Minutes: Environment Project Liaison Group (PLG) 10th April 2013, 11-1pm
- Introductions – attendance:
Chair – Paula Seager – Natural PR
Secretary – Katherine Elton – Natural PR
Chris Tomlinson – Rampion Development Manager, E.ONs
Eleri Owen - Rampion Project Manager, E.ON
James Eaton – Onshore Consents Manager, E.ON
Steve Ankers - South Downs Society
Emily Cox - Greenpeace Brighton & Hove
David Smith - Mid Sussex Sustainability Partnership
Bob Platt – Ouse Adur Rivers Trust
Alison Giacomelli – RSPB Sussex
Roy Coppard – Shoreham District Ornithological Society
Robert Cheesman – South Downs Society
David Howey – Sussex Sustainability Network
Janyis Watson – Sussex Wildlife Trust
Apologies: Brianne Reeve – Shoreham District Ornithological Society
- Update on final proposals, key changes and the environmental statement
Chris Tomlinson, Development Manager for the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm project, gave an illustrated presentation to update attendees on the final proposals, key changes and the Environmental Statement.
Clarification was sought by Steve Ankers on the smaller, revised development area. He asked whether a separate application would be required should E.ON change the size of the proposed development area in the future. Eleri Owen advised that any extension or change to the area of development would require a completely new application and cited the example of an extension at Kentish Flats Offshore Wind Farm,which required new permission for an extension.
David Smith queried how the use of bigger turbines, taking up a larger amount of space, would impact on the development area. Chris explained that larger turbines didn’t necessarily mean more space as there would be a fewer number of turbines, however larger turbines would need to be spaced apart more widely. He continued that the size of the turbines would be determined pending the output of further site investigations and data analysis.
Action: Distribute presentation/exhibition slides with minutes
3. Questions and answers
The chair then asked for any comments on the final proposals.
Robert Cheesman said organisations not raising objections to the proposals should not therefore be reported as being in support of the plans in any correspondence.
Roy Coppard asked whether there was a smaller option for electricity generation and whether existing cabling arrangements could be used. James Eaton advised that the scheme would have to be commercially viable due to large costs involved in turbine installation 13km offshore plus the associated works for the cable. Chris Tomlinson added that cabling at Shoreham did not have the capacity to carry power generated by the Offshore Wind Farm and additional infrastructure would still be required to take energy from Shoreham Port to the transmission National Ggrid at Bolney.
Emily Cox asked when data from the Metorological Mast installed at the Rampion site would be available. Chris said that the mast had been installed for a year and now had a year’s worth of offshore environmental wind speed data from the site of the proposed development, but that two years of data was required.
Robert Cheesman asked more details about the planning process, whether the Minister in charge would give either a ‘yes or no’ answer and whether amendments could be made. Eleri Owen explained that there were a number of requirements to be followed such which are formally set out in the Deemed as a marine licence and a the Development Cconsent oOrder, which would undoubtedly change before final development consent was received from the Secretary of State.
Emily Cox from Greenpeace asked why the development method proposed for Tottington Mount, removing soils and subsoil in blocks to reduce the time taken for the site restoration, could not be used for the rest of the cable route. James Eaton outlined that this the methodology was designed specifically for sensitive chalk grassland areas such as Tottington Mount, with which included removing the soil and subsoil in large blocks. He added that the aim was to complete the work as quickly as possible to allow the area to recover. However, to use this method on the entire route would be very slow and elongate the overall construction period.
Eleri Owen added that the majority of land in the cable route area was agricultural and that seeds from Tottington Mount would be collected a for a couple of years before development to ensure the right balance of native flora was restored. Eleri also stressed that the majority of land in the cable route area was agricultural which recovers quickly.
David Smith asked whether E.ON was consulting with other agencies on cable routing on grassland such as Kew Gardens or Wakehurst Place?
James Eaton explained that the strategy for reinstating the grassland was being formulated with the advice of the South Downs National Park Authority and Kew Gardens. He also cited a previous project undertaken by Southern Water – with the experiences of this project being utilised to inform E.ON’s strategy.
Mr Smith suggested that once the strategy had been put together, it could be used as a template for other developments, proving useful for potential developments involving similar environments across the country.
Bob Platt asked what measures would be taken to minimise the effect on wildlife when stream crossings were made.Chris TomlinsonJames Eaton said stream crossings would be required as part of the proposed cable route and the matter has been recently discussed with the Environment Agency. He added that at some times of year there was reducedfresh passage and that E.ON would use these times to undertake drilling. He added that he had been advised that May and June were the best times to undertake this.
Bob Platt asked whether Defra would be consulted as drilling near streams would lead to silt production. James Eaton said the project team would be looking at each watercourse in turn and planning and producing a methodology for each crossing. Eleri Owen added that all documents and strategies would be signed off and agreed by the relevant authority.
David Smith added that timing of this project was critical – he was concerned about the impact of the project on the breeding season.James Eaton said the construction project would have a flexibility built into the timetable to allow for different weather conditions etc. He added work could be planned to enable the construction team to move into different areas when necessary.
Eleri Owen said the construction and management process of trenching, ducting and reinstating had been designed so the work could progress and land could recover as quickly as possible.
James Eaton added that input from environmental groups would be invited following production of a detailed construction plan. Eleri Owen added the plan would not be a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’. As an example, she added that E.ON was currently in discussion with West Sussex County Council over options for the hedgerows.
Steve Ankers asked how compliance would be achieved and how the Planning Inspectorate (PINs) operated. Eleri Owen explained that PINS was the examining authority to the entire application, and will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for consenting the project. and in theOnce consent is granted, then in case of onshore elements, the “planning relevant authority” would be West Sussex County Council, working with the relevant District Councils. Their role will to be approve the requirements within thein the DCO – similar to planning conditions. She added that because there were onshore and offshore elements, the circumstances were different to a ‘normal’ planning application. The South Downs National Park Authority would be signing off the chalk grassland policy. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) would have sign off for the marine element plans.
4. Feedback from groups
Steve Ankers welcomed the reduction of the visual impact of the wind farm saying it was a ‘significant change’ and something both his organisation and the South Downs Network had been pressing for.Roy Coppard said he would like to see the same consultation process used for other large- scale projects.
Discussions about the role of the group going forward were held and the parties agreed that the group should reconvene after the decision by PINS.
David Smith said reducing the scale of the impact said quite a lot for the role of the Environmental PLG in the process, adding: “E.ON should be patting themselves on the back for actively listening – this doesn’t usually happen.”
Emily Cox said Greenpeace would be concerned about the possible reduction of turbine height. She said Greenpeace’s main concern would be maximisingpower output to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
David Smith expressed concern about the potential impact of works in the Mid Sussex area with the cable route and construction of the substation in Bolney together with Balcombe being identified as a major site for hydraulic fracturing for shale gas. Mr Smith was concerned about the number of lorry movements for both potential major projects but added that permission had not been granted for fracking either.
Robert Cheesman said he had visited Scroby Sands Visitor Centre‘incognito’. He said he found the visitor centre staff well informed about the plans for the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm and asked whether there were plans for a similar visitorcentre in Sussex.
Eleri Owen said there was no reason why a visitor centre could not be sited to inform the public about the wind farm but the question would be where to locate it. Mr Cheesman added the Scroby Sands Visitor Centre was easier to site with just one major town of Great Yarmouth nearby and the wind farm being a lot closer to the coast, just 2km away.
Roy Coppard asked where the turbines would be constructed and whether there was a UK-based manufacturer which could be used to maximize the number of jobs created. Chris Tomlinson replied that should planning permission be granted, further investigations would be carried out which would determine the design and size of the turbines needed. He said the turbines would most be unlikely to be manufactured in the UK and that Germany, Spain and or Denmark were the leading manufacturers in Europe, which were both leaders in renewable energy as both countries had benefited from state-sponsoredresearch and development into turbine production. He informed the group that industry, The Crown Estate and Government had been successful in attracting offshore turbine manufacturers to UK shores, but that no factories would be up and running in time for Rampion. Chris agreed that it was regrettable that the turbines could not be produced in the UK..
Chris Tomlinson added that E.ON was committed to working with UK suppliers and said the procurement process would begin immediately should planning permission be granted in June 2014. E.ON was running an ongoing supply chain study which had identified 692 contracts involved in building a wind farm. E.ON would look primarily to Sussex and south east England firms able to satisfy their requirements/criteria to fulfill the contracts, once the tier one suppliers had been selected. He added that local firms would be given advance warning to maximize the opportunities to gain business from the development.
David Smith asked if E.ON was also investigating in wave technology. Chris confirmed that the company was developing a wave farm in the Pentland Firth off the north Scotland coast, energy conversion methods using hydraulics but added that thiswave energy technology was a long way off from large-scale commercial deployment – 10 ,15, possibly 20 years away. Mr Smith asked if this would be the most efficient energy source for the north of England..
- The Development Consent Order (DCO) examination process
Eleri Owen outlined the contents of the CD Rampion Offshore Wind Farm proposal, Application for Development Consent Order, March 2013, which was provided to all attendees.
She recommended that attendees referred first to the Explanatory Memorandum in the DCO section, which uses explanations in layman’s terms, to help them navigate their way around the CD.Eleri added that commercial agreements were in place on nearly all the land affected in the proposal and that E.ON would not be compulsorily acquiring land.
She said the CD provided details of required statements on matters such as environmental protection, environmental health, Public Rights of Way and noise mitigation, which would be of interest to members of the Environmental PLG.
- Wider project update
Chris Tomlinson said geotechnical surveys of the seabed would be starting soon and would be ongoing for the next few months. The surveys would help inform the site lay out, foundations and turbine requirements.
Eleri Owen added that these surveys would also help E.ON to determine the cable export route as well as pinpointing areas such as reefs and mussel beds so disturbance to these could be minimiszed.
David Smith requested further details about the export cable. Eleri Owen
said as with the onshore cable a 40 metre land width was required although the company would be using 30 metresan area of search had been identified, but this was being refined through further investigative work. The precise route of the cable would have to be signed off by Trinity House Marine, HM Coastguard and MMO.
- Dates and times for future meetings
Eleri explained that a new phase of the project was now beginning with formal hearings and objections. She invited Environment PLG members to think about the purpose of the group going forward. She believed the Group’s next role would be working together with E.ON in the planning stage in an informal process to fully utilise the Group’s collective expertise and that of other local organisations.
James Eaton said E.ON was continuing to work with specialist organisations such as the British Seahorse Society, which was contacted when a couple of seahorses were found near the site.
Discussions were held on whether a larger group was needed to discuss ing more general concerns. Eleri Owen said E.ON were moving towards more targeted meetings about towards specific issues related to the project. James Eaton added that the input of organisations which formed the Environment PLG was important to help inform E.ON on any potential issues which may occur during development as well as finding a solution.
David Smith asked whether the group would be able to view the ducting to help them understand the process. Eleri Owen added that this shouldn’t be a problem.
Action: E.ON to schedule potential meetings once the relevant representations period has closed and specific issues identified. isse
Roy Coppard said notice of meetings was an important consideration as the notice given was too short for his colleague, Mrs Reeve. He suggested one month.
Steve Ankers said E.ON had been open and available and this had been appreciated but reiterated his colleague’s point that not being an objector to the plan did not make the organisation a supporter of it. Emily Cox added that she was speaking on her own behalf and could not represent the entire organisation.
Alison Giacomelli asked if the group would continue to meet through construction and operation.Eleri Owen said the group would break for the examination period and then would need to take a different approach after this. She said the Environment PLG could ‘come into its own’ during the construction phase.
- AOB
None reported