applicant’s responses to bournemouth borough council local ...... · bournemouth borough council...
TRANSCRIPT
Applicant’s Responses to Bournemouth Borough Council Local Impact Report
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
General
The Council states that is not against proposals for the development of
appropriate renewable energy projects per se. However, it goes on to
state that the Navitus Bay proposal fails the tests of the Local Plan,
specifically Policy CS3.
The Council states that the current Navitus Bay proposal does not fall
within the definition of a decentralised renewable energy project ‟ for
the purposes of the Local Plan, since it would be located outside the
Borough’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Policy indicates that “the wider
environmental, economic and social benefits of all proposals for
decentralised renewable and low carbon energy projects will be
weighed against other policies in the Plan…”
The Council states that if the Navitus Bay proposal had fallen within
the Council’s area of responsibility, it would not have been able to
support it and, therefore, is unable to do so in its role is only as a
consultee.
Bournemouth Borough Council is a non-development area local authority, in that no
part of the Project lies within its area. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy was
identified in Appendix A of the Planning Statement as a policy to which
Bournemouth Borough Council may have regard in preparing its Local Impact
Report. The policy was not considered further in the Planning Statement as it is not
consistent with the approach required to be taken by the relevant NPS advice and
would not have been part of the development plan for the purposes of any part of
the Project had the application not been an NSIP. Had it been appropriate to
evaluate the policy then consideration would have been given to its consistency with
the core planning principles at paragraph 17 of the NPPF. The NPPF advises on
new development that accords with local requirements for decentralised energy
supply (paragraph 96) and Core Strategy policy CS3 should be read in the context
of this advice. The Project is not an example of decentralised energy supply to
which policy CS3 would apply. Advice on the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources is set out at
NPPF paragraph 97, which advises that local planning authorities should have a
positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources. Policy
CS3 does not advise on the acceptability of developments that fall within the scope
of paragraph 97 and there are no other policies within the Bournemouth Core
Strategy or District Wide Local Plan that advise specifically on the determination of
development proposals that fall within the scope of paragraph 97. However, in
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
such cases Core Strategy Policy CS1 (recited in Appendix A of the Planning
Statement) advises that planning permission should be granted unless material
considerations indicate otherwise, taking into account whether any adverse impacts
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against
the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF that
indicate that development should be restricted.
Local Area Characteristics
The Council states that the area is recognised for the beauty and
quality of its environmental setting including a number of nationally
designated sites and 1466 heritage assets. The Council states that the
Navitus Bay project is considered ‘totally inappropriate’ in terms of its
location and scale and would not met the criteria of either the
Bournemouth Local Plan or the Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy
Strategy. BBC considers that proposals will have a significant negative
impact on the Borough.
The Council references the Overarching National Policy Statement for
Energy (EN-1) and goes on to state that it is concerned that the
introduction of the wind farm will have a significant negative impact on
the area.
The Council states that it is concerned that there is uncertainty over
the lifespan of the project in general and the period of time that at least
some of the array will be present offshore.
Bournemouth Borough Council states that ‘the site at Hengistbury Head will be
adversely impacted by the proposed development’, but does not provide any further
information or explanation as to why the Project will result in harm to the Scheduled
Monument.
It is considered that the Project, located 19.8 km to the south of Hengistbury Head,
will not harm the significance of the asset. The detailed assessment of the
alteration of the setting of Hengistbury Head is provided within paragraphs 5.282 to
5.294 of Volume B – Offshore, Chapter 15 – Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix
15.1 – Cultural Settings Technical Report.
The Project will be visible from parts of the Scheduled Monument, but it will not alter
any of the important elements of the setting of Hengistbury Head, including its
strong historic maritime associations and the Project is not considered to harm the
contribution of seascape vistas to the significance of the Scheduled Monument.
Bournemouth Borough Council states that a significant negative impact on a
heritage asset can/will occur at a much lower tolerance level than ‘substantial harm
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
The Council states that within the seascape there are a number of
listed buildings and Conservation Areas which will be adversely
affected by the wind farm proposal, including the Pier Head building at
Boscombe Pier. The Council refer to the tests set out in the NPPF in
relation to this matter.
The Council states that the Scheduled Monument site at Hengistbury
Head will be adversely impacted by the proposed development.
to or loss of’ of a heritage asset. No harm, either significant or less than significant,
were identified as part of the Applicant's assessment, therefore further discussion of
the definition of the term will not alter the assessment results provided within the
ES.
Visual Impacts
The Council is concerned that the visualisations are not an accurate
representation of the true impact of the proposal, and that the impact
will be considerably greater than is currently estimated.
The Council is concerned that the methodology used to assess the
potential impact has led to an underestimate of the potential impact on
the coastal views in general and on nationally recognised
buildings/landscapes.
The Council considers that the relevant guidance has been deviated
from in assessing the potential impact of the proposed wind farm on
the landscape and seascape setting of the area in general and
Bournemouth in particular (further detail provided in 5.2.21-5.2.44).
The Council considers that the negative impact caused by the
establishment of an “industrial landscape” into a currently pristine
Please refer to the Applicant's response to Questions 9.1.2, 9.1.4, 9.1.8, 9.1.9 and
9.2.5 of the Response to Deadline II, which summarises the Applicant’s position
with regard to the methodology used for the assessment and the production of the
visualisations.
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
environment will be to the detriment of the Borough’s aims and
intentions as set out in “Ambition 2020” Bournemouth Borough
Council’s Corporate Plan.
The Council states that it fundamentally disagrees with the assessment
that the impact of the proposed wind farm would be “not significant”,
considering that the impact will be very significant.
Socio-economics and Tourism
Methodology and data
Definition of “local” should be for a smaller area than is indicated in
appendix 3.2 to the socio-economics and tourism chapter (document
6.2.4.3.2) which defines the term as covering the counties of Dorset,
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
A disaggregation of the business and tourist survey at local levels suggests that:
The likelihood to visit elsewhere as a result of the wind farm registered as
‘likely’ or very likely’ accounts for only 12% of respondents in Bournemouth
(second lowest), with the highest negative response in Highcliffe (22%).
Similarly, those responding in Bournemouth had the lowest proportion of
‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ responses (14%) when asked whether they were likely
to visit elsewhere during the construction phase. Again the highest negative
response was in Highcliffe (28%).
This suggests that local effects in Bournemouth would be considerably
lower than the wider area as a whole.
19% of tourist businesses surveyed in Bournemouth expected ‘high
adverse’ impacts. This compares to a significant range of response, from
8% in the Isle of Wight to 44% in Purbeck (Swanage and Wareham).
Disaggregation of employment and supply chain benefits has not been
possible because a port / ports has / have not been chosen yet for any of
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
the work packages in construction or operational phases. Furthermore, the
EIA complies with the Rochdale Envelope guidance (refer to Volume A,
Chapter 5 (EIA Methodology) of the ES (Document Ref. 6.1) for details.
Lack of disaggregation of tourist business effects locally (‘local’ area
too broad).
Please refer to the response above.
Criteria for magnitude of effects is flawed due to:
No weighting applied to the businesses most affected by the
development.
A significant loss of income will adversely affect a business in a
much shorter time than five years especially since the recession
has resulted in very slim margins of profitability and the NBDL
data indicates an even higher negative impact during the
construction phase of up to five years.
Using an overall figure for the local economic area masks pockets
of adverse impact within a specific area or sector.
Inappropriate since it would be impossible to assess where the
assessed level of impact remains consistent with the perceived
level of impact properly in advance of the construction work on
the turbines commencing. Whether in the long term the perceived
impact has actually occurred will not be relevant as the choice will
have already been made by a potential visitor to go elsewhere.
The Council has provided no evidence to support its statements regarding the
vulnerability of either specific businesses or the tourism sector as a whole.
The Applicant agrees that it is not possible to ‘assess where the assessed level of
impact remains consistent with the perceived level of impact properly in advance of
the construction work on the turbines commencing’, and as such is working with
Local Authorities to develop enhancement measures that will aim to avoid adverse
impacts prior to the construction phase.
The model does not attempt to assess the actual volume of impact; this would be
inappropriate given the nature of the ex-ante perception survey. Please refer to the
Applicant’s Written Representation (submitted at Deadline II), paragraph 11.5 to
11.6. and Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s Response at Deadline II.
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Weakness of the model is evident as it ignores actual volume of impact
and substitutes the proportion or percentage of respondents indicating
loss as the metric. It results in the real impact being very significantly
understated because the scale of turnover adversely affected is not
factored into the assessment.
It is not appropriate to use the survey to quantify the volume of impact. Please see
Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s Response at Deadline II, paragraph 2 onwards. The
survey forms only one part of the assessment, with weight also given to experience
at comparable locations in the UK.
Sensitivity and magnitude tests were pseudo-scientific and had no
foundation in established econometrics. Therefore important to
examine the validity of the model, especially when there is actual data
available to build estimates.
Please refer to the response above.
Low sample size in visitor surveys.
The Applicant’s visitor surveys had a total sample size of 507 people in Spring and
1,520 in Summer. The Applicant’s business survey was sent to 1,242 identified
tourist businesses, with a response rate of 24% (sample size of 304). This is
considered a robust sample size for an ex-ante perceptions survey. Please refer to
the following appendices of Volume D, Chapter 3 (Socio-economics and Tourism) of
the ES for further details of these surveys: Summer 2012 Visitor Survey (2012)
(Appendix 3.1); Spring 2013 Visitor Survey (2013) (Appendix 3.4); and Survey of
Tourism Businesses, Conference Facilities, Language Schools and Festivals and
Events Organisers (2013) (Appendix 3.6).
It is worth noting that this compares to NCTA’s Bournemouth Tourist Survey 2013,
which had a total sample of 1,120 people (257 in Spring, 506 in Summer and 357 in
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Autumn).
Perception bias due to visualisations – Bournemouth Council’s ‘more
realistic’ visualisation led to higher adverse responses in their own
survey.
The visuals used to inform the surveys were those used to inform the Seascape,
Landscape and Visual assessment (Volume B, Chapter 11 of the ES), prepared in
accordance with approved guidance. Please refer to the Applicant’s comments on
Visual Impacts within this response to the Bournemouth Council’s Local Impact
Report for further details.
Changes were made to the extent of the turbine array during the pre-application
consultation period. Visual calibration studies were commissioned by the Applicant
to understand whether these changes would impact on the findings of the visitor
and business surveys which had been completed. These studies concluded that
the results remained robust. Refer to Appendices 3.7 (Design Visual Calibration
Study (2013)) and 3.8 (Design Visual Calibration Study (2014)) of Volume D,
Chapter 3 (Socio-economics and Tourism) of the ES for details.
At the very least, the moderate rating should have been used which
would more correctly describe the impact on tourism as significant.
The Applicant considers that the assessment set out in the ES (Volume D, Chapter
3 (Socio-economics and Tourism) is robust and accurate for the reasons detailed in
Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s Response at Deadline II.
Illogical that 20% reduction in turnover could result in minimal
economic impact.
The business survey identified that, of the proportion of businesses that identified
that there would be an adverse impact on turnover, on average this subset of
businesses estimated a 22% reduction in turnover. This should not be represented
as a reduction in turnover through the whole tourist economy. It is noted that 60% of
businesses reported no impact or positive impacts, and many of these estimated
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
increases in turnover.
Additionally, the business perception survey is only one part of the assessment,
which is also informed by a review of literature on this matter and a review of
experiences elsewhere.
Consultation
Bournemouth Borough Council requested from the outset (Nov 2011)
that comprehensive research should be undertaken across a full year
and across all markets. The fact that this did not happen as it should
have done in 2012, removed the opportunity for a full and properly
informed tourism industry consultation in 2013.
Data does not exist to show the seasonality of tourism in Bournemouth. However,
data for the whole of Dorset is available. Bournemouth accounts for around 1/3 of
all tourist expenditure and visitor trips in Dorset, and the make-up of tourism is
broadly similar.
Holiday trips account for 70% of all trips to Dorset and 69% of all trips to
Bournemouth, with the remainder split between business, visiting friends and
relatives, study and other. There is a similar trend in expenditure, with holiday
expenditure accounting for 71% of all expenditure in Dorset and 66% of all tourism
expenditure in Bournemouth.
This suggests that the bulk of trips and spending in Bournemouth is in-line with that
in Dorset, and is dominated by holiday-makers. This suggests that although there is
a slightly higher value offer in Bournemouth to non-holidaymakers (e.g. overseas
study and business visitors to conferences), there is likely to be a similar number of
tourists in peak seasons. Spring and Summer are by far the most important periods
and were therefore chosen for the survey.
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Source: All data from The Economic Impact of Dorset’s Visitor Economy 2012 -
£-
£50
£100
£150
£200
£250
£300
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Spending (staying visits and day trips) (£m)
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Day trips & Staying visits ('000)
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Dorset and Districts Produced on behalf of the Dorset Tourism Partnership By The
South West Research Company Ltd
Lack of transparency – late arrival of tourism impact research and at
busiest time for tourist industry. Survey was undertaken ‘secretly’ while
at the same time the Council was being invited to take part in the
specification of the study.
The Applicant sought to engage with tourism officers during the pre-application
consultation period. However, in some instances feedback was provided late and
some of the information issued by the Applicant as draft for comment was
disseminated more widely without the Applicant’s agreement. For these reasons,
and because the Applicant commissioned specialist and independent survey
companies to undertake the research, the Applicant decided to proceed with the
surveys independently. Nevertheless, the outputs of all surveys were shared with
all local authorities during the consultation period as soon as they had been
completed, in order to facilitate discussions between the parties.
Economic impact of tourism
Knowing that construction work will be going ahead will deter people
from visiting, regardless of the significance of negative impact
assessed in the construction phase identified.
While there is conjecture that the Project may lead to decreased attractiveness to
visitors in the lead up to construction and operation, this is not supported by
evidence and should therefore be given little weight in the decision making process.
In addition, the Applicant is proposing a fund for tourism enhancements that could
be used for marketing that would off-set any adverse perceptions.
Using the Rochdale Envelope principle, Bournemouth Council had
expected NBDL to provide an estimate of the negative jobs and
income effect of the proposal based on their research findings. This
should have been used to facilitate informed discussion with the
Council and tourism industry during the main consultation period.
The Rochdale Envelope allows for design evolution and the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) undertaken takes account of that flexibility (e.g. in the location of
the port facilities). The assessment of tourism (Volume D, Chapter 3 (Socio-
economics and Tourism) of the ES) sets out the likely significant impacts arising
from the outline scheme, based on evidence, in line with the relevant guidance. The
Applicant has approached the collecting of evidence on tourism in line with NPS
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
EN-1, drawing on three components: a review of literature on this matter; review of
experiences elsewhere; and a perceptions survey conducted around the site of the
Project.
Bournemouth BC set out the estimated size and value of the tourist
economy, related retail economy, conferences and language schools.
Comments on the estimated size and value of the tourist economy, related retail
economy, conferences and language schools are noted. However, for the reasons
above the impacts identified by the Council are not considered to be correct.
No attempt has been made to quantify the loss of jobs against this
overall current employment level even though the data is available to
make this calculation without having to rely on an economic model.
Please refer to Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s Response at Deadline II, paragraphs
2-17.
Bournemouth BC’s own assessment of economic effects:
£100million loss in trade p.a.;
this becomes the new ‘base level’ (i.e. business not expected to return
after construction);
30% premium for a sea-view room in hotels will be lost
Please refer to Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s Response at Deadline II for a
response on the inappropriateness of using a perceptions survey to quantify an
impact. There is no evidence or justification that any lower level of employment
would become a new ‘base level’. Please refer to Appendix 30 of the the Applicant’s
Reponse to Deadline III for a comparison of time series employment data in
comparable locations.
There is no evidence, or justification, that hotels would lose a 30% premium, as
there is no evidence that visual effects, even if significant, would result in economic
effects.
According to the Deloitte report produced in November 2013 entitled
‘Tourism: Jobs and Growth, the Economic Contribution of the Tourism
Please refer to the response above.
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Economy in the UK’, which calculated that £54,000 of additional visitor
expenditure is required to create one job in the visitor economy, then
the job losses in Bournemouth resulting from a fall in trade of £109
million would be 2,018 jobs.
Cambridge Econometric Impact Model indicates higher number of
tourist jobs than identified by NBDL.
There are a number of different definitions of the tourist industry. By its very nature
it is varied and challenging to quantify, and includes different sectors in different
locations. For the avoidance of doubt, the assessment uses an ONS sectoral
definition of tourism. Further detail is included in Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s
Response at Deadline II.
Local ports are too far from Bournemouth for beneficial effects to be
felt (e.g. in terms of worker bednights replacing visitor bednights).
Employment gains are too low to offset the negative effects on tourism.
Bournemouth falls within the 45-minute catchment for Southampton port, and within
30mins from Poole and the onshore substation and development area, and could
therefore be expected to benefit from an element of employment and bedspace
uptake. Manufacturing could also take place within the local area.
Comparable locations
Inappropriate to compare Bournemouth with other locations with wind
farms due to:
Exceptionally high rates of visitor concern and predicted visitor losses
are much greater than those found from previous wind farm
developments which should signal cause for particular attention by
NBDL.
There is no evidence that higher rates of visitor concern or predicted visitor losses
would be translated into an actual decrease in visitor numbers and associated
economic impacts.
Additionally, despite acknowledged unique characteristics of Bournemouth and
other coastal tourist locations, there is no evidence that wind farms developed at
Rhyl, Clacton, Blackpool or Great Yarmouth had less significant effects on the
tourist economy as a consequence of their perceived lesser reliance on natural
beauty.
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
The nature of the visitor appeal in Bournemouth and the resort’s
success is more heavily reliant upon natural beauty than the majority of
other resorts where wind farms have been developed (Rhyl, Clacton,
Blackpool and Great Yarmouth).
Developments in Cumbria, Wales and Scotland have avoided AONB
areas to ensure that the core offer to visitors of natural scenic beauty is
not compromised in key locations such as Ambleside, Snowdonia and
Loch Lomond.
Further research has been presented in Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s Response at
Deadline II.
Visual Impact
NBDL and other research identifies importance of coast and coastal
views and the beach.
While both the Applicant and Bournemouth Borough Council’s surveys indicate the
importance of the coast, views and beach as important aspects for visitors, this
statement does not provide evidence of a negative effect as a result of the proposed
development.
NBDL visualisations not sufficiently clear or accurate.
The visuals used to inform the surveys were those used to inform the Seascape,
Landscape and Visual assessment (Volume B, Chapter 11 of the ES), prepared in
accordance with approved guidance. Please refer to the Applicant’s responses to
Visual Impact matters within this response to Bournemouth Council’s Local Impact
Report for further details.
Changes were made to the extent of the turbine array during the pre-application
consultation period. Visual calibration studies were commissioned by the Applicant
to understand whether these changes would impact on the findings of the visitor
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
and business surveys which had been completed. These studies concluded that
the results remained robust. Refer to Appendices 3.7 (Design Visual Calibration
Study (2013)) and 3.8 (Design Visual Calibration Study (2014)) of Volume D,
Chapter 3 (Socio-economics and Tourism) of the ES for details.
Survey
Bournemouth Seafront Visitor research in July/August/September
2013: between 21% and 33% said they would definitely not return
whilst the wind farm was being built.
Please refer to Appendix 68 to the Applicant’s Response at Deadline II, paragraph 7
onwards.
Business Survey
Failure to focus on impact of sea-front businesses, which would have
knock-on effects on the attractiveness of the sea-front and therefore
visitor numbers.
No evidence has been presented by Bournemouth on the impact on sea-front
businesses.
Businesses should have been provided with the visitor survey results. The visitor survey and business survey undertaken as part of the assessment
assess two separate elements of the visitor economy, and the Applicant considers
that providing the results of the visitor survey to businesses would have influenced
and prejudiced their response to the effect on turnover. It was considered relevant
to receive the views of both tourists and the businesses supported by them locally.
Supply chain
None of the manufacturing locations are in the ‘local area’, and
Bournemouth falls within the 45-minute catchment for Southampton port, and within
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
therefore few if any of the operational or construction benefits are
anticipated to occur in the local area. Even if they did, they are very
low.
30 minutes from Poole and the onshore substation and development area, and
could therefore be expected to benefit from an element of employment and
bedspace uptake. Manufacturing could also take place within the local area.
Business confidence
Uncertainty created by the project will reduce confidence in the area
and therefore put off capital investment.
While there is conjecture that the Project may lead to decreased attractiveness to
visitors in the lead up to construction and operation, this is not supported by
evidence and should therefore be given little weight in the decision making process.
In addition, the Applicant is proposing a fund for tourism enhancements that could
be used for marketing that would off-set any adverse perceptions.
Policy
Negative impact on Council’s ability to deliver the Seafront Strategy
adopted in 2013.
The Council’s Seafront Strategy is aimed at renovating the infrastructure along the
seafront, enhancing facilities for local people and securing and growing the tourist
economy. It is not clear how the Project would prevent this Strategy from being
delivered.
Planning blight
A decreased confidence will lead to increased applications for tourist
accommodation change of use equating to a reduction in bedroom
capacity and loss to visitor economy.
While there is conjecture that the Project may lead to decreased attractiveness to
visitors in the lead up to construction and operation, this is not supported by
evidence and should therefore be given little weight in the decision making process.
In addition, the Applicant is proposing a fund for tourism enhancements that could
be used for marketing that would off-set any adverse perceptions.
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Noise and Vibration
The Council is concerned that there would be long term low frequency
noise propagation across the water from the array.
The Council queries the methodology used to assess the potential in-
air noise impact and states that if SGN 6 were applied the noise levels
would significantly exceed the thresholds.
The Council is concerned that the wording within the draft
Development Consent Order (DCO) would mean that the development
is exempt from challenge under section 82(1) of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 and section 79(1) of that Act which relates to noise
emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
and that no justification for the approach taken has been provided.
The Council seeks a noise monitoring programme; and has put forward
a draft memorandum of agreement between the MMO and the
Councils to identify cooperation in the event of complaints.
The Council seeks that conditions are imposed on the Marine Licence
in relation to potential noise pollution.
Low frequency noise and vibration
With regard to low frequency noise and vibration, please refer to the Applicant's
response to Question 5.1.17 (offshore noise impacts and guidance levels),
submitted in reponse to Deadline II which confirms that there are no direct health
effects from noise at the level of noise generated by wind turbines.
SGN6
With regard to offshore noise generated by the Project and the SGN6 guidance, the
assessment of offshore in-air noise undertaken is in accordance with current
industry standards and guidelines. The predicted noise levels attributable to the
operation of the turbines do not exceed the 35 dB threshold level presented in
ETSU-R-97 and hence do not give rise to significant impact. The guidance and
outcomes of the assessment are agreed with local planning authorities, although it
is acknowledged that the potential for inversion conditions remains under discussion
(please refer to the Offshore Noise SoCG with local authorities excluding the Isle of
Wight, Appendix 76A and the Offshore Noise SoCG with the Isle of Wight, Appendix
76B of the Response to Deadline II).
The assessment of cylindrical propagation conditions uses the same equation as
set out in SGN6, as shown in paragraphs 8.5.17 to 8.5.20 of Volume B, Chapter 8
of the ES (In-Air Noise) and in Appendices 1 and 4 of the SoCG with the local
planning authorities (refer to the Offshore Noise SoCG with local authorities
excluding the Isle of Wight, Appendix 76A and the Offshore Noise SoCG with the
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Isle of Wight, Appendix 76B of the Response to Deadline II).
The assessment presented in Chapter 8 of the ES used a different value to
represent the point at which the noise propagation changes from spherical to
cylindrical spreading than is recommended in SGN6.
The assessment presented in Appendix 1 of the SoCG with Local Authorities (refer
to Appendix 76A and Appendix 76B of the Response to Deadline II). used the same
variable for the point of transition as was recommendedin SGN6. Neither the
calculations in Chapter 8 of the ES nor those in the SoCG are based directly on
SGN6, but are based on the research that underpinned SGN6. The values shown in
Appendix 1 of the SoCG indicate that even with cylindrical spreading, the 35dB
threshold recommended in the ETSU-R-97 guidance will be met.
It should be borne in mind that the calculation method set out in ISO 9613-2
accounts for normal refractive conditions associated with increasing wind speed
with height. The cylindrical spreading calculations cover those situations where a
strong refractive atmosphere exists, which is not covered by ISO 9613-2.
Statutory nuisance
With regard to statutory nuisance, Section 158 of the Planning Act 2008 provides a
general defence to statutory nuisance. This provision reflects the general principle
of law that actions by a person with statutory authority (as would be the case here
for the Applicant, if the DCO is granted consent) cannot be subject to injunction and
that an action in damages only is available to an aggrieved party. As a public
nuisance may also be a criminal offence, the immunity is extended by Section 158
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
to such situations.
It is important to note that the defence to statutory nuisance does not extinguish the
local authority’s duties under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to
inspect its area and take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of statutory
nuisance, and to serve an abatement notice where satisfied of its existence, likely
occurrence or recurrence. The defence of statutory authority may, therefore, be
tested in court if proceedings are instituted by the local authority. The judiciary will
retain a key role in determining the scope of statutory authority and whether the
defence will be applied at all.
A developer will need to ensure it behaves in a non-negligent fashion, that any
nuisance caused is an inevitable consequence of its sanctioned actions and that it
abides by the relevant statutory provisions pertaining to its activities, i.e. in the case
of the Project, Requirement 19 (Noise and vibration management plan) and
Requirement 28 (Control of noise during operational phase) of the draft DCO.
Noise monitoring
With regards to a noise monitoring programme the draft DCO provides for a noise
monitoring protocol during construction at Requirement 19. It is the Applicant’s
position that noise monitoring during operation of the Project is not required as
impacts are predicted to be not significant.
Water Quality
The Council is concerned that the installation of inter-array cables
To understand the potential for increased suspended sediment concentrations and
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
could cause disturbances that would result in sediment to become re-
suspended, which would prejudice water quality and impact on its
bathing beaches (in particular the Blue Flag Bathing beaches). The
Council seeks further demonstration that there will be no material risk
to water quality. It also seeks timing of the cable laying works nearest
to the shore to be scheduled to avoid the holiday seasons.
sediment plume generation, the worst case cable installation method (jetting) was
modelled (please refer to Table 6.12 in Volume B, Chapter 6 (Water Quality) of the
ES). It should be noted that jetting is unlikely to take place in the southern half of the
export cable corridor where the seabed is composed of harder sediments and
therefore model predictions are precautionary. Modelling demonstrates that
sediment plumes will be of low magnitude as only a small spatial extent would
exceed the natural background variability in turbidity (please refer to paragraph
6.5.39 of Volume B, Chapter 6 (Water Quality) of the ES). Impacts were therefore
assessed as minor adverse and not significant and as such no mitigation is
proposed. The export cable will come ashore at Taddiford Gap near Barton on Sea
thereby avoiding Blue Flag Bathing beaches.
The worst case changes to turbidity caused by the construction of the Project are
not predicted to present abnormal conditions at the beach locations (i.e., changes
outside of limits of existing natural variability as above). Therefore, it can be
concluded that no action would be required at Blue Flag beaches as a result of
changes to turbidity originating as a result of the Project and water quality of Blue
Flag beaches would not be prejudiced. It is tconsidered that works on the offshore
cable do not need to be restricted to avoid the holiday season.
Please refer to paragraph 7.1 of the SoCG with Physical Processes and Water
Quality with Bournemouth Council (submitted at Appendix 79 in response to
Deadline II) which provides agreement that, following discussion (provided in
Appendix 2 of the SoCG) there are no outstanding matters of concern in relation to
water quality.
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Ecology and Ornithology
The Council is concerned that there is a lack of knowledge on the
number of birds feeding and birds/bats migrating through the area of
the proposed array, and therefore the level of impact has not been
properly determined. The Council refers to various publications
relating to this matter.
Migratory birds
The Applicant provided an assessment of impacts on migratory birds through the
Turbine Area within the ES, Volume B, Chapter 12 Offshore Ornithology and a
validation of this assessment for six specific species was provided in the Response
to Deadline II (see Appendix 20). Numbers of migratory birds (of certain species)
moving through the Turbine Area annually were predicted and then subject to
Collision Risk Modelling (CRM). The methods used were discussed and agreed as
appropriate with Natural England (please refer to Appendix 20 of the Response to
Deadline II).
Natural England has confirmed within its Written Representation it agrees with the
Applicant that the predicted changes to baseline mortality of migratory bird
populations are all below 1% and are therefore not significant.
Impacts on bats migrating or foraging at sea
The potential impacts on bats feeding or migrating through the Turbine Area were
scoped out of the assessment by the Applicant within Volume C, Chapter 10
Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology of the ES. SoCGs with Natural England,
Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and Dorset Wildlife Trust explicitly note that
the scoping out of the potential impacts associated with bats and wind turbines from
the assessment was appropriate (please refer to Appendices 49 and 64 of the
Response to Deadline II).
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Monitoring Impacts
The Council states that the Applicant should monitor impacts and the
results shared with Local Authorities and other interested parties. The
Council states that monitoring regimes should last during construction
and operation until at least five years after the operating life begins.
With regard to the offshore works, Conditions 15 to 17 of the DMLs provide for pre-
construction, construction and post construction monitoring. These monitoring
regimes will be discussed and agreed with the MMO.
DCO Drafting
The Council considers that any DCO should include a definition of the
term ‘25 years’ when measuring the lifespan of the project.
It is not agreed that the DCO should contain a restriction on the lifetime of the
Project. This in line with previous decisions by the Secretary of State on offshore
wind farms under the Planning Act 2008. The Project falls within the scope of the
Energy Act 2004 which includes decommissioning provisions for end of the
Project's lifetime. Broadly speaking, prior to commencement of development the
Secretary of State shall require a person who is responsible for an offshore
renewable energy installation to prepare a costed decommissioning programme and
ensure that it is carried out. The Secretary of State can approve, modify or reject a
decommissioning programme at any point. Therefore the lifespan of the Project is
controlled pursuant to other legislation.
The Council states that any monitor during construction should be
shared with the Local Authorities, as well as the MMO as currently
stated.
With regard to supplying information from construction monitoring, it is understood
from the MMO's responses on the Burbo Bank Extension Offshore Wind Farm that
it is in the process of establishing an additional section on its website which will host
such post-consent information referred to in Section 101 of the Marine and Coastal
Local Impact Report – Key Issues Applicant's Response
Access Act 2009, which includes information supplied in connection with any
licence. The MMO confirms that until such measures are in place, any information
provided to them is publically available and would be provided upon request.
The Council considers that similar provisions on construction hours for
the onshore aspects should be included for the offshore element of the
project.
It is not agreed that similar provisions on construction hours for the onshore aspects
should be included for the offshore element of the Project. This is because
predicted noise levels fall below the threshold levels adopted and agreed and
therefore no significant impacts have been predicted for the offshore works.
The Council states that works on the cabling linking the array to the
shore should be restricted to periods when the use of Poole Bay for
bathing and other water based activities are at their least.
It is not agreed that works on the offshore cable should be restricted to periods
when the use of Poole Bay for bathing and other water based activities are at their
least. This is because the export cable will come ashore at Taddiford Gap near
Barton on Sea thereby avoiding Blue Flag Bathing beaches. The worst case
changes to turbidity caused by the construction of the Project are not predicted to
present abnormal conditions at the beach locations (i.e. changes outside of limits of
existing natural variability as above). Therefore, it can be concluded that no action
would be required at Blue Flag beaches as a result of changes to turbidity
originating as a result of the Project and water quality of Blue Flag beaches would
not affected.