Write to the Minister of State, The Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP
Please Take Action Now


Ultimately, the decision as to whether to accept or reject the Applications for EA1N and EA2 lies with the Secretary of State.   It is therefore vital to make the government aware of our grave concerns.

Before and After ...

See locals' comments on this carbuncle  

We are asking you to write, to the Minister of State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), The Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP, calling for him to:

  1. Include EA1N and EA2 in the BEIS Review medium term work-stream; and
  2. Reject the Planning Application in its current form on the grounds that better alternative BROWNFIELD sites are available and the adverse impacts of the onshore connections far outweigh the benefits of these projects.

Please email: The Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP, Minister of State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) kwasi.kwarteng@beis.gov.uk

cc: alok.sharma@beis.gov.uk  beiscorrespondence@beis.gov.uk therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk  psrobertjenrick@communities.gov.uk robert.jenrick@communities.gov.uk  mhclgcorrespondence@communities.gov.uk offshore.coordination@beis.gov.uk  offshore.coordination@ofgem.gov.uk   

Dear Minister of State
Re: BEIS Review with regard to East Anglia One North (EA1N) and East Anglia Two (EA2) Offshore Wind Farm PINS Examination
I am pleased that BEIS and Ofgem are finally reviewing the offshore wind farm transmission infrastructure and endorse the efforts of all parties to establish for the first time ever a national MasterPlan, introducing advanced HVDC solutions with MOGs, MPIs and offshore substation platforms to bring the power to shore more efficiently.
However, I have grave concerns that the onshore element of the BEIS Review is being seriously overlooked.  The impact of the onshore infrastructure needs to be considered as part of the offshore design development and vice versa.  In short, a coordinated, holistic approach is needed within the BEIS Review in which both the onshore and offshore infrastructure are planned together to minimise costs and adverse impacts on coastal environments, lives and livelihoods across the region.
If you look at ScottishPower Renewables (SPRs) DCO application for EA1N and EA2, you will see that the onshore substations and cable corridors will cause permanent and indefensible damage to an environmentally sensitive area, including 9 km trenches at 60 metres wide gouging through the Suffolk Coastal Path, the Suffolk Sandlings, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and lead to the destruction of mature woodland and swathes of Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land.  Once established, the substation at Friston will become the magnet for all future planned projects in the area (including Nautilus, Eurolink, Galloper and Greater Gabbard Extensions, SDC1 and SDC2), representing the largest industrialised complex of this kind in Europe.  The scale of cumulative impact on a small medieval village in the midst of unspoilt countryside and the surrounding area from Aldeburgh and Thorpeness to Snape is unmitigable.
This destruction could be avoided if SPR and National Grid agreed to deliver the power to a BROWNFIELD SITE.  The Planning Inspectorate DCO Examination is already highlighting that the site selection process carried out by National Grid and SPR is flawed.  Better alternative sites have been ignored.  Why not Bradwell or Bramford (the original site for EA1N and EA2)?  Unlike Friston, they are partly industrialised brownfield sites.  In this way, green energy can be delivered in a green way.
Government support with regulatory and legislative reform is urgently needed NOW to achieve a sustainable offshore and onshore strategy.  Let us be clear, there are serious concerns that this Review will be disregarded as coming too late for EA1N and EA2.  There has been no reassurance from BEIS that these projects, despite scheduling to connect to the onshore network in 2028 at the earliest, will be included in the medium term work-stream.
I urge you to:
  1. Include EA1N and EA2 in the BEIS Review medium term work-stream.
  2. Reject this Planning Application in its current form on the grounds that better alternative BROWNFIELD sites are available and the adverse impacts of the onshore connections far outweigh the benefits of these projects.  
Yours sincerely



Yes, to Offshore Wind Energy

Let's Do It Right


If you can reference any of SPR's documents your submission will be all the more powerful. Below is a selection of chapters from SPR's Environmental Statement.  When referencing any of these documents please always put the prefix APP-XXX so the Examining Authorities can find it easily.

One final document - SPR's response to our Relevant Representations submitted in January. It may have answered some of your queries already or may throw up new questions:

Issues in Brief


1. The cumulative impact of multiple energy projects

TEN known energy projects (EIGHT substations/ interconnectors at Friston and one giant TWIN nuclear power reactor at Sizewell) constructed in a tiny part of East Suffolk over a period of 12-15 years will devastate and cause permanent damage to the countryside, making coastal Suffolk a no-go zone.

Crown Estates round 4 have sold off more sea bed causing a further tsunami of Windfarms to come.  Where will they land?

2. Landfall

Cables landing on Thorpeness beach - a fragile, eroding and constantly shifting shoreline, where only two years ago a man walking his dog died from a sudden cliff collapse.

3. Trenches & Cables

Miles of cable laid into 60 metre wide trench developments, gouging out pieces of unique heathland and AONB, one of the rarest natural habitats in the UK from Thorpeness through Aldringham & Knodishall to Friston.

4. 10-12 Years of construction chaos

Coastal Suffolk will experience dust, noise and light pollution for at least a decade or more.  These onshore projects are not on a fast turnaround.

5. Environmental damage

Newly industrialised sites, made of reinforced concrete and tarmac will replace meadows and rare habitats.  Who knows how long the land will take to renew itself?

6. Threat to wildlife

Bats, badgers, barn owls, nightingales, red deer and many species of migrating birds live along the line of the intended cable route.  Where will these protected or endangered species live?  How will they survive, where will they go, will they ever return?

7. Traffic Congestion, Danger

London scale traffic congestion and hold-ups will be a daily frustration.  Accident black spots are inevitable as cyclists are squeezed between HGVs and cars. Emergency vehicles and service vans will be delayed.

8. Tourism Decline

Tourism is the main provider of local jobs. Why would visitors decide to come here if the roads are clogged with construction vehicles?  Not just 'A' roads but rural lanes will be used as rat runs by contract workers.

The tourism economy is fragile, like the environment it is not guaranteed.  Traffic congestion may become so bad as to make other destinations more attractive.

9. Economic decline

Retail businesses will suffer.  Shops will close.  High streets will lose their vibrancy. Every kind of business will lose out including local trades and service industries because everything is connected.  There are NO SIGNIFICANT PERMANENT JOB INCREASES for local people from these substation plans. That is a fiction promoted by these big energy companies.

Imagine that East Suffolk is like a through road for the production of as much as 30% of our country's electricity power.  It will turn into an ugly junk yard for clean energy, a kind of dumping ground.

10. The public consultation process is a sham

Senior management from SPR and their clean energy consultancies have been ticking all the boxes, and carrying out the consultation meetings as required in the due process.  Yet, these consultations are a sham, produce little or no significant change. They are designed to weary the reader.

However, a lack of response will be deemed as acceptance of their plans, so time and time again we point out the same fundamental problems.

11. Lack of a strategic plan for transmission infrastructure

We are told that there is a robust National Strategy for the production of clean energy.  It is based on big energy companies blasting their way through any barriers.  What failed to be considered was a National Strategy for the delivery of this power.  It is needed.

Until the country has a robust offshore strategy for wind energy transmission infrastructure and delivery, National Grid should, in the short-term, use brownfield sites (already industrialised locations) avoiding the needless destruction of ancient woodlands, AONB and rare heathland habitats.


PLEASE TAKE ACTION
& WRITE NOW

Call for The Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP to:

Include EA1N and EA2 in the BEIS Review medium term work-stream; and

Reject this Planning Application in its current form on the grounds that better alternative BROWNFIELD sites are available and the adverse impacts of the onshore connections far outweigh the benefits of these projects.

Email:
kwasi.kwarteng@beis.gov.uk
cc:
alok.sharma@beis.gov.uk
psrobertjenrick@communities.gov.uk
robert.jenrick@communities.gov.uk
therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk
beiscorrespondence@beis.gov.uk mhclgcorrespondence@communities.gov.uk offshore.coordination@beis.gov.uk offshore.coordination@ofgem.gov.uk
bcc:
info@suffolkenergyactionsolutions.co.uk










Want to talk with the team?

Get in touch