NNG-0504-935-NnG-S36 CONSENT VARIATION-RPT-A2marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/nng-0504-935-nng-s36... · 2019. 1. 10. · N-RPT-A2 the consent g WL) on the 3 ithe Offshore W within

Neart

Section

DOCUMENT

t na G

n 36 Co

T REFERENCE

Gaoith

onsent V

: NNG-0504

he

Variatio

4-935-NnG-S3

on Repo

36 CONSENT

ort T VARIATION--RPT-A2

Docum

SIGN OFF

Name (Role)

NnG

DOCUMENT

Document Nu

Document Tit

Rev. Date

[dd mm

1.0 23 Dec

2.0 7 Jan 2

ment Co

ent, Consents a

G

nG

nG

CONTROL

umber NNG

tle Sect

mm yyyy]

Desc

2018 For a

019 Mino

SectNeart n

PROTE

ontrol

and Compliance

G-0504-935-Nn

ion 36 Consen

ription

approval

or updates

ion 36 Coa Gaoithe DO

CT – NOT PROT

Signature

nG-S36 CONS

nt Variation Re

onsent VaOC REF: NNG-0504

TECTIVELY MARK

ENT VARIATIO

eport

ariation R4-935-NnG-S36 CO

KED

ON-RPT-A2

Pr

eport

ONSENT VARIATION

Date

7 Jan

7 Jan

7 Jan

repared C

N-RPT-A2

e

nuary 2019

nuary 2019

nuary 2019

Checked

PAGE 2 OF 11

Approved

Cont1 Introdu

2 Descrip

3 Summa

4 Implica

4.1

ents uction .............

ption of the Pro

ary of Proposed

tions of Variat

Seabirds ......

SectNeart n

PROTE

.....................

oposed Develo

d Variation ....

tion ................

.....................


CT – NOT PROT

......................

opment ...........

......................

......................

......................


TECTIVELY MARK

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................


KED

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

eport

ONSENT VARIATION

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

N-RPT-A2

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

PAGE 3 OF 11

........... 4

........... 4

........... 4

........... 4

........... 6

1 Int1. This

sect201

2 De2. The

an oapp

3. The founmet

3 Su4. This

5. The sectsepatrantran

6. It is dive

7. The nece

8. In adheig(EIA

4 Im9. This

cove

10. The Tranchan

11. The rece

troduct report suppor

tion 36 of the E8 (“the section

escriptio section 36 conoffshore wind troximately 15.

proposed devndations and ateorological ma

ummary variation appl

removal of reand offshore 22 of Annex 2

amendment o

amendment o

first variation tion 36 consenarate Marine Lnsmission worknsmission work

also necessaryestment of the

second variatiessary to enab

ddition to the ght by one metA).

mplicatio section of theered by the EIA

removal of refnsmission infranges are propo

table below neptor topic. Th

Maximum b5m. Whilst th

SectNeart n

PROTE

tion rts an applicatiElectricity Act n 36 consent”)

on of thnsent authoristurbine genera5km from East

elopment will ancillary equipmast.

y of Prolication seeks t

eferences to tra export cables)2;

of minimum bl

of maximum b

is to remove tht sought sectioicence (Licence

ks. It is therefoks.

y for the transm transmission w

on is to amendle the optimum

requested varitre, within the

ons of Ve report considA, Habitats Reg

ference to transtructure was

osed.

otes the impliche following po

lade width: the Section 36


CT – NOT PROT

on under secti1989 to Neart ).

he Propes NnGOWL toating station wt Fife Ness (as

comprise a mament, piles, int

posed Vto make the fo

ansmission infr from the Desc

lade tip clearan

blade width in A

he transmissioon 36 consent e Number: 066ore requested t

mission works tworks to an off

d the maximumm WTG model

ations, this ap design envelo

Variatioers the potent

gulations Asses

nsmission infraassessed as pa

cations of the oints regarding

he EIA, HRA anstates 4.5m, th


TECTIVELY MARK

ion 36C of the na Gaoithe Of

osed Do construct an

with a maximumshown in the f

aximum of 54 ter-array cablin

Variatioollowing variat

rastructure (i.ecription of the

nce from 35 to

Annex 1 from

n works from for the genera678/18/0) and that the sectio

to be removedffshore transm

m blade width to be used fo

pplication also ope assessed by

n tial implicationssment (HRA) a

structure has nart of the EIA a

increase in mag proposed cha

nd Appropriathe difference b


KED

e Electricity Actffshore Wind L

evelopmd operate the m output of 45figure in Appe

wind turbine gng, scour prote

on ions to the sec

. offshore subs Development

o 36 metres (m

4.5m to 5.5m

the Section 36ation works. T there is no reqn 36 consent b

d from the sectission operator

specified in Ar the project.

includes a comy the March 20

s of the propoand Appropria

no implicationsand consented

aximum blade wanges should b

e Assessment between the p

eport

ONSENT VARIATION

t 1989 to vary Limited (NnGO

ment Neart Na Gaoi50 MW locatedndix 1).

generators (WTection, cable pr

ction 36 consen

station platform in Annex 1 an

measured from

.

6 consent. NnGThe transmissioquirement for sbe varied to re

tion 36 consenr (OFTO) in due

nnex 1 from 4

mmitment to in018 Environme

osed variation ote Assessment

s for any enviro via a marine li

width and minbe noted:

are based on aroposed variat

N-RPT-A2

the consent gOWL) on the 3

ithe Offshore Wd within the Fi

TG), associatedrotection and

nt:

ms, interconnend from condit

LAT); and

GOWL’s applicon works are csection 36 con

emove referenc

nt in order to fe course.

4.5m to 5.5m.

ncrease the minental Impact A

on the receptot.

onmental topiicence. No ph

nimum rotor he

a maximum blation and the en

PAGE 4 OF 11

ranted under December

Wind Farm, rth of Forth

d jacket a

ector cables tions 12 and

cation for covered by a nsent for the ce to the

acilitate

This is

nimum rotor Assessment

or topics

c. hysical

eight on each

ade width of nvironmental

Table 1 : Impl

Receptor Top

Fish and shellf

ecology, includ

diadromous fis

Marine mamm

Ornithology

Commercial fis

Shipping and n

Military and ci

aviation

Cultural herita

Seascape, land

and visual imp

Socio-econom

Geology and w

assessments snacelle end o

Minimum roThe minimumpossible to ravariation appapplication do

plications of the

pic Imp

ish

ding

sh

All a

with

met

cha

mals

All a

app

are

whi

See

sheries

All a

the

met

navigation

All a

with

met

vil

All a

with

(inc

valid

age

All a

app

are

dscape

pacts

All a

with

(inc

is no

min

con

ics

All a

app

are

water Geo

SectNeart n

PROTE

supporting theof the blade.

otor height: thm rotor height

ise the rotor blication seeks t

ocuments.

e Variation on

plication

aspects of the pr

h the application

thods are the sam

nge which woul

aspects of the pr

lication and con

the same as asse

ch would affect

section 4.1

aspects of the pr

application and

thods are the sam

aspects of the pr

h the application

thods are the sam

aspects of the pr

h the application

luding maximum

d.

aspects of the pr

lication and con

the same as asse

aspects of the pr

h the application

luding maximum

ot considered to

imum rotor heig

clusions of the E

aspects of the pr

lication and con

the same as asse

ology and water


CT – NOT PROT

e December 20

he design enveor ‘air gap’ bet

by up to severato increase the

Receptor Topic

roject relevant to

n and consent do

me as assessed i

d affect the con

roject relevant to

sent documents

essed in the EIA

the conclusions

roject relevant to

consent docum

me as assessed i

roject relevant to

n and consent do

me as assessed i

roject relevant to

n and consent do

m tip height) are

roject relevant to

sent documents

essed in the EIA

roject relevant to

n and consent do

m tip height) are

o be perceptible f

ght of 1m is still

EIA therefore rem

roject relevant to

sent documents

essed in the EIA

quality were sco


TECTIVELY MARK

018 consent is

elope assessed tween sea leve

al metres before minimum rot

ics

o potential effec

ocuments. The

n the EIA theref

nclusions of the H

o potential effec

s. The number o

therefore the co

s of the HRA or A

o potential effec

ents. The numb

n the EIA theref

o potential effec

ocuments. The

n the EIA theref

o potential effec

ocuments. The

the same as ass

o potential effec

s. The number o

therefore the co

o potential seasc

ocuments. The

the same as ass

from the closest

lower than the w

main valid.

o potential socio

s. The number o

therefore the co

oped out of the


KED

just 50cm. Th

for the applicael and lowest bre the maximumtor height, whi

cts on fish and sh

number of turbi

fore the conclusi

HRA or Appropr

cts on marine ma

of turbines, para

onclusions of the

Appropriate Asse

cts on commercia

ber of turbines, p

fore the conclusi

cts on shipping a

number of turbi

fore the conclusi

cts on military an

number of turbi

sessed in the EIA

cts on cultural he

of turbines, para

onclusions of the

cape, landscape

number of turbi

sessed in the EIA

t viewpoint, over

worst case maxi

o-economic effec

of turbines, para

onclusions of the

EIA in agreemen

eport

ONSENT VARIATION

he maximum b

ation allowed fblade tip, was m tip height ofch is within th

hellfish ecology r

nes, parameters

ons of the EIA re

iate Assessment

ammals remain u

meters of found

e EIA remain val

essment.

al fisheries rema

parameters of fo

ons of the EIA re

and navigation re

nes, parameters

ons of the EIA re

nd civil aviation r

nes and the wor

A therefore the co

eritage remain u

meters of found

e EIA remain val

and visual effect

nes and the wor

A. An increase in

r 15km from the

mum rotor heig

cts remain uncha

meters of found

e EIA remain val

nt with the Scott

N-RPT-A2

blade width is t

for a range of 35m LAT, howf 208m LAT is

he range assess

remain unchang

s of foundations

emain valid. Sim

t.

unchanged com

dations and insta

id. Similarly the

ain unchanged c

oundations and

emain valid.

emain unchange

s of foundations

emain valid.

remain unchang

rst case turbine

conclusions of th

unchanged comp

dations and insta

id.

cts remain uncha

rst case turbine

n maximum blad

e wind farm. Th

ht assessed in th

anged compared

dations and insta

id.

tish Ministers. A

PAGE 5 OF 11

towards the

rotor heights.wever it is reached. Thissed in the

ged compared

and installation

milarly there is no

pared with the

allation methods

ere is no change

ompared with

installation

ed compared

and installation

ed compared

parameters

e EIA remain

pared with the

allation methods

anged compared

parameters

de width of 50cm

e increase in

he EIA. The

d with the

allation methods

All aspects of the

s

o

s

s

d

m

s

e

quality

Physical proces

Air quality

Benthic ecolog

4.1 Se

4.1.1 D

12. Shoassofoot50cmfor dAsse

13. Regain thlikel

14. As avaria

4.1.2 C

4.1.3 I

15. The gull,grea

16. For tthe

17. It wafor scollipredbree

18. For tmodnortnon

proj

Sco

is re

sses

Effe

the

Rep

requ

Air q

to p

Scot

gy

Ben

rele

201

eabirds

Displacemen

uld displacemeociated activity tprint, numberm to the maximdisplacement oessment.

arding rotor hehe application y to have any

a result, no furation applicatio

Collision Ris

Implications

NnG EIA Repo, lesser black-bat skua.

this variation avaried design,

as not consideseven species. sions in the nodicted no colliseding season (T

the five additiodelling presentth-south/south-breeding seas

SectNeart n

PROTE

ject relevant to p

ping Report (Ma

equired.

ects on physical p

project relevant

ort (Mar 2018) a

uired.

quality was scop

potential effects

ttish Ministers’ S

thic ecology wa

vant to potentia

8) and Scottish

nt and Barrie

ent or barrier e and effects mr of turbines ormum blade wior barrier effec

eight, the mindocuments aninfluence on th

ther assessmenon.

sk

s of variation

ort submitted ibacked gull, gr

application, co allowing for a

ered necessary For lesser blacon-breeding sesions in the breTable 9.68, Nn

onal species (bted in the NnGh-north directiosons for any of


CT – NOT PROT

potential effects

ar 2018) and Sco

processes were s

to potential effe

and Scottish Min

ped out of the EI

on air quality re

Scoping Opinion

s scoped out of

al effects on bent

Ministers’ Scopin

er Effects

effects occur, tmay be influencr spacing betwdth at the nac

cts, compared w

or increase of nd assessed in the potential fo

nt of displacem

n for differe

n March 2018eat black-back

llision modellina comparison w

to present colck-backed gulleason (Table 9.eeding season,nG EIA Report)

black-headed g EIA Report, b

on two times af these species


TECTIVELY MARK

on geology and

ottish Ministers’

scoped out of th

ects on physical

nisters’ Scoping

IA in agreement

main unchanged

(Sep 2018), the

the EIA in agree

thic ecology rem

ng Opinion (Sep

they are considced by the spac

ween turbines iscelle end of thewith those alre

1m in the minthe EIA, HRA a

or displacemen

ment or barrier

nt species

8 considered coked gull, black-

ng outputs for with consented

lision modellinl, modelling pr.67, NnG EIA R, with three co.

gull, common gased on 1,000

a year predicteds (Table 9-70).


KED

d water quality re

Scoping Opinion

he EIA in agreem

processes rema

Opinion (Sep 20

with the Scottis

d compared with

erefore no furthe

ement with the S

main unchanged

p 2018), therefor

dered to be caucing between ts proposed as e blade is conseady assessed

nimum height iand Appropriatnt or barrier eff

r effects was co

ollision risk for -headed gull, c

gannet, kittiwd outputs.

ng for all ten spredicted one coReport). For grollisions (one ad

gull, little gull, 0 birds passing d that there w

eport

ONSENT VARIATION

emain unchange

n (Sep 2018), the

ment with the Sco

in unchanged co

018), therefore n

sh Ministers. All

h the NnG Scopi

er consideration

Scottish Minister

compared with

re no further con

used by the prturbines. No cpart of this varidered to havein the EIA, HRA

s within the pate Assessmentfects to occur.

onsidered nece

ten species: gcommon gull,

wake and herrin

pecies as prediollision per brereat black-backdult and two im

Arctic skua an through the d

would be no co

N-RPT-A2

ed compared wi

erefore no furth

ottish Ministers.

ompared with th

no further consid

l aspects of the p

ing Report (Mar

is required.

rs. All aspects o

the NnG Scopin

nsideration is req

resence of a wchange to the riation. A min

e no effect on tA and Approp

arameters alret. It is also not

essary for inclu

annet, kittiwalittle gull, Arct

ng gull are pre

cted impacts weeding season ked gull, modemmature birds

nd great skua),development allisions in the b

PAGE 6 OF 11

th the NnG

er consideration

All aspects of

he NnG Scoping

deration is

project relevant

2018) and

f the project

ng Report (Mar

quired.

ind farm plus wind farm

nor increase of the potential

priate

ady described considered

usion in this

ke, herring tic skua and

esented for

were very low with no elling s) in the non-

collision risk rea in a breeding and

n

19. Basedesither

20. Coll

4.1.4 C

21. TablparaAppthe

22. Collfor gmod

23. Pleathis spre

24. The cons

25. For cons

26. As tHRA

ed on these lowgn proposed brefore not been

ision modelling

Collision mo

les 2, 3 and 4 ameters which propriate AssesBand collision

ision spreadshgannet, kittiwadelling outputs

ase note that th is due to rouneadsheets in Ap

Band model resent documen

gannet and kitsented design.

the potential efA and Appropr

SectNeart n

PROTE

w numbers anby this variationn presented fo

g outputs are

odelling out

below summa this applicatio

ssment (issued model.

eets for the upake and herrins.

he totals in thending. The moppendix 2.

efers to sea levts have used ‘L

ttiwake, collisio. For herring g

ffects of the vaiate Assessmen


CT – NOT PROT

d an absence on would also n

or these species

summarised be

puts

rise the collisioon seeks to var 3rd December

pdated parameg gull, plus a s

e table below dore detailed nu

vel using ‘MeaLowest Astron

on modelling ogull there is no

ariation are thent remain valid


TECTIVELY MARK

of significant enot result in sigs.

elow for gann

on risk modelliry. The consen 2018). All mo

eters are providsummary sprea

do not all appembers on whic

an Sea Level’ (Momical Tide’ (L

outputs are slig change betwe

e same or lowed.


KED

effects, it was cgnificant effect

et, kittiwake a

ng outputs fornted design is aodel outputs ar

ded in Appendadsheet compa

ear to sum corch these totals

MSL) and all enLAT). Both are

ghtly lower foreen the consen

er than previou

eport

ONSENT VARIATION

considered thats. Revised col

nd herring gul

r the consentedas per the NnGre based on 54

dix 2 of this reparing consente

rectly from the are summed c

ngineering info presented bel

r the varied dented and varied

usly described,

N-RPT-A2

at the minor chllision estimate

ll.

d design and tG EIA Report, H4 turbines usin

port, comprisined with varied

e monthly totacan be viewed

ormation and plow for clarity.

esign comparedd designs.

, the conclusio

PAGE 7 OF 11

hanges to the es have

the amended HRA and g Option 2 of

ng workings collision

als, however in the

previous

d with

ons of the EIA,

NNG-1807-012-EDF-

Table 2: Comp

Design

Consented

Varied

Table 3: Comp

Design

Consented

Varied

-Report-TMP-A01

parison of gannet co

Minimum rotor height (MSL and LAT)

Mbw

32m MSL / 35m LAT

5

33m MSL / 36m LAT

5

parison of kittiwake


Mbw

32m MSL / 35m LAT

5

33m MSL / 36m LAT

5

Secti

Neart na

PROT

ollision modelling out

Maximum blade width

Jan

5.0m 0

5.5m 0

collision modelling o

Maximum blade width

Jan

5.0m 0

5.5m 0

on 36 Conse

a Gaoithe DO

TECT – NOT PROTECTIV

utputs (all ages), 98.9

Feb Mar A

3 8 5

3 7 4

outputs (all ages), 98

Feb Mar A

0 1 1

0 1 1

ent Variation R

OC REF: NNG-0504-93

VELY MARKED

9% avoidance rate

Apr May Jun

19 14

18 13

8.9% avoidance rate

Apr May Jun

3 1

3 1

Report

5-NnG-S36 CONSENT

Jul Aug S

21 15 1

20 15 1

e

Jul Aug S

4 1 2

4 1 2

VARIATION-RPT-A1

Sep Oct Nov

6 7 1

5 6 1

Sep Oct Nov

2 3 2

2 3 2

Dec Breedingseason

0 93

0 89

Dec Breedingseason

10 9

9 8

PAGE 8 OF

g Non-breedi

Autumn Sp

7 7

7 7

g Non-breedi

Autumn Sp

17 2

17 2

F 11

ng Total

pring

108

103

ng Total

pring

28

27

NNG-1807-012-EDF-

Table 4: Comp

Design

Consented

Varied

-Report-TMP-A01

parison of herring gu


Mbw

32m MSL / 35m LAT

5

33m MSL / 36m LAT

5

Secti

Neart na

PROT

ull collision modelling

Maximum blade width

Jan

5.0m 1

5.5m 1

on 36 Conse

a Gaoithe DO

TECT – NOT PROTECTIV

g outputs (all ages),

Feb Mar

0 1

0 1

ent Variation R

OC REF: NNG-0504-93

VELY MARKED

99.5% avoidance ra

Apr May Ju

0 1 1

0 1 1

Report

5-NnG-S36 CONSENT

ate

un Jul Aug

0 0

0 0

VARIATION-RPT-A1

g Sep Oct

0 0

0 0

Nov Dec

1 1

1 1

PAGE 9 OF

Breeding season

Non-breed

2 4

2 4

F 11

ding Total

5

5

Appe

endix

SectNeart n

PROTE

x1:Si


ECT – NOT PROT

iteLo


TECTIVELY MAR

ocatio


RKED

on

eport

ONSENT VARIATIONN-RPT-A2

PAGE 10 OF 11

"Thorntonloch

500000

500000

525000

525000

550000

550000

575000

575000

6200

000

6200

000

6225

000

6225

000

6250

000

6250

000

Project

Neart na Gaoithe

0 5 10 15 km

Scale: 1:300,000

Reference: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 30NDate: 22 December 2017

Copyright © Mainstream Renewable Power Limited, 2017.Map produced by Mainstream Renewable Power.Not to be copied, reproduced, or otherwise distributed without expressly written permission.

Figure 1-1: Site LocationMap Title

Drawing Number

Legend

Map Details

Credits

¯

Wind Farm AreaOffshore Export Cable Corridor

" Landfall Location

UK02-0803-192-GOB-EIA_INT_1_1-DRG-A

0 2.5 51.25 Miles

AppeSpre

endixadsh

SectNeart n

PROTE

x2:Ceets


ECT – NOT PROT

ollisi


TECTIVELY MAR

onM


RKED

Modell

eport

ONSENT VARIATION

ling

N-RPT-A2

PAGE 11 OF 11

Documents

NNG-0504-935-NnG-S36 CONSENT VARIATION-RPT-A2marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/nng-0504-935-nng-s36... · 2019. 1. 10. · N-RPT-A2 the consent g WL) on the 3 ithe Offshore W within