment and evaluation -the assessment of impacts presented in the Environmental Statement -the suitability of proposed further investigation, mitigation and/or enhancement measures, including the draft Outline Onshore Written Scheme of Investigations -the suggested wording for proposed conditions or other means of securing such works -the content of the OLEMP, OCoCP and other scheme documents as they pertain to archaeology We note that it was not possible to undertake the majority of the agreed trial trenching programme in autumn 2023, with the intention that this would be resumed early in 2024, with results to be submitted during the Examination period if available. We would be grateful for an update on this programme. If it would be helpful, we would welcome a meeting with the project team to bring us up to speed on progress to date and proposed forward strategy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mrs H M Parry
"MONA OFFSHORE WIND LTD SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008 DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER EN010137 I am one of the owners of plots 06-101, 06-102, 06-103, 06-104, 06-105 and wish to object to the proposed cable route on the following non exhaustive grounds: The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable options for power transmittal methods – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The Promoter has failed to consider a combination of different power transmittal methods and reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The current power transmittal proposals will not cater for the full generation capacity of Mona Offshore Windfarm leading to a bottleneck in the power supply. This also curtails the capacity for future upgrades. This would not be the case in the event of different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. Locally the land take is extremely excessive and this could be significantly reduced by different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The land has special value to us and future proposals over other land locally and cannot be replaced – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. Requests to consider alternative arrangements have been brushed aside with little or no consideration by the Promoter. There is little or no regard for the impacts on us which is very unfair – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. The scheme, certainly to the extent that our land is concerned, has been designed for the convenience of the Promoter and also minimising their costs in order to maximise their return on investment rather than on the basis of there being a compelling case in the public interest overriding the harm done to us as the impacted landowners – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. In addition to consultation failings and lack of any meaningful sincere engagement beyond the minimum necessary lip service believed to be necessary to secure these draconian CPO powers, the Promoter has sought to discourage and disincentivise proper debate at Public Inquiry by declining to produce hard copies of the documents to statutory objectors. As can be seen from the DCO notice received on 26 March 2024 they will charge up to £7,000 to provide hard copies of their reports and documents. One of the co-owners, my mother is in their late 80’s unable to drive and with vision difficulties and unable to read a computer screen and yet the Promoter expects her to travel to either Llandudno or Rhyl in order to inspect hard copies of the document as the Promoter’s charges for them are simply prohibitive. In addition to the above summary please see formal letter of objection dated 3rd May 2024 submitted by post and email to the planning inspectorate and National Infrastructure Commission. We look forward to explaining the above issues in detail to the inspector at the Inquiry Mrs H M Parry"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Robert Parry
"MONA OFFSHORE WIND LTD SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008 DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER EN010137 I am one of the owners of plots 06-101, 06-102, 06-103, 06-104, 06-105 and wish to object to the proposed cable route on the following non exhaustive grounds: 1. The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable options for power transmittal methods – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 2. The Promoter has failed to consider all reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 3. The Promoter has failed to consider a combination of different power transmittal methods and reasonable route options that would score equally well in its BRAG report – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 4. The current power transmittal proposals will not cater for the full generation capacity of Mona Offshore Windfarm leading to a bottleneck in the power supply. This also curtails the capacity for future upgrades. This would not be the case in the event of different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 5. Locally the land take is extremely excessive and this could be significantly reduced by different transmittal methods and better route selection or a combination of both – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 6. The land has special value to us and future proposals over other land locally and cannot be replaced – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 7. Requests to consider alternative arrangements have been brushed aside with little or no consideration by the Promoter. There is little or no regard for the impacts on us which is very unfair – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 8. The scheme, certainly to the extent that our land is concerned, has been designed for the convenience of the Promoter and also minimising their costs in order to maximise their return on investment rather than on the basis of there being a compelling case in the public interest overriding the harm done to us as the impacted landowners – Evidence will be adduced at Inquiry for this. 9. In addition to consultation failings and lack of any meaningful sincere engagement beyond the minimum necessary lip service believed to be necessary to secure these draconian CPO powers, the Promoter has sought to discourage and disincentivise proper debate at Public Inquiry by declining to produce hard copies of the documents to statutory objectors. As can be seen from the DCO notice received on 26 March 2024 they will charge up to £7,000 to provide hard copies of their reports and documents. One of the co-owners, my mother is in their late 80’s unable to drive and with vision difficulties and unable to read a computer screen and yet the Promoter expects her to travel to either Llandudno or Rhyl in order to inspect hard copies of the document as the Promoter’s charges for them are simply prohibitive. In addition to the above summary please see formal letter of objection dated 3rd May 2024 submitted by post and email to the planning inspectorate and National Infrastructure Commission. We look forward to explaining the above issues in detail to the inspector at the Inquiry\ Robert Parry"
Members of the Public/Businesses
ScottishPower Renewables (WODS) LTD (ScottishPower Renewables (WODS) LTD)
"Due to the close proximity of the proposed development project, SPR WoDS initial comments in response to the statutory consultation are described below: • The ongoing and uninterrupted operation of WoDS is priority, it is therefore requested that proposed survey and outline construction programmes for the new project are shared with ScottishPower Renewables UK Limited (SPRUK) and discussed as soon as possible • SPRUKL would like to request a meeting to understand the project(s) in greater detail and to discuss the potential impacts on: o Wake effects on existing developments and commercial compensation considerations SPR WoDS recognises the importance of the proposed works and the contribution the project will have in meeting the national need for renewable energy. We are keen to engage with Mona Offshore Wind and and would welcome constructive discussions around the issues noted above and any other emerging topics that arise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Neil
"I make my principal submission re: EN010137 i have kept it short at this stage as to comply with the 500 word limit. In principle I support this project, however i have the following concerns and cannot support the application in its current format. There is a road safety issue with proposed entry/exit into TCC2, on the B5381near to penyrefail crossroads, due to the topography in that location. Also The proposed development, as applied for, of TCC2 will result in significant highway damage. Whilst i am in agreement of proposed 40mph speed limit on the A548, at penyrefail crossroads to facilitate TCC3. I believe the entrance to TCC2 should also be on the A548. Making use of the already proposed 40 mph limit. I have issue that the proposed corridor width in one area near penyrefail crossroads, it is unnecessarily wide and does not comply with the information disclosed on the application. One of the proposed cable routes will cause unnecessary and irreversible ecological damage to a very sensitive wildlife habitat. Some very important Ancient trees have not been considered or indicated near the proposed crossing point. in the area of penyrefail crossroads, any trenchless method will damage roots causing habitat loss for bats, owls, woodpeckers endangered wildlife including redstarts and resulting environmental damage. Natural springs and the watercourse would be directly effected by any proposed cable crossing at certain points near penyrefail crossroads. Existing Drainage pipes and ditches either side of the B5381 have not been indicated or considered and any cable crossing would result in directly affecting the watercourse and increase the potential for contamination of said watercourse. If the application is approved in its current state there will be significant economic damage and significant damage to agriculture and tourism which is the mainstay in the penyrefail crossroad area. The proposed cable route and associated development near penyrefail crossroads is inefficient and of bad design. The applicant's own water management plan indicates that the topography dictates, that the cable should pass as close to the penyrefail crossroads as possible. Therefore any contaminated runoff is then dealt within the catchment of the main drain system and can appropriately and legally be dealt with. The application is lacking in detail and is contradictory. Until the applicant can provide firm details of what their plans for the project are it is impossible for the planning inspectorate panel or the public to accurately discuss the impact of a plan that is incoherent. The application has not fully complied with the requirements or spirit of the planning act 2008. There are missing references to physical obstacles within the corridor application, eg missing existing power lines. I conclude my representation's for EN 010137"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barrow Offshore Wind Limited
"Barrow Offshore Wind Limited owns the Barrow Offshore Windfarm, an operational offshore windfarm with a s36 Electricity Act 1989 consent and relevant marine licences (“our Development”). Its proximity to Mona Offshore Wind Farm (“MOWF”) can be seen in MOWF’s Environmental Statement (the “ES”) (F2.10 Figure 10.4 and Table 10.10). Our Development does not object to the principle of MOWF. We do, however, wish to participate in the DCO Examination to make representations about the potential impacts on and interactions with our Development and, where appropriate, to secure appropriate mitigations. Concerns were previously highlighted to MOWF via a s48 consultation response and subsequent meeting. Our concerns as raised in the s48 response remain extant and we expect further meaningful engagement to seek to address the issues raised below and previously. We are open to addressing such matters within or outside the Examination process. Our Development expects to continue to operate and be maintained in the long-term. It may be upgraded and repowered in future, and will then be decommissioned. Co-existence with our Development must be considered and protected over the long-term – and the acceptability of cumulative and in-combination impacts – must be properly assessed taking into account each of the above stages of our Development’s life. Our Development requires that its operations, consents (including conditions), and any stakeholder agreements entered into by it are unaffected by MOWF. Our Development’s concerns include the following. Issue one: The ES highlights potential significant impacts on wildlife features, including potential significant project-alone and in-combination impacts on marine mammals (F2.4). We are not convinced that the baseline and the predicted impacts are robust and align with our understanding of the local environment and we require to analyse this further. Future impacts of our Development, such as operation and maintenance, must be accounted for by MOWF and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to facilitate co-existence and allow co-ordination to reduce potential cumulative or in-combination impacts. Issue two: The ES highlights extensive impacts on shipping and navigation and commits to stakeholder engagement (F2.7 7.14.1.2-7.14.1.4). We require to be involved in such engagement to ensure that our consents, agreements, and operations are not adversely affected by MOWF. Issue Three: We believe that MOWF will adversely affect the energy yield of our Development. Due to the proximity outlined in the above-referenced figure and table, there is the potential for MOWF to interfere with wind speed or direction at our Development causing reduction in energy output. This requires to be properly assessed and appropriately mitigated / compensated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bodorgan Marine Limited
"Mona NSIP Representations by Bodorgan Marine Limited PART 1: Co-Location Co-location strategy matters 1. The Applicant recognises the need for an effective co-location strategy and indeed claims that an overview of the co-location strategy will be set out in the Outline Fisheries Liaison and Co-Existence Plan (‘FLCP’); see 1.1.5 and 1.3.2 of the FLCP. 2. However, the FLCP does not present a co-location strategy. What the FCLP does is present a strategy for a form of co-existence – and not co-location - in allowing business as usual scallop fishing to continue in part of the development area. 3. Business as usual fishing is not in our opinion co-location. Indeed, the applicant’s own material recognizes this reality: see ES Volume 6, Annex 6.1 Commercial Fisheries Technical Report where business as usual fishing is described as co-existence 4. What the applicant should have done was to have turned its mind to the meaning of co-location, in particular as that term is understood in Welsh waters. If it had done so, it would have considered CEFAS’s April 2020 document entitled: “Welsh National Marine Plan: A review of the potential for co-existence of different sectors in the Welsh Marine Plan Area” (‘the 2020 CEFAS Report). 5. It is not clear that the applicant has considered the 2020 CEFAS Report as it is not listed in the Environmental Statement Chapter on Policy and Legislative background, Volume 1, Chapter 2. 6. If the applicant had considered the 2020 CEFAS Report: • its consultation activities, • its mitigation strategy, and • its socio-economic and other assessments would have focused on defining and delivering a strategy for realising the potential of the most promising form of co-location with offshore wind energy. This is widely and authoritatively recognised to be the co-location of mussel acquaculture and offshore wind energy. The 2020 CEFAS document: the meaning of co-location in Welsh waters 7. The 2020 CEFAS Report confirms that co-location is not the same thing as co-existence. Co-location is narrower and more specific. This is in contrast with the applicant’s definition of co-location in the FLCP at 1.3.1.1. 8. The 2020 CEFAS Report does not treat the interaction of offshore wind energy and fishing as co-location. Rather, its focus is on acquaculture as a co-location activity and it includes a specific chapter heading examining the co-location of acquaculture and offshore wind energy. 9. Extracts from the 2020 CEFAS Report confirm the potential of acquaculture to be the most promising form of co-location. PART 2: compliance with national policy requirements National Policy Statement EN-3 and co-located acquaculture 10. NPS-EN3, at paragraph 2.8.250 and .251, sets out 2 requirements, that: a. there should be effective consultation with the relevant part of the fishing industry; and b. mitigation should be designed to enhance positive benefits to the fishing industry. 11. As to the first requirement, for effective consultation, we are not aware there has been any consultation between the applicant and the acquaculture industry. This is surprising given that there is and has been a significant mussel acquaculture industry in the waters off Anglesey. Furthermore, we note that the FLOWW best practice guidance is now 10 years old. 12. As to the second requirement, for mitigation to be designed to enhance positive benefits to the fishing industry: a. we are not aware that the applicant has given any consideration to the enhancement of acquaculture; and b. in our view the mitigation proposals set out in the applicant’s proposal (i.e. those set out in the FLCP which look to preserve current fishing practices) cannot be characterised as an enhancement of benefits to the fishing industry. Welsh Government policy and co-located acquaculture 13. The 2019 Welsh Government Marine Plan policy requires optimization of the value of co-existence opportunities. 14. For the reasons set out above relating to NSIP EN-3, the applicant’s proposals have not considered the opportunities to co-locate with the mussel acquaculture industry to optimize the value and use of the marine area and marine natural resources. (our emphasis) PART 3: Other matters Method of securing mitigation 15. We question whether the current proposal for securing mitigation will be effective to secure mitigation in the form of co-located acquaculture. 16. We would like to reserve our ability to make further representations on this issue in due course. Evidence base 17. We ask PINS to add the 2020 CEFAS Report“Welsh National Marine Plan: A review of the potential for co-existence of different sectors in the Welsh Marine Plan Area”, , to the document library."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Burbo Extension Ltd
"Burbo Extension Ltd owns the Burbo Bank Extension Wind Farm, an operational offshore windfarm with a Development Consent Order (DCO) and relevant marine licences (“our Development”). Its proximity to Mona Offshore Wind Farm (“MOWF”) can be seen in MOWF’s Environmental Statement (the “ES”) (F2.10 Figure 10.4, Table 10.10). Our Development does not object to the principle of MOWF. We do, however, wish to participate in the DCO Examination to make representations about the potential impacts on and interactions with our Development and, where appropriate, to secure appropriate mitigations. Concerns were previously highlighted to MOWF via a s48 consultation response and subsequent meeting. Our concerns as raised in the s48 response remain extant and we expect further meaningful engagement to seek to address the issues raised below and previously. We are open to addressing such matters within or outside the Examination process. Our Development expects to continue to operate and be maintained in the long-term. It may be upgraded and repowered in future, and will then be decommissioned. Co-existence with our Development must be considered and protected over the long-term – and the acceptability of cumulative and in-combination impacts – must be properly assessed taking into account each of the above stages of our Development’s life. Our Development requires that its operations, consents (including conditions), and any stakeholder agreements entered into by it are unaffected by MOWF. Our Development’s concerns include the following. Issue one: The ES highlights potential significant impacts on wildlife features, including potential significant project-alone and in-combination impacts on marine mammals (F2.4). We are not convinced that the baseline and the predicted impacts are robust and align with our understanding of the local environment and we require to analyse this further. Future impacts of our Development, such as operation and maintenance, must be accounted for by MOWF and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to facilitate co-existence and allow co-ordination to reduce potential cumulative or in-combination impacts. Issue two: The ES highlights extensive impacts on shipping and navigation and commits to stakeholder engagement (F2.7 7.14.1.2-7.14.1.4). We require to be involved in such engagement to ensure that our consents, agreements, and operations are not adversely affected by MOWF. The high concentration of allision risk created around our Development due to the “high density of traffic” and the “proximity of transit to existing offshore wind farms” is specifically referred to in the ES (F2.7 7.9.8.5), emphasising the need for further engagement to reduce risks. Issue Three: We believe that MOWF will adversely affect the energy yield of our Development. Due to the proximity outlined in the above-referenced figure and table, there is the potential for MOWF to interfere with wind speed or direction at our Development causing reduction in energy output. This requires to be properly assessed and appropriately mitigated / compensated. Issue Four: Our Development has put in place appropriate mitigation in relation to potential impacts on the Warton Airfield Primary Surveillance Radar. We require assurance that MOWF will not adversely affect or increase the cost of such mitigation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Bradburne Price & Co on behalf of H L & RJL Evans
"I want the opportunity to provide comments on the draft DCO, book of reference, environmental statement together with other documents and items."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Bradburne Price & Co
"I want the opportunity to provide comments on the draft DCO, book of reference, environmental statement together with other documents and items."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mooir Vannin Offshore Wind Farm Limited
"Mooir Vannin Offshore Wind Farm Limited is the developer of the proposed Mooir Vannin Offshore Wind Farm, which holds a grid connection offer and an Agreement for Lease (AfL) with the Isle of Man Government (“our Project”). We submitted a Scoping Report in 2023 and are preparing to submit an Application for Marine Infrastructure Consent in 2025. Our proximity to Mona Offshore Wind Farm (“MOWF”) can be seen in MOWF’s Environmental Statement (“ES”) (F2.10) Figure 10.4 and Table 10.10. We do not object to the principle of MOWF. We do, however, wish to participate in the DCO Examination to make representations about the potential impacts on and interactions with our Project and, where appropriate, to secure appropriate mitigations. High-level concerns were previously highlighted to MOWF via a consultation response. Our concerns as raised in the response remain extant and we expect further meaningful engagement to seek to address the issues raised below and previously. We are open to addressing within or outside the Examination process and have met with representatives of MOWF and Morgan Offshore Wind Farm in 2024 to discuss potential mitigations (radar and shipping and navigation) and opportunities (Landfall and Grid connection and Net Gain) for alignment. MOWF should take into account all of our Project’s information and engage appropriately with us as both projects’ applications progress. MOWF must ensure the accuracy of cumulative and in-combination assessments to ensure impacts are properly understood and appropriately mitigated to facilitate effective co-existence. We note previous consultation responses to MOWF, including from the Isle of Man Government Territorial Sea Committee (E3.1), which refer to our AfL area being omitted from certain maps of neighbouring offshore windfarms. We note that certain Figures and Table within the ES (F2.7) are stated as “excluding Mooir Vannin Offshore Wind Farm”. Our Project’s concerns include: Issue one: The ES highlights potential significant impacts on wildlife, including potential significant project-alone and in-combination impacts on marine mammals (F2.4). We further note in relation to offshore ornithology that Tables 5.49 – 5.50 of the Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) refer to our Project but no further consideration is made. A further example is Commercial Fisheries where the MMO specifically requested that our Project is considered within the CEA. We note that our Project is discussed in relation to effects on scallop vessels and offshore static gear vessels during the construction phase and O&M phase. In relation to both receptors the effects are judged to be non-significant. We are not convinced that the baseline and the predicted impacts are robust and align with our understanding of the local environment and we require to analyse this further. The impact of our Project must be accounted for by MOWF and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to facilitate co-existence and allow co-ordination to reduce potential cumulative or in-combination impacts. Issue two: The ES highlights extensive impacts on shipping and navigation and commits to stakeholder engagement (F2.7 7.14.1.2-7.14.1.4). We require to be involved in such engagement to ensure that co-existence can be successfully achieved. The cumulative effect of MOWF, the proposed Morgan offshore windfarm and Morecambe offshore windfarm and our Project is set out in the Navigational Risk Assessment which refers to the fact that “with the addition of Mooir Vannin OWF, there were likely to be further impacts on ferry routes in typical and adverse conditions and unacceptable risk to navigation safety” (F6.7.1 D.5.1.1.8). Issue Three: It is anticipated that there may be a requirement to put in place appropriate mitigation in relation to potential impacts on primary surveillance radar. We require assurance that MOWF has correctly assessed the impact of its windfarm both project alone and on an in-combination basis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Morecambe Wind Limited
"Morecambe Wind Limited is part owner of the West of Duddon Sands Windfarm a joint Scottish Power Renewables and Orsted venture. West of Duddon Sands is an operational offshore windfarm with a s36 Electricity Act 1989 consent and relevant marine licences (“our Development”). Its proximity to Mona Offshore Wind Farm (“MOWF”) can be seen in MOWF’s Environmental Statement (the “ES”) (F2.10 Figure 10.4 and Table 10.10). Our Development does not object to the principle of MOWF. We do, however, wish to participate in the DCO Examination to make representations about the potential impacts on and interactions with our Development and, where appropriate, to secure appropriate mitigations. Concerns were previously highlighted to MOWF via a s48 consultation response and subsequent meeting. Our concerns as raised in the s48 response remain extant and we expect further meaningful engagement to seek to address the issues raised below and previously. We are open to addressing such matters within or outside the Examination process. Our Development expects to continue to operate and be maintained in the long-term. It may be upgraded and repowered in future, and will then be decommissioned. Co-existence with our Development must be considered and protected over the long-term – and the acceptability of cumulative and in-combination impacts – must be properly assessed taking into account each of the above stages of our Development’s life. Our Development requires that its operations, consents (including conditions), and any stakeholder agreements entered into by it are unaffected by MOWF. Our Development’s concerns include the following. Issue one: The ES highlights potential significant impacts on wildlife features, including potential significant project-alone and in-combination impacts on marine mammals (F2.4). We are not convinced that the baseline and the predicted impacts are robust and align with our understanding of the local environment and we require to analyse this further. Future impacts of our Development, such as operation and maintenance, must be accounted for by MOWF and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to facilitate co-existence and allow co-ordination to reduce potential cumulative or in-combination impacts. Issue two: The ES highlights extensive impacts on shipping and navigation and commits to stakeholder engagement (F2.7 7.14.1.2-7.14.1.4). We require to be involved in such engagement to ensure that our consents, agreements, and operations are not adversely affected by MOWF. Issue Three: We believe that MOWF will adversely affect the energy yield of our Development. Due to the proximity outlined in the above-referenced figure and table, there is the potential for MOWF to interfere with wind speed or direction at our Development causing reduction in energy output. This requires to be properly assessed and appropriately mitigated / compensated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Bradburne Price & Co on behalf of Mr & Mrs Davies
"I want the opportunity to provide comments on the draft DCO, book of reference, environmental statement together with other documents and items."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Bradburne Price & Co on behalf of Mr Roberts
"I want the opportunity to provide comments on the draft DCO, book of reference, environmental statement together with other documents and items."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca face
"Submission for EN010137. My concerns are the abnormalities present in the application itself and the lack of accountability that will create, and the fundamental lack of detail and diligence centering around the TCC2 area.the TCC2 area is a key juncture for the project and yet the information about the corridor, cable route, proposed new road layout are incoherent and impossible to achieve given the physical nature of the area. This will lead to serious cumulative effects for wildlife, habitats, marshland, watercourses, the local economy, flooding and serious impacts on road safety. It would be beneficial to hold open floor hearings, hearings about specific issues and compulsory acquisition hearings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
RSPB Cymru
"Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010137 Text of Relevant Representation from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 6 May 2024 INTRODUCTION The UK is of outstanding international importance for its breeding seabirds and wintering marine birds. As with all Annex I and regularly migratory species, the UK has a particular responsibility under the Birds Directive to secure their conservation. Their survival and productivity rates can be impacted by offshore windfarms directly (i.e. collision) and indirectly (e.g. displacement from foraging areas, additional energy expenditure, potential impacts on forage fish and wider ecosystem impacts such as changes in stratification).?? The RSPB supports the deployment of renewable energy projects, providing that they are sited in appropriate places and designed to avoid potential adverse impacts on wildlife. We are grateful for the constructive pre-application discussions that have taken place with Mona Offshore Wind Farm Limited in respect of this proposal, particularly through the Evidence Plan process. As set out in Searle et al (2023), assessing impacts of offshore windfarms and other renewables developments is inherently uncertain. This uncertainty is propagated throughout the impact assessments, as there are not only direct impacts, but ecosystem wide impacts that can change, for example, the abundance and availability of prey. Multiple data sources and modelling techniques are used to capture a simplified version of reality. They do not fully capture the complexity of seabird behavioural or demographic processes in a dynamic marine environment.?? Not recognising these uncertainties risks poorly informed decisions being made. Furthermore an underestimation of impacts will have repercussions when consenting later offshore wind development. If a precautionary approach is taken from the beginning, the likelihood of irreversible damage occurring is reduced even whilst our knowledge base is incomplete, and modelling improves.?? The precautionary principle requires the Applicant to demonstrate with scientific certainty that something would not be harmful. The concept of something being overly precautionary dismisses the inherent uncertainty in modelling and overlooks the simplistic version of reality that the modelling captures.?? While methodological concerns remain, progress towards resolving a number of issues was made during the pre-application discussions for this project. We continue to have significant concerns relating to the project’s in-combination and cumulative collision risk and displacement impacts including their assessment. The RSPB has engaged with the Applicant throughout the pre-application stage to provide our constructive advice as the Applicant has developed its project. We will continue, as far as practicable, to seek to engage with the Applicant throughout the Examination period. However due to the number of offshore wind farm project applications coming forward during 2024 we will face significant demands on our limited capacity. As a consequence, we will not be able to engage with any hearings associated with this application and will engage through written communications only and limited to when capacity allows. OFFSHORE ORNITHOLOGY IMPACTS - SUMMARY OF RSPB POSITION We have significant concerns regarding the findings of some of the impact assessments. As a result of the methodological concerns, set out below, the RSPB considers that the impacts have not been adequately assessed and, as such consider Adverse Effect on Integrity (AEOI) cannot be ruled out beyond reasonable scientific doubt for collision impacts arising through the project alone and in combination with other projects for Manx shearwater at the following Special Protected Areas: - Copeland Islands SPA - Irish Sea Front SPA - Rum SPA - St Kilda SPA - Glannau Aberdaron ac Ynys Enlli/Aberdaron Coast and Bardsey Island SPA? - Skomer, Skokholm and the Seas off Pembrokeshire/Sgomer, Sgogwm a Moroedd Penfro SPA AEOI cannot be ruled out beyond reasonable scientific doubt for impacts arising through collision and distributional change arising through the project in combination with other projects on a range of species/SPA combinations We also consider that the Assessment has not fully considered Ecosystem impacts arising from the proposed development and has not properly accounted for potential for population scale impacts to be magnified through effects of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza. MANX SHEARWATER BASELINE CHARACTERISATION Manx shearwater can be active throughout the day and night, with different levels of activity at different times. Such activity is variable, for example, for birds tracked from Skomer, diving occurred during the day and peaked in the evening (Shoji et al., 2016), while nocturnal foraging was observed from tracking of birds from High Island, Ireland (Kane et al., 2020). These diel variations in activity mean that the somewhat limited amount of time digital aerial surveys (DAS) were carried out is unlikely to properly characterise the activity of Manx shearwater at the Application site, (only one of the 24 survey flights for the baseline characterisation started before 0700). For these reasons the RSPB does not have confidence in the baseline densities of Manx shearwater presented, and therefore it is impossible to make any conclusions as to the significance of impacts. Issues of detectability are not only whether the nocturnal and crepuscular nature of some of the at-sea behaviours means that they are not captured by the survey flights but also whether the size and flight characteristics of the species make them harder to detect. Evidence that the surveys are recording Manx Shearwaters should not be taken as evidence that all of this species occurrence within the footprint during surveys has been detected. Deakin et al., 2023 highlight a need for experimental validation of these potential biases in aerial survey methods, including detectability, identification and diel variation. Without addressing these concerns, we are unable to rely on the densities of Manx Shearwater presented in the assessment and therefore unable to reach conclusions as to the significance of adverse impacts. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARISING THROUGH COLLISION In respect of Manx shearwater, the Applicant has concluded no adverse impact arising through collision with rotating turbines. We disagree that such a conclusion can be reached because the manner in which the calculations have been carried out do not reflect potential behaviour in the vicinity of turbines. Fundamental to the consideration of collision risk for this species is the extent to which nocturnally active seabirds, such as Manx shearwaters, may be attracted to the illuminations required for turbines, support vessels and the construction or expansion of ports. Such attraction will cause behaviour change, which could in turn increase collision risk, for example if birds fly higher when attracted to lights. There is abundant evidence of light-induced disorientation of Manx shearwaters. This evidence includes the grounding of fledglings in lit areas (Miles et al., 2010) and collision with lighthouses and other illuminated structures (Guilford et al., 2019, Archer et al., 2015). If light-induced disorientation leads to individual birds circling the navigation lights on the nacelle or tower of turbines for protracted periods (as has been reported for birds disorientated by lighthouses or gas flares) the probability of collision with turbine blades or other surfaces is vastly increased. Alongside this increased collision risk, the energetic costs of attraction and disorientation may be sufficient to impact on long term survival and the ability to successfully rear young. METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE/IN-COMBINATION IMPACTS The RSPB recognise the difficulties with carrying out a full in combination assessment for a number of species SPA combinations because of the difficulties in obtaining historical data and the limitations in how it was collected and analyses. Regardless of these difficulties, it is important that such an assessment is carried out with consideration of these sites and Natural England have produced what we consider to be a practical and pragmatic solution, while fully acknowledging that it is imperfect; less so for displacement than collision risk but both are to a greater or lesser extent indicative of the potential scale rather than absolute quantification of impact. While it is acceptable for the Applicant to present alternative methodologies, it would be preferable for the outputs to be presented alongside those obtained following the recommendations of the Statutory Agencies. The RSPB are particularly concerned in regard to in combination impacts in relation to Great Black-backed Gull at the Isles of Scilly SPA. Great Black-backed Gull breeding numbers (AON) declined by 52% in the UK between the Seabirds 2000 and Seabirds Count censuses (Lewis, 2023), although the majority of decline happened in Scottish colonies. However, a further decline was recorded by surveys carried out in response to the outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) Tremlett, et al., 2024. The total number of Great Black-backed Gull AONs recorded across all sites surveyed in 2023 decreased by 20% compared with the pre-HPAI baseline count for these sites, and a 32% decline was recorded in the Isles of Scilly SPA. ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS RSPB Cymru would welcome an inclusion consideration of the potential wider ecosystem impacts that may arise through the construction and operation of the wind farm. These could occur, for example, through changes in water column stratification arising from the presence of the wind farm ultimately altering the availability of prey to seabirds. HIGHLY PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA The current H5N1 strain of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) has affected UK wild bird populations on an unprecedented scale since it was first recorded in the country in Great Skuas in summer 2021, with seabirds and waterfowl particularly affected. The extent of reported mortalities attributed to HPAI in the UK and across Europe in 2022 demonstrated that HPAI had become one of the biggest immediate conservation threats faced by multiple seabird species, including some for which the UK population is of global importance. Many species impacted by HPAI are of conservation concern in the UK, and the outbreak comes on top of widespread declines reported by the latest seabird census. It is currently unclear what the population scale impacts of the outbreak will be, but it is likely that they will be severe. This scale of impact means that seabird populations will be much less robust to any additional mortality arising from offshore wind farm developments. It also means that there may need to be a reassessment of whether SPA populations are in Favourable Conservation Status. With such uncertainty as to the future of these populations, there is the need for a high level of precaution to be included in examination of impacts arising from the proposed development.? The RSPB do not consider that these concerns have been adequately considered in the Assessment. Finally, the RSPB reserves the right to add to and/or amend its position in light of changes to or any new information submitted by the Applicant.?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Bradburne Price & Co on behalf of W L Evans
"I want the opportunity to provide comments on the draft DCO, book of reference, environmental statement together with other documents and items."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Walney (UK) Offshore Windfarms Limited (Walney (UK) Offshore Windfarms Limited )
"Walney (UK) Offshore Windfarms Limited owns the Walney 1 and 2 windfarms, an operational offshore windfarm with a s36 Electricity Act 1989 consent and relevant marine licences (“our Development”). Its proximity to Mona Offshore Wind Farm (“MOWF”) can be seen in MOWF’s Environmental Statement (the “ES”) (F2.10 Figure 10.4 and Table 10.10). Our Development does not object to the principle of MOWF. We do, however, wish to participate in the DCO Examination to make representations about the potential impacts on and interactions with our Development and, where appropriate, to secure appropriate mitigations. Concerns were previously highlighted to MOWF via a s48 consultation response and subsequent meeting. Our concerns as raised in the s48 response remain extant and we expect further meaningful engagement to seek to address the issues raised below and previously. We are open to addressing such matters within or outside the Examination process. Our Development expects to continue to operate and be maintained in the long-term. It may be upgraded and repowered in future, and will then be decommissioned. Co-existence with our Development must be considered and protected over the long-term – and the acceptability of cumulative and in-combination impacts – must be properly assessed taking into account each of the above stages of our Development’s life. Our Development requires that its operations, consents (including conditions), and any stakeholder agreements entered into by it are unaffected by MOWF. Our Development’s concerns include the following. Issue one: The ES highlights potential significant impacts on wildlife features, including potential significant project-alone and in-combination impacts on marine mammals (F2.4). We are not convinced that the baseline and the predicted impacts are robust and align with our understanding of the local environment and we require to analyse this further. Future impacts of our Development, such as operation and maintenance, must be accounted for by MOWF and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to facilitate co-existence and allow co-ordination to reduce potential cumulative or in-combination impacts. Issue two: The ES highlights extensive impacts on shipping and navigation and commits to stakeholder engagement (F2.7 7.14.1.2-7.14.1.4). We require to be involved in such engagement to ensure that our consents, agreements, and operations are not adversely affected by MOWF. Issue Three: We believe that MOWF will adversely affect the energy yield of our Development. Due to the proximity outlined in the above-referenced figure and table, there is the potential for MOWF to interfere with wind speed or direction at our Development causing reduction in energy output. This requires to be properly assessed and appropriately mitigated / compensated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Walney Extension Limited
"Walney Extension Limited owns the Walney Extension Windfarm comprising Walney 3 and 4, an operational offshore windfarm with a Development Consent Order (DCO) and relevant marine licences (“our Development”). Its proximity to Mona Offshore Wind Farm (“MOWF”) can be seen in MOWF’s Environmental Statement (the “ES”) (F2.10 Figure 10.4 and Table 10.10). Our Development does not object to the principle of MOWF. We do, however, wish to participate in the DCO Examination to make representations about the potential impacts on and interactions with our Development and, where appropriate, to secure appropriate mitigations. Concerns were previously highlighted to MOWF via a s48 consultation response and subsequent meeting. Our concerns as raised in the s48 response remain extant and we expect further meaningful engagement to seek to address the issues raised below and previously. We are open to addressing such matters within or outside the Examination process. Our Development expects to continue to operate and be maintained in the long-term. It may be upgraded and repowered in future, and will then be decommissioned. Co-existence with our Development must be considered and protected over the long-term – and the acceptability of cumulative and in-combination impacts – must be properly assessed taking into account each of the above stages of our Development’s life. Our Development requires that its operations, consents (including conditions), and any stakeholder agreements entered into by it are unaffected by MOWF. Our Development’s concerns include the following. Issue one: The ES highlights potential significant impacts on wildlife features, including potential significant project-alone and in-combination impacts on marine mammals (F2.4). We are not convinced that the baseline and the predicted impacts are robust and align with our understanding of the local environment and we require to analyse this further. Future impacts of our Development, such as operation and maintenance, must be accounted for by MOWF and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to facilitate co-existence and allow co-ordination to reduce potential cumulative or in-combination impacts. Issue two: The ES highlights extensive impacts on shipping and navigation and commits to stakeholder engagement (F2.7 7.14.1.2-7.14.1.4). We require to be involved in such engagement to ensure that our consents, agreements, and operations are not adversely affected by MOWF. Issue Three: We believe that MOWF will adversely affect the energy yield of our Development. Due to the proximity outlined in the above-referenced figure and table, there is the potential for MOWF to interfere with wind speed or direction at our Development causing reduction in energy output. This requires to be properly assessed and appropriately mitigated / compensated. Issue Four: Our Development has put in place appropriate mitigation in relation to potential impacts on the Warton Airfield Primary Surveillance Radar. We require assurance that MOWF will not adversely affect or increase the cost of such mitigation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ørsted Burbo (UK) Limited (Ørsted Burbo (UK) Limited )
"Ørsted Burbo (UK) Limited owns the Burbo Bank Wind Farm, an operational offshore windfarm with a s36 Electricity Act 1989 consent and relevant marine licences (“our Development”). Its proximity to Mona Offshore Wind Farm (“MOWF”) can be seen in MOWF’s Environmental Statement (the “ES”) (F2.10 Figure 10.4 and Table 10.10). Our Development does not object to the principle of MOWF. We do, however, wish to participate in the DCO Examination to make representations about the potential impacts on and interactions with our Development and, where appropriate, to secure appropriate mitigations. Concerns were previously highlighted to MOWF via a s48 consultation response and subsequent meeting. Our concerns as raised in the s48 response remain extant and we expect further meaningful engagement to seek to address the issues raised below and previously. We are open to addressing such matters within or outside the Examination process. Our Development expects to continue to operate and be maintained in the long-term. It may be upgraded and repowered in future, and will then be decommissioned. Co-existence with our Development must be considered and protected over the long-term – and the acceptability of cumulative and in-combination impacts – must be properly assessed taking into account each of the above stages of our Development’s life. Our Development requires that its operations, consents (including conditions), and any stakeholder agreements entered into by it are unaffected by MOWF. Our Development’s concerns include the following. Issue one: The ES highlights potential significant impacts on wildlife features, including potential significant project-alone and in-combination impacts on marine mammals (F2.4). We are not convinced that the baseline and the predicted impacts are robust and align with our understanding of the local environment and we require to analyse this further. Future impacts of our Development, such as operation and maintenance, must be accounted for by MOWF and appropriate mechanisms must be put in place to facilitate co-existence and allow co-ordination to reduce potential cumulative or in-combination impacts. Issue two: The ES highlights extensive impacts on shipping and navigation and commits to stakeholder engagement (F2.7 7.14.1.2-7.14.1.4). We require to be involved in such engagement to ensure that our consents, agreements, and operations are not adversely affected by MOWF. The high concentration of allision risk created around our Development due to the “high density of traffic” and the “proximity of transit to existing offshore wind farms” is specifically referred to in the ES (F2.7 7.9.8.5), emphasising the need for further engagement to reduce risks. Issue Three: We believe that MOWF will adversely affect the energy yield of our Development. Due to the proximity outlined in the above-referenced figure and table, there is the potential for MOWF to interfere with wind speed or direction at our Development causing reduction in energy output. This requires to be properly assessed and appropriately mitigated / compensated."