Applicant’s Responses to Bournemouth Borough Council Local ...... · Bournemouth Borough Council states that ‘the site at Hengistbury Head will be adversely impacted by the proposed

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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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)


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


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



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.


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


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


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.






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.







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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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.

Documents

Applicant’s Responses to Bournemouth Borough Council Local ...... · Bournemouth Borough Council states that ‘the site at Hengistbury Head will be adversely impacted by the proposed