6
Cabinet received report ES/0610 by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development who reported that since his last report to Cabinet regarding ESC's position on Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) much had transpired. ESC continued to support the principle of offshore wind energy and had worked with SPR to address its concerns as was set out last year. The Deputy Leader stated that before continuing, he would set out the wider context for which members must be cognisant; he reminded members that he had previously had meetings with the Energy Minister to express ESC's concerns regarding the cumulative impacts of energy projects. In February OFGEM in its Decarbonising Action Plan rightly recognised that individual radial offshore transmission links, it did not consider, were likely to be economical, sensible or acceptable for consumer and local communities as the offshore wind capacity ambition was set out. In March last year the Leader and the Deputy Leader were part of a delegation that met with BEIS to discuss the cumulative impacts of the energy projects potentially coming to the East Suffolk district. In July BEIS launched the Offshore Transmission Network Review, for which ESC submitted evidence. In September the Prime Minister stated, at the UN, that he wished the UK to become the Saudi Arabia of Wind.
The Deputy Leader stated that examination of EA1N and EA2 commenced in October 2020 following Covid delays, during which time further detail, deadlines and responses had been and would be required. Indeed, Councillor Rivett added, another deadline would be next week for which ESC would be responding.
The Deputy Leader thanked Cabinet for its approval of the recommendations previously that had enabled ESC to respond to such tight deadlines. The examination would run until 6th April 2020, at which point a recommendation would be made to the Secretary of State by the examining authority, for the Secretary of State to ultimately decide if these projects should proceed.
In November, Councillor Rivett reminded members, the Government launched its Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, which included advancing offshore wind, 40GW by 2030, enough to power every home. It also mentioned the Offshore Transmission Network Review.
In December the Government released its much anticipated Energy White Paper, with Wind getting no fewer than 90 mentions, restating the ambition to quadruple by 2030 wind energy production and to bring jobs and growth to ports and coastal regions. East Suffolk had already seen a snapshot of such investment that energy projects could bring to the district: SPR invested £25m into their Operations and Maintenance base in Lowestoft in 2019, furthermore EA1 saw a skills and education memorandum of understanding that brought scholarships and STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Maths) events and promotion; furthermore £45m to the supply chain.
BEIS published, the Deputy Leader stated, the ONTR findings just before Christmas. To summarise, he said, it could be said that they sought to achieve further coordination without jeopardising existing projects. Nonetheless, it rightly identified that early co-ordination could save consumers £6 billion and critically reduce the amount of infrastructure required.
Councillor Rivett stated that ESC's responses needed to be proportionate and evidenced, he thanked officers for the hard work they had undertaken in presenting such information for members to consider. Councillor Rivett added that he always kept an eye on planning metrics as external assessments of decisions gave he thought a good indicator. Locally made decisions challenged at appeal were backed up at appeal over and above the national thresholds. Furthermore, last year, ESC's planning decisions were subject to four judicial reviews and all four applications were defeated and regrettably the vindications came at a financial cost to the Council.
Councillor Rivett highlighted that the report before members set out the changes from the original proposal to those currently presented. For example, he said, at 7.4 to 7.6 it set out the original position regarding offshore elements and between 7.7 to 7.9 it detailed the new mitigation/compensation. Furthermore, onshore original proposals were set out at 7.10 to 7.31 and new mitigation/compensation at 7.32 to 7.46. Table 1 at 7.84 set out a summary of the original mitigation and table 2 at 7.87 the enhanced mitigation and compensation currently on offer.
The report sought Cabinet’s support to move to a neutral position, that of neither fully objecting nor fully supporting the NSIPs. To be clear, Councillor Rivett added, it did not infer that for the remainder of the examination ESC would sit mute. As detailed within the report ESC still had concerns, for example on noise and cumulative impacts, along with issues identified in the LIR. ESC would continue to make the case that where it had serious concerns and sought these to be addressed, seeking to achieve the best outcome possible for the district. Likewise, it would continue to press Government to support ESC recognising the large expectations for cumulative impacts energy projects being placed in and near the district would have. Nonetheless, members must consider and recognise the improvements made to the application, for example, the substations had reduced in size and height and were lower into the ground. This had enabled the retention of a wooded area that was originally going to be felled. Tree planting had both been increased and management thereof strengthened. As Councillor Rivett remarked earlier, he stated, during his evidence submission during examination on the lack of commitment to simultaneous construction of ducting for both projects, this had now been secured; in addition to that an increase in the scope and scale of the section 111. Tourism and environmental exemplar projects were much welcomed. Lastly, Councillor Rivett stated, Friday Street junction would have a traffic light solution.
The Leader referred to the negotiations that the Council had been in, and the asks that it had made, and the fact that the Council was achieving some movement to where it ultimately wanted to be, and this was important to him. There was still work to do, he stated, but this was an opportunity for ESC both to acknowledge what had happened and to look to the future and to continue the negotiation. ESC wanted to continue to attempt to get the best that it could for the residents of East Suffolk, albeit recognising the huge environmental benefits that wind energy generation brought to the UK.
Following a question by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, the Deputy Leader and officers gave a reassurance that they would keep pressing to obtain the best deal possible, in respect of noise and local impacts in and around Friston, for local people. The Deputy Leader referred to other projects in the rest of the eastern region; he referred to Norfolk Vanguard, commenting that the examining authority had recommended refusal, but the Secretary of State overrode that decision. The Deputy Leader stated that not only must the Council challenge, but it must have a productive and constructive relationship with the applicant to ensure that ESC could secure benefits where possible.
The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment stated that he totally agreed with the Deputy Leader, as ESC was not the decision making body it should be prepared to deal with the consequences of the decision made by Westminster. It was not an easy decision to be made, Councillor Mallinder stated, balancing the concerns of local residents, the environmental impact in particular on the AONB and how to obtain a diverse energy portfolio across the UK. Care was needed, however, as a society to balance the target of carbon neutrality in energy sources with alterations to the environment and biodiversity. It would not be helpful to solve one problem and create another. Councillor Mallinder stated that this Administration was taking a mature attitude to its polices and by talking with SPR it had already seen improvements. In particular, SPR had clearly listened to concerns over the impact of the AONB landscape and the mitigation fund had increased from £240,000 to £400,000. Such improvements had been made as direct response from ESC's involvement. However, Councillor Mallinder added, it was important to highlight as this more neutral position was potentially taken, it did not mean that ESC was not representing its residents and ignoring its environment vison; to the contrary, should this project go ahead, it would be representing residents in further consultations and decisions.
Councillor Smith-Lyte, after commenting that she was pro-wind power generation, stated that she did not entirely accept the comments in respect of mitigation and the fact that the Council was not the decision maker; Councillor Smith-Lyte commented that ESC was an important stakeholder and, as such, it should be ambitious; she was somewhat reassured that the Council was being ambitious, however, she had undertaken her own research and was not convinced that it had to be done as proposed, via huge football pitch size sub-stations on the edge of a village and within an AONB, when she believed that it could be done via a ring main, which was currently happening in the Netherlands.
The Leader, in response, commented that there had been many debates in respect of ring mains; he added that what was on the table was what was on the table, and that was what the Council needed to consider; he emphasised that the Council could negotiate hard with the applicant and it would continue to do that. He emphasised that the Council was a consultee and not the decision maker. The Deputy Leader added that the Council had been and would continue to be as ambitious as it could be. The Deputy Leader, in response to the comments made by Councillor Smith-Lyte in respect of the off-shore ring main, drew members' attention to the BEIS offshore network transmission review, the document that looked into co-ordination about reducing the landfalls; he outlined the contents of the document and upon request, agreed to share this with Councillor Smith-Lyte.
Councillor Byatt sought clarification that EA1N would not have any impact on the AONB. The Deputy Leader, in his response, stated that the Council had challenged hard and, as a result, the funds had increased.
Councillor Byatt referred to the channels, which were to be 32 metres wide, and had reduced to 16.1 metres, and looking ahead, he suggested that future proofing should take place in case more cables were to come ashore.
Community Byatt referred to the community benefits fund and to the master scholarships and asked if the fund would be ring-fenced for East Suffolk communities. The Deputy Leader, in his response, said that he would be as rigorous as possible in protecting the fund.
In response to a question from Councillor Byatt related to noise, the Deputy Leader stated that he would continue to press this point; he referred to the quiet and beautiful countryside that needed to be protected as far as possible and he said that he would continue to challenge to ensure that any noise was as low as it could be.
On the proposition of Councillor Rivett, seconded by Councillor Cook, it was by unanimous vote
RESOLVED
1. That in negotiation with the Applicants on statements of common ground and in responses to the Planning Inspectorate/Examining Authority that East Suffolk Council continues to support the principle of offshore wind as a significant contributor to the reduction in carbon emissions and for the economic opportunities that they may bring to ports in the NALEP geography that could support the construction and maintenance of the windfarms.
Notwithstanding this, the Council:
a) Is neutral in relation to EA2 and the predicted offshore effects of the proposal on seascape, coastal landscapes, character and qualities of the AONB and cumulatively with EA1N due to the amendments made to the offshore wind turbine heights and provision of compensation.
b) Is moving towards a predominantly neutral position in relation to the overall impact of the onshore substations on EA1N and EA2 individually and cumulatively on the village and environs of Friston. The Council acknowledges that the onshore infrastructure is out of character with the village but recognises that the Applicants are seeking to provide embedded mitigation as part of their project which coupled with the mitigation and compensation packages proposed will enable the Council working with partners to provide additional improvements in addition to the embedded project mitigation.
c) Maintains significant concerns with regards to the impact of operational noise levels at the onshore substations site which will have an adverse impact on residential amenity and the character of the area until such time that appropriate and suitable mitigation or compensation is secured.
d) Maintains significant concerns with regards to the lack of cumulative assessment of the National Grid substation in its extended form, until such a time as this is considered to be adequately and appropriately addressed.
e) Maintains concerns with regards to the design of the onshore substations until such time that the Council’s concerns are adequately and appropriately addressed.
f) Accepts the additional provision pledged with regards to: revisions to the A1094 junction with the A12 which will significantly improve road safety at this junction which is welcomed; a contribution to air quality monitoring/mitigation of the Stratford St Andrew AQMA; a contribution to a Tourism Fund to provide additional marketing of East Suffolk in conjunction with the Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation and the commitment to lay ducting for the second project at the same time as the cabling for the first if they are constructed sequentially.
g) Accepts the Section 111 funds which will enable the provision of compensatory measures to help offset the impacts of the projects.
h) Accepts an environmental exemplar fund to support ambitious aims to improve biodiversity and drive the decarbonisation of energy used in homes and travel.
i) Will continue to engage with the Applicants to seek to address the matters of concern raised in the Relevant Representation and Local Impact Report and will raise these matters of concern during the examination as appropriate.
2. That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development to revise the Council’s position on the projects if the matters of concern are adequately and appropriately addressed.
3. Should the Development Consent Orders (DCOs) for EA1N and/or EA2 be granted by the Secretary of State for BEIS, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development to:
- Discharge requirements of granted DCOs.
- Facilitate the Council’s responsibilities under any Section 111/Memorandum of
Understanding/agreement.
- Consider and respond to any minor revisions to the DCOs proposed.