Forewind Written Representation - Planning … · Forewind Written Representation ... light...

September 2014

Forewind Written Representation Provided for Deadline III in accordance with the timetable issued under Rule 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010

DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B

F-EXC-WR-001_Written rep final © 2014 Forewind Page ii


F-EXC-WR-001_Written rep final © 2014 Forewind Page iii

Document Title Dogger Bank Teesside A & B

Forewind Written Representation

Forewind Document Reference F-EXL-WR-001_WR

Issue Number 1

Date 02 September 2014

Drafted by Andrew Guyton

Reviewed by SMT

Date / initials approval SMT 29/08/2014


F-EXC-WR-001_Written rep final © 2014 Forewind Page iv

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Requirement for a Written Representation .......................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Written Representation Structure ........................................................................ 4

1.4 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck .................................................................................. 5

2 Development Consent Order ........................................................................................ 7

2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 7

2.2 DCO Version 2 and supporting draft DCO Change Log .................................... 10

2.3 Issues unresolved regarding DCO and DML conditions ................................... 15

2.1 Plans and drawings ........................................................................................... 15

2.2 Third Party Agreements and Protective Provisions ........................................... 16

2.3 Project Description ............................................................................................ 18

2.4 Site selection and design .................................................................................. 19

2.5 Other Consents and Licences ........................................................................... 19

2.6 Post Consent Management Plans ..................................................................... 20

4 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 21

3 Book of Reference and Compulsory Acquisition ......................................................... 30

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 30

3.2 Land Owners and Land Interests ...................................................................... 31

3.3 Book of Reference ............................................................................................ 35

3.4 Compulsory Acquisition .................................................................................... 38

3.5 Unilateral Undertaking ...................................................................................... 42

4 Policy Framework........................................................................................................ 44

4.2 National policy ................................................................................................... 46

4.3 Support for renewable energy ........................................................................... 46

4.4 Dogger Bank Economic Benefits ...................................................................... 47

4.5 Updates to Local Planning Policy ...................................................................... 51

5 Topic specific assessment .......................................................................................... 55

5.1 Environmental Statement .................................................................................. 55


F-EXC-WR-001_Written rep final © 2014 Forewind Page v

5.2 Fish and shellfish ecology – offshore biodiversity ............................................. 55

5.3 Intertidal and subtidal – offshore biodiversity .................................................... 57

5.4 Marine mammals – offshore biodiversity ........................................................... 61

5.5 Birds – offshore biodiversity .............................................................................. 65

5.6 Commercial fisheries and fishing ...................................................................... 68

5.7 Historic environment – offshore ........................................................................ 75

5.8 Navigation and shipping .................................................................................... 77

5.9 Oil, gas and other infrastructure and activities .................................................. 80

5.10 Physical environment – offshore ....................................................................... 81

5.11 Seascape and visual effects – offshore ............................................................ 83

5.12 Air quality – onshore ......................................................................................... 84

5.13 Biodiversity and geological conservation – onshore ......................................... 85

5.14 Civil and military aviation and defence .............................................................. 88

5.15 Historic environment – onshore ........................................................................ 90

5.16 Landscape and visual – onshore ...................................................................... 91

5.17 Land use – onshore .......................................................................................... 93

5.18 Noise – onshore ................................................................................................ 94

5.19 Socio-economic ................................................................................................ 95

5.20 Tourism and recreation ..................................................................................... 97

5.21 Traffic and transport .......................................................................................... 99

5.22 Waste management ........................................................................................ 101

5.23 Flood risk and water quality ............................................................................ 101

5.24 Cumulative impact assessment ...................................................................... 103

6 Habitats Regulations Assessment............................................................................. 106

6.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment .................................................................. 106

7 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 108

7.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 108


F-EXL-WR-001_WR Page 1 © 2014 Forewind

1 Introduction

1.1 Requirement for a Written Representation

1.1.1 On 11th August 2014, the Examining Authority (ExA) for Dogger Bank Teesside A &

B offshore wind farm issued a timetable for the examination in accordance with Rule

8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.

1.1.2 This ‘Rule 8 letter’ requested the following submissions to be made available by

Deadline III on Wednesday 3rd September 2014:

Comments on relevant representations (RRs);

Summaries of all RRs exceeding 1500 words;

Written representations (WRs) by all interested parties (including comments on

documents apparently missing from the application);

Summaries of all WRs exceeding 1500 words;

Responses to Panel’s first written questions (ExQ1);

A list of commercial agreements and planning obligations proposed by the

applicant and a summary of their parties, purpose and content;

Notice of wish to be heard at an Open-floor hearing;

Notice of wish to be heard at Issue-specific hearings;

Notice of wish to be heard at a Compulsory Acquisition hearing;

Nominations of locations to be inspected during unaccompanied site

inspections, the features to be observed there and the reasons for each

nomination;

Nominations of locations to be inspected during accompanied site inspections,

the features to be observed there and the reasons for each nomination;

The ‘master index’ provided for in Procedural Decision Annex C(i); and

An updated draft Development Consent Order if any changes are proposed,

with reasons for changes.

1.1.3 In accordance with the Rule 8 letter, this document comprises:

Forewind’s WR (including summary);

Forewind’s comments on the RRs;

A list of commercial agreements and planning obligations proposed by the

applicant and a summary of their parties, purpose and content; and

An updated draft Development Consent Order if any changes are proposed,

with reasons for changes.

Responses to the ExQ1 are provided as a separate document.



1.1.4 Supporting material has also been prepared by Forewind Limited (Forewind) for the

examination, including Statements of Common Ground (SoCG), submitted to the ExA

for Deadline II on 28th August 2014.

1.1.5 The preliminary meeting indicating the start of the examination was held on 5th

August 2014.

Section 51 Advice

1.1.6 The application was submitted by Forewind to the Planning Inspectorate on 28 March

2014 and accepted for examination on 23 April 2014. Since the application was

submitted and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, the ExA have issued two s51

advice notes. These extend to:

23rd April 2014: Parts 1 and 3 of the Book of Reference; and

26th June 2014: Missing documents from the application.

1.1.7 The response to s51 advice concerning parts 1 and 3 of the Book of Reference is

documented in Section 3.3 of this WR.

1.1.8 The missing documents from the application were submitted to the ExA on 22nd July

in response to the ExA Rule 6 letter and have been placed in hard copies in the

relevant local libraries.

Non registered relevant representations

1.1.9 The period in which parties could submit a RR under S56 of the Planning Act 2008,

and register as an interested party, began on 25 April 2014 and closed on 12 June

2014. Forty one parties registered as interested parties and submitted RRs. In

addition, seven parties contacted Forewind directly in response to the S56 notice, but

did not register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party by 12 June.

These parties are:

Bat Conservation Trust (RR No. NR1);

Northumbrian Water (RR No. NR2);

Independent Power Networks/GTC Pipelines (RR No. NR3);

York Potash (RR No. NR4);

Energetics Electricity (RR No. NR5);

Cruising Association (RR No. NR6); and

Hartlepool Borough Council (RR No. NR7).

1.1.10 For completeness, in preparing this WR, Forewind has reviewed each representation

received (registered or unregistered), and a summary is provided of the

representation and Forewind’s response for each in the relevant section(s) of this

WR.

1.1.11 Following the Preliminary Meeting and subsequent Rule 8 letter, it is noted that the

Panel has agreed to accept a Statement of Representation on behalf of Sembcorp

Utilities, providing Sembcorp the opportunity to participate in the examination on

subject matters including but not limited to compulsory acquisition and to be heard on

them if requested, as if it had made a relevant representation.



1.2 Project Description

1.2.1 This WR is submitted by Forewind in connection with the proposed Development

Consent Order (DCO) submitted under the Planning Act 2008 to construct and

operate two offshore wind turbine electricity generating stations in the Dogger Bank

Zone, with an installed capacity of up to 2.4 gigawatt (GW), along with associated

infrastructure. Together these offshore wind farms are known as Dogger Bank

Teesside A & B. This document has been produced in accordance with the Rule 10

of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.

1.2.2 Forewind seeks consent for the development described in full in Schedule 1 to the

draft DCO as submitted (application ref 3.1). The application includes the following:

Up to 400 wind turbines with an installed capacity of up to 2.4GW along with:

Two offshore converter platforms;

Up to eight offshore collector platforms;

Up to ten meteorological masts;

Accommodation or helicopter platforms;

Inter-array cabling;

Offshore associated development, including high voltage direct current (HVDC)

export cables;

Onshore associated development, including HVDC export cables, up to two

converter stations, and high voltage alternating current (HVAC) cables from the

converter stations to the neighbouring National Grid substation at Lackenby,

near Eston, in the Borough of Redcar & Cleveland; and

All associated temporary work to facilitate the construction, operation and

maintenance of the wind farms.

1.2.3 ES Chapter 5 Project Description (application ref 6.5) includes a full description of

the proposed development.

1.2.4 The Dogger Bank Teesside A & B array boundaries, containing wind turbines and

offshore platforms, are located within the Dogger Bank Zone in the North Sea,

located between 125km and 290km off the North East coast. The export cables will

be installed within a 1.5km-wide cable corridor, with a 750 metre wide temporary

works area either side of the cable corridor.

1.2.5 Cabling will come ashore in an area along the Teesside coastline between Redcar

and Marske-by-the-Sea, and travel underground approximately 7km west to the

converter station(s), situated within the Wilton Complex1. All onshore works are

located within the borough of Redcar & Cleveland, administered by Redcar &

Cleveland Borough Council (RCBC).

1 The Wilton Complex is an area zoned for CS10_Steel, Chemical and Port Related Industries development

in the Local Development Framework. The secure complex consists of a mixture of operational heavy and light industrial works as well as derelict brownfield and arable land. The complex is a former chemical works. Wilson Complex also goes by the branding of Wilton International. For the purposes of this WR,Wilton Complex and Wilton International are one and the same.



1.2.6 A converter station is required for each project. Each converter station converts

HVDC export power to 400kV HVAC prior to connection into the existing National

Grid substation at Lackenby. Both converter stations will be co-located within the

Wilton Complex.

1.2.7 Approximately 2km of HVAC cabling connects the converter station(s) to the existing

National Grid substation at Lackenby (near to the settlement of Eston).

1.2.8 Onshore, the maximum total temporary width for two adjacent cable systems during

installation for the HVDC cables is 36m in an agricultural environment and 18m in an

industrial environment. For the HVAC cables the maximum width is 39m. These

widths include cable trenches, haul roads, fencing and temporary topsoil and subsoil

storage areas. Justification for the cable corridor widths are detailed in ES Chapter 5

Project Description (application ref 6.5).

1.3 Written Representation Structure

1.3.1 A comprehensive suite of documentation was submitted with the application. This

WR references that documentation throughout where possible, including:

Draft DCO (application ref 3.1) (referenced ‘Draft DCO as submitted’) and

supporting explanatory memorandum (application ref 3.2). It is noted that an

updated Draft DCO (version 2) and supporting Draft DCO (Version 2)

Change Log are provided at Appendix A and B of this WR;

Plans and drawings (application ref 2.1.1 – 2.12);

Compulsory acquisition documentation (application ref 4.1 – 4.3);

Environmental statement (application ref 6.0); and

Supporting reports and documents (application refs 7.0 and 8.0) including

the Planning and Design Statement (application ref 8.1).

Table 1.1: Written Representation Structure

Section Section

content commentary

1 Introduction Commentary on the requirement and scope of the WR, summary project description and reference to the first application for the Dogger Bank Zone, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

2 Development Consent Order Commentary on the draft DCO as submitted, including review of RRs received and supporting further explanation on third party agreements, protective provisions, other consents and licenses and post consent management plans. References to an updated draft DCO (version 2) and supporting change log.

3 Book of Reference and Compulsory Acquisition Commentary on land owners and interests, compulsory acquisition, Unilateral Undertakings with local planning authority and further explanation concerning parts 1 and 3 of the Book of Reference.



Section Section

content commentary

4 Policy framework Reviews RRs received, policy changes made since submission of the application and the wider consenting framework, including project need and the wider economic benefits of developing the Dogger Bank zone.

5 Topic specific assessment Commentary on the topic specific assessment criteria established through National Planning Policy, including topic specific assessment, RRs received and supporting further explanation where required.

6 Habitats Regulations Assessment Commentary on RRs on Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

7 Conclusion Evaluates the application documentation, RRs received and any further explanation and clarifications against the decision-making considerations and criteria in S104(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the Planning Act 2008).

1.4 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

1.4.1 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck is the first phase of the Dogger Bank development.

Dogger Bank Creyke Beck comprises two offshore wind farm arrays, ‘Dogger Bank

Creyke Beck A’ and ‘Dogger Bank Creyke Beck B’ each with a capacity of up to 1.2

GW (a total potential of up to 2.4GW) and associated development. Dogger Bank

Creyke Beck A and B are both proposed to connect into the existing National Grid

substation at Creyke Beck, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Jointly, these projects are

referred to as ‘Dogger Bank Creyke Beck’.

1.4.2 An application for development consent for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck was submitted

to the Planning Inspectorate in August 2013, with examination closing on 18 August

2014.

1.4.3 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B applications have both

applied the same consenting strategy, namely:

Both comprise one application, securing consent for two offshore wind farms,

each wind farm having a generation capacity up to 1.2GW.

Each application comprises one DCO and four deemed marine licences (DML),

being one generation and one transmission licence per project.

Both applications secure consent for both offshore and onshore works,

including connection works into the National Grid transmission network.

Both applications have been structured so as to facilitate the delivery of each

project either concurrently, or sequentially, thereby allowing for both projects to

be independently delivered by two lead operators.

Both applications have applied a consistent approach to pre-application

consultation, ES assessment methodologies and supporting material – including



the structure and approach to the draft DCO, deemed marine licences and

compulsory acquisition.

1.4.4 Where matters have been agreed with interested parties during the Creyke Beck

examination that are of equal applicability to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B then it is

Forewind’s position that such matters should be carried forward into the current

examination. Where such matters are carried forward in this WR, Forewind has set

this out where appropriate.



2 Development Consent Order

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Dogger Bank Teesside A & B is the second stage of the Dogger Bank development.

If approved, the DCO would grant development consent for the development

described in Section 1.2. A draft DCO (dated March 2014 and here after referenced

in this statement as ‘draft DCO as submitted’) was submitted with the application

(application ref 3.1).

2.1.2 The draft DCO as submitted is read in conjunction with the offshore Works Plans

(application ref 2.4.1) and onshore Works Plans (application ref 2.4.2). The draft

DCO as submitted and works plans authorise works by a series of work numbers

(Work No.) as detailed in Table 2.1.

2.1.3 For the reasons set out in Section 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum (application

ref 3.2), the draft DCO as submitted provides flexibility in relation to the wind turbine

generating stations and their associated development. Careful consideration has

been given to the guidance in the National Policy Statements (NPS) and the Planning

Inspectorate’s advice note 9 ‘Rochdale Envelope’, together with pre-application

discussions with the Planning Inspectorate.

2.1.4 Schedule 7 of the draft DCO as submitted includes four draft deemed Marine

Licences (DMLs); these cover the two array areas (i.e. the generating assets) (DML 1

and DML 2) and the two export cable corridors (i.e. the transmission assets) (DML 3

and DML 4). The application includes two plans (spatial and cross section)

illustrating the potential interactions and geographic split between the generating and

transmission licensed areas (application ref 2.5.1 and 2.5.2).

2.1.5 Marine Management Organisation’s (MMO) RR welcomes the inclusion of separate

DMLs for the generation and transmission assets that allows discrete parts of Dogger

Bank Teesside A & B to be transferred. This approach has been confirmed by The

East Anglia ONE Offshore Wind Farm Order 2014 made on 16th June 2014.

2.1.6 In addition to the inclusion of separate DMLs for the generation and transmission

assets, since submission of the application and through the examination of Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck, agreed positions have been reached with the MMO with regards

to the structure and nexus between the DCO and each DML, the scope to which

provisions in the DCO (particularly development parameters) need be duplicated

through the DCO and each DML.

2.1.7 Key mitigation measures to minimise the impacts of the development have been

embedded in the project design, as described in Section 4 Planning and Design

Statement (application ref 8.1) and ES Chapter 6 Site Selection and Alternatives

(application ref 6.6), which is in accordance with part 4.5 of EN-1. The draft DCO

also secures additional mitigation measures outlined in the ES through the

requirements, in particular the preparation of a suite of post consent/pre

construction/operation management plans, DML conditions and the project

parameters set out in Schedule 1 of the draft DCO as submitted.



Table 2.1: Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Authorised Development by Work No.

Work No.

Summary of Authorised Development Project, DML and

Authority

1A

Offshore wind turbine generating station with a gross electrical output capacity of up to 1.2 gigawatts comprising up to 200 wind turbine generators each fixed to the seabed by monopole, multileg or gravity base type foundation situated within the coordinates of the array areas. A maximum of 7 offshore platforms comprising the following:

- Up to 4 offshore collector platform(s); - An offshore converter platform; - Up to 2 offshore accommodation or helicopter

platform(s); - Or any of the above platforms co-joined to create a

combined platform; - Up to 5 meteorological station(s); - A network of cables for the transmission of electricity

and electronic communications laid on or beneath the seabed; and

- Up to 10 vessel mooring(s) consisting of a single floating buoy fixed to the seabed by one or more anchors.

Project Dogger Bank Teesside A

DML 1 and 3

Authority MMO

1B Same scope of works as Work No. 1A

Project Dogger Bank Teesside B

DML 2 and 4

Authority MMO

2T Temporary work area for vessels to carry out intrusive activities during construction, (e.g. anchor spreads).

Project Shared

DML 1, 2, 3, and 4

Authority MMO

2A

Up to 2 export cables for the transmission of high voltage direct current (HVDC) electricity together with fibre optic cables for the transmission of electronic communications laid on or beneath the seabed.


DML 3

Authority MMO



DML 4

Authority MMO

3A

Up to 2 export cables for the transmission of HVDC electricity together with fibre optic cables for the transmission of electronic communications laid on or beneath the seabed. Laid between mean low water springs and mean high water springs


DML 3

Authority MMO & RCBC



Work No.


Authority



DML 4

Authority MMO & RCBC

4A

Up to 2 export cables for the transmission of HVDC electricity together with fibre optic cables for the transmission of electronic communications laid underground, including the construction of a temporary haul road.


Authority RCBC

4B Same scope of works as Work No. 4A Project

Dogger Bank Teesside B

Authority RCBC

5A

A landfall transition joint bay, including up to 2 export cables for the transmission of HVDC electricity together with fibre optic cables for the transmission of electric communications laid underground, including the construction of a temporary haul road.


Authority RCBC



Authority RCBC

6A

Up to 2 export cables for the transmission of HVDC electricity together with fibre optic cables for the transmission of electric communications laid underground, including the construction of a temporary haul road.


Authority RCBC



Authority RCBC

7 Up to 2 electrical converter substations and compounds for converting HVDC to HVAC electricity, including landscaping and the construction of a temporary haul road.

Project Shared

Authority RCBC

7L A screening landform to the south west of Work No.7. Project Shared

Authority RCBC

8A

Up to 3 export cables for the transmission of HVAC electricity together with fibre optic cables, laid underground running in a westerly direction for a distance of 2 kilometres to the connection bay within the National Grid substation connection works, including the construction of a temporary haul road.


Authority RCBC



Authority RCBC



Work No.


Authority

9

National Grid substation connection works located above ground and including a connection bays within the existing National Grid substation at Lackenby containing isolation switchgear and electrical equipment for the connection of the export cable system to the transmission network and including access road to provide construction and maintenance access.

Project Shared

Authority RCBC

10 A-L Vehicular access from the public highway to the works. Project Shared

Authority RCBC

2.2 DCO Version 2 and supporting draft DCO Change Log

2.2.1 Since submission of the application and through ongoing consultation with

stakeholders, a number of changes to the draft DCO as submitted are proposed by

Forewind. An updated tracked changes draft DCO Version 2 is provided at

Appendix A. A list of all changes is provided in ‘Draft DCO Change Log’ in

Appendix B. Forewind considers that DCO Version 2 is the appropriate starting

position for examination as these proposed changes have arisen as a result of:

Matters agreed with stakeholders through the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

examination which apply equally to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B.

Responding to matters identified by stakeholders in their RRs;

Discussions with stakeholders during the production of SoCGs and SoI; and

Matters of clarity and further explanation identified by Forewind.

2.2.2 The draft DCO Change Log provides an extract of the relevant section of the draft

DCO as submitted (incl. changes made to the four supporting DML) and details of the

proposed change including any suggested wording (additional text bold underlined,

text removed bold strikethrough).

2.2.3 It is anticipated that the draft DCO Change Log will become a central document

through the examination and remain a ‘live’ document which captures the ongoing

changes made to the draft DCO through the examination.



Relevant representations

2.2.4 The following RRs were received which raised concerns on the draft DCO as

submitted, the project description and protective provisions.

Table 2.2 Relevant Representations raising concerns on the Draft DCO as submitted

Reference Summary of representation Forewind’s response

English Heritage (EH)(offshore) (RR No. 41)

EH has provided detailed comments on the ES. EH accept the "Rochdale Envelope" approach set out the in ES and note the detail provided regarding further detailed surveys to support finalisation of foundation design. In relation to ES Chapter 5 Project Description (application ref 6.5), EH notes the absence of information of depths of seabed disturbance in relation to seabed preparation and installation of the various foundation types, but note that this detail is presented in ES Chapter 18 Marine and Coastal Archaeology (application ref 6.18).

A SoCG has been agreed with EH (F-EXL-CG-011 EH OF) in which there are no matters unresolved. Clarification to queries raised by EH have been included at Appendix 1 - Addendum to SoCG Historic Seascape Characterisation.




Highways Agency (HA) (RR No. 7)

HA advises the need for a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), Construction Travel Plan (CTP) and Abnormal Indivisible Loads to be prepared and agreed in consultation with the HA, once a contractor is in place (i.e. post consent/pre commencement of works). HA advises the cable crossings under Agency managed road (A1053(T)) to be undertaken in accordance with HA 120/08, ‘Guidance on the Trenchless Installation of Services Beneath Motorways and Trunk Roads’. HA advises a cumulative impact with York Potash Project should be addressed within the CTMP.

A SoCG has been agreed with HA (F-EXL-CG-019 HA ON) submitted at Deadline II. Requirement 30 of the draft DCO as submitted makes provision for these requirements. Requirement 30 requires i) no stage of the onshore works can commence until written details of a construction traffic management plan (CTMP) and Construction Travel Plan (CTP) to be used for the management of construction traffic has been submitted to and approved in writing by the relevant planning authority ii) The CTMP and CTP must include details (including agreed routes) for abnormal indivisible loads and ii) any drilling works under highways shall be carried out in accordance with Highway Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Section 3.1.G.2 of the SoCG between Forewind and the HA confirms the wording of the DCO Requirement. In addition, Section 3.1.F.1 of the SoCG between Forewind and the HA confirms any implications with the York Potash Project traffic demand will be assessed post consent / pre commencement of works once further information becomes available.

Independent Power Networks/GTC (RR No. NR3)

Confirmation that the following parties have no comments to make on the application at this time:

- Independent Power Networks - Independent Pipelines - Envoy Asset Management - Quadrant Pipelines

RR noted.




Marine Management Organisation (MMO) (RR No. 12)

MMO identified a suite of comments on the provisions made within the draft DCO and DMLs. These comments extended to a range of matters including maintenance, splitting of licences and timing of commencement of activity.

The draft DCO as submitted with the application was broadly consistent with the draft DCO as submitted with the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application. Through the examination of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck a great deal of discussion has gone into the wording of the draft DCO and DMLs with MMO. An updated draft DCO (Version 2) and supporting draft DCO Change Log are provided at Appendix A and B to this WR.

Natural England (NE) (Offshore only) (RR No. 38)

NE is currently reviewing the wording within the draft DCO and has advised that it will provide further details of any concerns within their WRs or will agree to wording directly with the Applicants through the SoCG process. NE recommends that discussions and agreements in relation to the Dogger Bank Creyke Bank draft DCO (amended through the examination) are reflected in the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B draft DCO.

Through the examination of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck a great deal of discussion has gone into the wording of the DCO and DMLs with Natural England. An updated draft DCO (Version 2) and supporting draft DCO Change Log are provided at Appendix A and B to this WR and this reflects the current position with NE as agreed for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

Natural England (NE) (Offshore only) (RR No. 38)

Project description and unplanned maintenance activities:- NE require further clarification to allow unplanned maintenance activities to be assessed and an outline maintenance plan should be secured within the DCO/DMLs.

Draft DCO Version 2 at Appendix A and B includes the requirement to prepare a Post Construction Maintenance plan (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 16; DML Part 3b and 4b, Condition 13). This approach is consistent with Dogger Bank Creyke Beck In order to clarify the scope of the offshore maintenance activities, Forewind has proposed amendments to the definition of “maintain” in the draft DCO Version 2 and each supporting DML). This change is detailed at Appendix A and B.




Natural England (NE)(Offshore only) (RR No. 38)

Decommissioning:- NE consider the impact of infrastructure left in place are ‘long term temporary’ provided that they are removed at the time of decommissioning. NE note that the removal of scour protection is preferable and advise the use of protection that allows for effective removal and also presents the least obstruction to sediment transport processes. NE reiterate previous advice given that cable protection should be laid as a last resort, with cable burial the preferred option.

The impacts of decommissioning on each receptor is considered within the relevant chapter of the ES (application ref 6.0). In addition, an Outline Decommissioning Plan (application ref 8.3) was provided in the application. Forewind has provided point by point responses to Natural England’s relevant representation as Appendix 12 of the Natural England SoCGs (EXL-CG-031 NE OF).

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) (RR No. 33)

NGET identify infrastructure in the locality of the proposed works. In respect of existing NGET infrastructure, NGET will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that apparatus is adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET objects to the compulsory acquisition of its land and/or rights within the substation boundary at Lackenby.

A Statement of Intent (SoI) has been agreed with NGET. This was submitted at Deadline II. Schedule 8 of the draft DCO as submitted includes Protective Provisions for electricity, gas, water and sewerage undertakers. Forewind consider the protective provisions already set out in Schedule 8 (1) of the draft DCO as submitted provide reasonable protection to utilities and are well precedented.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (NR) (RR No. 19)

NR has protective provisions which are well precedented so as to protect NR 's operational land from compulsory acquisition. NR notes that protective provisions are included in the draft DCO. With one exception, these are in NR 's standard form. In paragraph 6, there is normally an additional sub-paragraph (c) (and (c) in the draft would become (d)), which reads as follows: "in such manner as to cause as little damage as is possible to railway property". If this additional sub-paragraph were to be inserted into the protective provisions in favour of NR, NR would have no objection to the proposed Order.

Schedule 8 of the draft DCO as submitted includes Protective Provisions for NR. Forewind has committed to including this additional sub-paragraph in Schedule 8 of the draft DCO. This change is documented in the updated draft DCO (Version 2) and supporting draft DCO Change Log provided at Appendix A and B.




Northumbrian Water Ltd (NWL) (RR No. NR2)

NWL raised concerns over the impact the proposed development may have on NWLs water and waste water assets. NWLs are compiling areas of concern where existing apparatus exists.

A SoCG has been agreed with NWL. This was submitted at Deadline II. The SoCG notes that an arrangement to allow NWL to recover reasonable and properly incurred costs associated with the scheme is yet to be proposed by NWL and agreed with Forewind. Forewind consider the protective provisions already set out in Schedule 8 (1) of the draft DCO as submitted provide reasonable protection to utilities and are well precedented.

2.3 Issues unresolved regarding DCO and DML conditions

2.3.1 A SoCG between MMO and Forewind was issued to the ExA at Deadline II (ref F-

EXL-CG-024 MMO). The SoCG details a number of matters unresolved between the

MMO and Forewind with regards to the drafting of the draft DCO and each DML.

2.3.2 The SoCG was prepared in advance of finalisation and submission of the updated

draft DCO (version 2) provided at Appendix A and Appendix B of this WR. Issues

unresolved in the SoCG, now considered addressed in full or in part in updated draft

DCO version 2 include:

updated definition of “maintain”, limiting the scope of “maintain” to “the extent

assessed in the Environmental Statement”;

requirement for a post construction maintenance plan, based on an outline

maintenance plan currently being prepared by Forewind. The outline

maintenance plan which will be submitted into the examination in due course;

commitment to use of an In Principle Monitoring Plan;

updated wording to Force Majeure;

clarification as to the definition of commencement of development time limits,

with an updated definition of “commence” and inclusion of a new definition of

“commercial operation”; and

updates to the offshore safety management, aids to navigation and provision

against danger.

2.1 Plans and drawings

2.1.1 The application documents include a suite of application plans (application ref 2.1-

2.12). The plans are either prescribed plans as required by The Infrastructure

Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP

Regulation) or non-prescribed and provided so as to clarify the scope of works and

interaction with Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. The status of these plans is set out in the

Table 2.3.



2.1.2 No RRs specifically requested further information or amendments to either prescribed

or non-prescribed plans.

Table 2.3: Prescribed and Non Prescribed Plans

App Ref.

Plan Title APFP

Regulation Prescribed/Non

Prescribed

2.1.1 Location Plan Offshore 5(2)(o) Prescribed

2.1.2 Location Plan Onshore 5(2)(o) Prescribed

2.2.1 Order limits and grid co-ordinates plan Offshore

5(2)(o) Prescribed

2.2.2 Order limits and grid co-ordinates plan Onshore

5(2)(o) Prescribed

2.3.1 Offshore land plan 5(2)(i) & 5(2)(n) Prescribed

2.3.2 Onshore land plan (with key plan) 5(2)(i) & 5(2)(n) Prescribed

2.4.1 Offshore works plan (with key plan) 5(2)(j) Prescribed

2.4.2 Onshore works plan (with key plan) 5(2)(j) Prescribed

2.4.4 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside A and B Extent of works plan

N/A Non Prescribed

2.4.5 Work No. 1A Grid Coordinates Plan N/A Non Prescribed

2.4.6 Work No. 1B Grid Coordinates Plan N/A Non Prescribed

2.5.1 Indicative extent of Marine Licences – spatial 5(2)(o) Prescribed

2.5.2 Indicative extent of Marine Licences - cross-section

5(2)(o) Prescribed

2.6 Access to works plan (with key plan) 5(2)(k) Prescribed

2.7 Streets and public rights of way plan (with key plan)

5(2)(k) Prescribed

2.8.1 Offshore nature conservation sites 5(2)(i) Prescribed

2.8.2 Onshore nature conservation sites (with key plan)

5(2)(i) Prescribed

2.9.1 Offshore sites or features of the historic environment

5(2)(m) Prescribed

2.9.2 Onshore sites or features of the historic environment (with key plan)

5(2)(m) Prescribed

2.11 Special category land plan 5(2)(i) Prescribed

2.12 Tree Preservation Order Plan (with key plan) 5(2)(o) Prescribed

2.2 Third Party Agreements and Protective Provisions

2.2.1 Schedule 8 (Protective Provisions) of the draft DCO as submitted contains a number

of protective provisions for the benefit of a number of statutory bodies. All of the

provisions are based upon recent precedents.

2.2.2 The provisions confer protection upon electricity, gas, water and sewerage

undertakers (Part 1), Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Part 2), operations of

electronic communications code networks (Part 3), and owners and operators of

offshore cables and pipelines (Part 4).

2.2.3 Forewind consider the Protective Provisions already set out in Schedule 8 of the draft

DCO as submitted provide reasonable protection to utilities and are well precedented.

Discussions are on-going with a range of utility providers, including those who have



made RRs (i.e. National Grid, Network Rail and Northumbria Water Ltd) and other

utility providers.

2.2.4 Schedule 8 (4) of the draft DCO as submitted sets out protective provisions for

operators of offshore cables and pipelines. Forewind is aware of a number of existing

cables and pipelines in or within close proximity to the proposed order limits.

Although no RRs were received with regards to Schedule 8 (4).

2.2.5 The current status in relation to negotiations with statutory undertakers and owners

and operator’s offshore cables and pipelines in proximity to Dogger Bank Teesside A

& B is detailed in Table C2 and C3 of Appendix C.

2.2.6 Forewind is also seeking to acknowledge the potential removal of out-of-service

cables where relevant in these documents, with a view to agreeing this with owners

and key stakeholders, if it is required, post-consent.

2.2.7 Existing offshore cables and pipelines in or within close proximity to the proposed

works are:

Cantat 3 Cable (owned/operated by BT Ltd);

CATS pipeline (Amoco (UK) Exploration Company);

Pangea Cable (Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks);

Breagh Field Pipeline (RWE DEA UK SNS Ltd and Sterling Resources (UK)

Ltd);

Sewage Outfall on Bed at Marske Sands (Northumbrian Water Ltd);

Boulby Potash Mine (Cleveland Potash Ltd);

VSNL Northern Europe Telecoms Cable (Tata Communications (UK) Ltd);

UK-Germany 6 Telecoms Cable (BT Ltd);

UK-Denmark 4 – Seg 2 (inactive) (BT Ltd);

Shearwater to Bacton (Seal) Pipeline (Shell UK); and

Langeled Pipeline (Gassco).

2.2.8 Further details on offshore cables and pipelines in or within close proximity to the

proposed works are detailed in the response to Question 6.16 of 1st ExA Questions.

New Part. Protection of the Environment Agency

2.2.9 The Environment Agency submitted a RR (RR No. 31) which stated that they have no

objection to the proposal. The RR did not include comments on the draft DCO as

submitted.

2.2.10 Through the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination, the Environment Agency

requested inclusion of protective provisions. Forewind is seeking EAs confirmation

as to the need to include these protective provisions. To date EA have not confirmed

their preferred approach. In absence of this confirmation, Forewind has taken the

opportunity to update the draft DCO and include protective provisions for the EA. The

protective provisions extend to safeguarding against damage to drainage work and

securing the efficiency of flood defences. This change is documented in the updated

draft DCO (version 2) and supporting DCO Change Log provided at Appendix A and

B.



2.3 Project Description

2.3.1 The MMOs RR raised concerns in regard to the project description.

Table 2.4 Relevant Representations raising concerns on the draft DCO as submitted


MMO (RR No. 12)

The MMO note the indicative wind turbine generating capacity is provided in Table 3.1 of ES Chapter 5 Project Description. The parameters are stated for two options: up to 6 megawatt (MW) and 10MW or greater. Whilst MMO note that the dimensions of the larger capacity turbines are limited by the assessed envelope, clarity is sought regarding the likelihood of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B being built out using turbines with a generating capacity of over 10MW. If this is a likely scenario, then the maximum turbine generator capacity should be provided and assessed within the ES. In Paragraph 5.1.2 of Chapter 5 it is stated that the layout of the wind turbines is subject to flexibility and this includes the “total number of wind turbines (subject to the maximum 1,200MW installed generating capacity limit)”. Whilst it is noted that the maximum number of turbines is limited by the maximum generating capacity, the final layout will be limited to the maximum number of turbines (200) per array. This should be updated for clarity.

Forewind has entered into a SoCG with the MMO (F-EXL-CG-024 MMO OF). Forewind has also provided point by point responses to MMO’s relevant representations as Appendix 4 to the SoCGs. The points raised are addressed in responses 1.2.2 to 1.2.6 and 1.2.15. This is acknowledged by Forewind and the maximum number of turbines per project is secured in Sch 1, Authorised Project, Part 1, Authorised Development of the draft DCO.

2.3.2 As noted in the Planning and Design Statement (application ref 8.1), due to the

uncertainties associated with the supply chain and the technologies that might be

available and the Offshore Transmission Owner (OFTO) tendering process, Forewind

has established a Rochdale Envelope approach to the environmental assessment of

the proposals, in line with the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice note nine: Rochdale

Envelope.

2.3.3 The advice note advises that the use of a Rochdale Envelope should not be used as

an excuse to provide insufficient details, but every effort to finalise as much of Dogger

Bank Teesside A & B as possible prior to submission of their application. Advice note

nine also suggests that a practical way forward would be for the DCO application to

set out specified maxima and minima for relevant project parameters.

2.3.4 The draft DCO and DMLs as submitted details maxima and minima parameters for

both offshore and onshore works. The scope of works that the draft DCO authorises

(authorised works) are based upon ES Chapter 5 Project Description (application



ref 6.5), which provides further information on the maxima and minima parameters

for both offshore and onshore works and the required flexibility sought.

2.4 Site selection and design

2.4.1 The approach taken to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B site selection process and

design is described in ES Chapter 6 Assessment of Alternatives (application ref

6.6) with further detail in the chapter appendices (application ref 6.6.1 to 6.6.8). A

summary of the design rationale is also set out in Section 4 Planning and Design

Statement (application ref 8.1).

2.4.2 Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 6 Assessment of Alternatives (application ref 6.6)

identifies the relevant assessment policies within EN-1 and how these are addressed

within the application. The concept of ‘good design’ introduced in Section 4.5 of EN-3

has been addressed by ensuring that the development is functional and responds to

all necessary technical and environmental constraints, whilst keeping aesthetics in

mind.

2.4.3 In line with paragraph 4.5.4 of EN-1, the evolution of the design process is clearly set

out within ES Chapter 6 Assessment of Alternatives (application ref 6.6) and

within the Planning and Design Statement (application ref 8.1). In addition,

Section 8.6 of the Consultation Report (application ref 5.1) explains where the

design was amended as a result of responses received during pre-application

consultation.

2.4.4 As a Rochdale Envelope approach has been followed, many of the more detailed

design decisions will be taken post-consent, such as the final layout of the wind

turbines within the array areas, foundation types and the external appearance of the

onshore converter stations. These details will be approved at the appropriate time by

the relevant authority (the MMO or RCBC).

2.4.5 Site selection for offshore wind farms is also discussed in EN-3 (paragraphs 2.6.15 to

2.6.35), which recognises issues such as the influence of the Government’s offshore

energy strategic environmental assessment (SEA), the Zone Appraisal Process

(ZAP), technical considerations such as wind resource and physical conditions, and

the consideration of the connection to the relevant electricity network. These points

are addressed in Section 4.2 Appendix H of ES Chapter 6 (application ref 6.6.8).

2.4.6 The documents referenced above demonstrate that the design of Dogger Bank

Teesside A & B has arisen through a thorough and iterative process, informed by

consultation with stakeholders and having regard to relevant technical and

environmental considerations. It is considered that impacts have been avoided or

where avoidance is not possible, minimised through the site selection process. On

this basis, Forewind is of the opinion that the design guidance set out in relevant

policy has been followed and impacts minimised to an acceptable level.

2.5 Other Consents and Licences 2.5.1 S150 of the Planning Act 2008 provides that an order granting development consent

may remove a requirement for an additional prescribed consent or authorisation to be

granted. The consents and authorisations prescribed for the purposes of S150 of the

Planning Act are set out in the Schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous

Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010.



2.5.2 The application included ‘Consents and licences required under other legislation’

(application ref. 5.3). Following receipt of RRs and ongoing discussions with

stakeholders - Consents and licences required under other legislation’ has been

updated. This update is provided at Appendix F.

2.6 Post Consent Management Plans

2.6.1 The application requires the need for a number of supporting management plans to

be prepared and approved by relevant authority. The need for these plans arises

through:

Legal requirement or pursuant to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications:

Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Requirements.

Standard industry best practice – typically identified in the supporting

application documentation and each ES Chapter (application ref 6.0).

Commitments made in response to consultation with stakeholders – typically

requested in statutory consultation, through RRs or by way of reaching

agreement as part of SoCG.

2.6.2 A visual aid – identifying the suite of the principle plans required is shown in Figures

2.1 and 2.2 and the scope and current status outlined in Tables 2.5 to 2.9.



Figure 2.1 – Offshore Plans Visual Aid (based on draft DCO version 2 provided Appendix A and B)

3

4 Introduction

Draft FLP

Being Prepared by Forewind

In Principle Monitoring Plan (IPMP)

DMLs 1&2 condition 9(1)(e) DMLs 3&4 conditions 6(1)(e)

Pre, during and post construction, survey conditions

DMLs 1&2 conditions 13 – 15 DMLs 3&4 conditions 10 -12

Construction monitoring programme

DMLs 1&2 conditions 9(1)(b) DMLs 3&4 conditions 6(1)(b)

Marine Mammal Mitigation Protocol (MMMP)

DMLs 1&2 condition 9(1)(e) DMLs 3&4 condition 6(1)(e)

Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)

DMLs 1&2 condition 9(1)(g) DMLs 3&4 condition 6(1)(g)

Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP)

DMLs 1&2 condition 9(1)(d) DMLs 3&4 condition 6(1)(d)

Fisheries Liaison Plan (FLP)

DMLs 1&2 condition 9(1)(d)(v) DMLs 3&4 condition 6(1)(d)(v)

Marine pollution contingency plan

DMLs 1&2 condition 9(1)(d)(i) DMLs 3&4 condition 6(1)(d)(i)

Outline WSI

ES Chapter 18 Appendix B (app ref 6.18.2)

Chemical risk assessment

DMLs 1&2 condition 9(1)(d)(ii) DMLs 3&4 condition 6(1)(d)(ii)

Key

Direct relationship - secured in the DCO/DMLs Inferred or likely relationship* *N.B: It is anticipated that eventually a number of the other plans shown will fall within the EMMP. They are currently referenced as standalone plans due to the importance of each and to maintain flexibility for the lead operator.

Informs

Details to be included within

Other plans

DMLs 1&2 condition 9 DMLs 3&4 condition 6



Key

Direct relationship Provides reference to Plans secured through DCO requirements Topic specific plan/scheme/method statement/protocol captured within one of many Construction Environmental Management Plans

Figure 2.2 – Onshore Management Plans Visual Aid (Construction Phase)

Construction Traffic Management Plan

DCO Requirement 30

Details to be included within

Construction Travel Plan

DCO Requirement 30

Written Landscaping Scheme

DCO Requirements 20 and 21

Example: Construction Phase Health and Safety

Plan (secured in the Outline CoCP)

Construction Environmental

Management Plan (topic specific)

DCO Requirement 26

Code of Construction Practice

DCO Requirement 26

Example: Site Waste Management Plan

(secured in the Outline CoCP)



DCO Requirement 26

Example: Soil Management Plan




DCO Requirement 26



DCO Requirement 26

Example: Construction Noise Management Plan (secured in the Outline

CoCP)

Example: Dust Management Plan




DCO Requirement 26

Example: Drainage System Method

Statement (secured in the Outline CoCP)



DCO Requirement 26



DCO Requirement 26

Example: Soil Management Plan


Onshore Archaeology Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)

DCO Requirement 25



Table 2.5 Pre commencement of construction (onshore)

Plan Title Current Status Approval Body

Pre-Construction Walkover Surveys

To confirm the baseline conditions reported within the ES (draft DCO as submitted Requirement 34). To be determined during detailed design post-consent.

NE

Written Landscaping Scheme (Onshore)

Details the provision of landscaping and implementation and maintenance of landscaping (draft DCO as submitted Requirement 20 and 21). Not possible to draft pre-consent, dependent on final scheme design and appointment of landscaping contractor.

RCBC EA NE

Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)

An outline CoCP was submitted with the application (application ref 8.2). The outline CoCP contained over-arching principles for construction of the onshore elements of the project and sets out the framework for the final CoCP. Following receipt of the RRs - an updated Outline CoCP is being prepared by Forewind to ensure that mitigation and commitments made through any SoCG are captured in the Outline CoCP. The final CoCP will be developed by the future developers and operators and principle construction contractor of each project.

RCBC EA HA NE

Components of CoCP

Construction Method Statement (CMS)

CMS will provide details on the final construction methods to be used. Not possible to draft pre-consent, dependent on final scheme design and appointment of onshore contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements.

RCBC EA NE HA

Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMPs)

Prepared in support of CoCP. Each CEMP will relate to each major scope of work or stage of the project (draft DCO as submitted Requirement 26). Not possible to draft pre-consent, dependent on final scheme design and appointment of onshore construction contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements. Scope and Principles of CEMP to be included in an updated version of the Outline CoCP. The CEMPs will be based upon the principles set out in the over-arching CoCP, with further detail on specific control measures and other mitigation measures to demonstrate how the appointed contractor intends to mitigate the environmental risks specifically associated with the construction activities of that stage.

RCBC




Topic Specific CEMPs To Include pollution prevention to land, surface water, groundwater and geological features (draft DCO as submitted Requirement 29). Topic Specific CEMPs include i) Noise Monitoring Protocol ii) Soil Management Plan and Soil Restoration Plan iii) Dust Management Plan and iv) Drainage System Method Statement. Not possible to draft pre-consent, dependent on final scheme design and appointment of onshore construction contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements. Scope and Principles of CEMP to be included in an updated version of the Outline CoCP.

RCBC EA

Written Scheme of Investigation

Provides an archaeological mitigation strategy. Watching brief during specific construction activities. Scheme specific WSI to be prepared prior to construction activity occurring. Not considered appropriate to draft pre-consent as is dependent on final scheme design and appointment of onshore construction contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements.

RCBC EH

Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP).

Provides a record of any decisions made with respect to materials resource efficiency when designing and planning the works. Draft SWMP has been drafted and the active sheets of the pre-construction SWMP are included in Appendix C Site Waste Management Plan Report to ES Chapter 24 (application ref. 6.24).

RCBC EA

Ecological Clerk of Works (ECW)

An ECW will provide toolbox talks to contractors, supervise vegetation clearance prior to construction and oversee key construction activities (draft DCO as submitted Requirement 26) (Section 13 of Appendix A of Chapter 21 (application ref 6.21.1)). Commitment to appoint prior to commencement of works. Supervision of key stages of the works by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECW) (Table 12.1 of ES Chapter 25 (application ref 6.25)).

RCBC

Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)

Not possible to draft pre-consent. The CTMP and CTP shall include details (including agreed routes) for Abnormal Indivisible Loads (draft DCO as submitted Requirement 30).

RCBC, HA




Construction Travel Plan Not possible to draft pre-consent, dependent on final scheme design, suppliers and appointment of onshore construction contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements (draft DCO as submitted Requirement 30).

RCBC, HA

Table 2.6 Pre commencement of construction (offshore)


Construction Method Statement (CMS)

CMS will provide details on the final construction methods to be used (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b Condition 9(1)(c) and DML Part 3b and 4b Condition 6(1)(c). Not possible to draft pre-consent. CMS to be submitted to the MMO for approval at least 4 months prior to construction. Dependent on final scheme design. Also dependent on the appointment of offshore contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements.

MMO

Construction and Monitoring Programme (CMP)

CMP provides details on the construction start date, timings for mobilisation and proposed pre-construction survey, ensuring the Licensing Authority is aware of key dates and surveys to be undertaken (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 9(1)(b) and DML Part 3b and 4b Condition 6(1)(b)). Not possible to draft pre-consent, dependent on final scheme design and appointment of offshore contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements. CMP to be submitted to the MMO for approval at least 4 months prior to construction.

MMO (NE, Cefas)

Emergency Response and Co-operation Plan (ERCoP)

The ERCoP will include details of the emergency response to ensure adequate safety and response procedures are in place (DCO Schedule 1, Part 3 Requirement 11). Not possible to draft pre-consent, dependent on final scheme design, owner and operator/owner safety procedures.

SoS (MCA)




Fisheries Liaison Plan (FLP)

Details how each future developer and operators of the projects will consult with fisheries stakeholders. FLP will be secured through each DML Zonal FLPs were published by Forewind for the development of the Dogger Bank Zone in 2011 and 2013 respectively (application ref 5.1). These FLPs presented Forewind’s approach to liaison and consultation with the fishing industry during the development of the Dogger Bank Zone including through the Zone Appraisal and Planning (ZAP) process. Forewind will prepare a Dogger Bank Teesside A & B specific FLP. The draft Dogger Bank Teesside A & B FLP will build on the existing Zonal FLP and its purpose is to explain Forewind’s approach to liaison as the projects moves into the next phase of development and demonstrates Forewind’s commitment to fisheries liaison. The Dogger Bank Teesside A & B FLP will also include an Outline Coexistence Strategy. Forewind has also committed to the appointment of a Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO), and as necessary, appointment of a Fishing Industry Representative (FIR) during the construction phase.

MMO

Marine mammal mitigation protocol (MMMP)

The MMMP will set out the mitigation to minimise potential impacts on marine mammals, and will describe any associated monitoring (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 9(1)(e) and 10). Not possible to draft pre-consent. The MMMP is dependent on a number of elements of the final project design including the foundation type selected and other factors, unknown at this time, which will determine the appropriate size of the exclusion zone required (minimum of 500m). Forewind has agreed with NE and JNCC that it is not appropriate to produce a MMMP for consultation until post consent/pre-construction. Submitted to the MMO for approval at least 4 months prior to construction.

MMO (NE, JNCC)




Written scheme of investigation (WSI) (Offshore only)

The WSI will set out the procedures for dealing with archaeological findings, ensuring the integrity of archaeological important items in the area not lost. WSI will include Archaeological Mitigation Strategy (Draft DCO as submitted Requirement 27, DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 9(1)(g)(vii), DML Part 3b and 4b, Condition 6(1)(f) (vii)). A high level WSI was submitted as part of the

application (Appendix B of ES Chapter 18 (doc 6.18.2). Scheme specific WSIs to be submitted to the MMO for approval at least 4 months prior to construction.

MMO (English Heritage)

Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP)

EMMP will detail the minimum environmental management requirements expected of all contractors and subcontractors, and will provide the framework to monitor environmental performance and define the procedures for achieving the objectives and targets set out in: environmental legislation and regulations; licence, permit and consent conditions; the lead operator’s environmental policy statement; the ES; and the outcome of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Two EMMPs will be prepared for each project (generation and transmission) (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b Condition 9(1)(d); DML Part 3b and 4b Condition 6(1)(d)). Not drafted to date. Submitted to the MMO for approval at least 4 months prior to construction. Dependent on final scheme design and the appointment of offshore contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements. Reliant on the constituent plans identified below (MPCP and CRA). For these reasons, it is not possible to draft detailed content pre-consent.

MMO (Cefas, NE, JNCC and EH)

Components of EMMP

Marine Pollution Contingency Plan (MPCP)

Part of the EMMP (see above), the MPCP will set out the best practice methods and management practices (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b Condition 9(1)(d)(i) and DML Part 3b and 4b Condition 6(1)(d)(i).

MMO




Chemical Risk Assessment (CRA) (Part of the EMMP)

Not drafted to date. Submitted to the MMO for approval at least 4 months prior to construction. Dependent on final scheme design and the appointment of offshore contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements. For these reasons, it is not possible to draft detailed content pre-consent. CRA: Include best practice guidance on the use, storage and transport of chemicals to minimise the risk of pollution (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 9(1)(d)(ii), DML Part 3b and 4b, Condition 6(1)(d)(ii)).

MMO

Final Design Specifications

Array Location and Layout Not drafted to date. Submitted to the MMO for approval at least 4 months prior to construction. Dependent on final scheme design, appointment of offshore contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements and operator. For these reasons, it is not possible to draft detailed content pre-consent. The cable specification and installation plan will set out the installation methodology following best practice and mitigation to minimise the environmental and navigation impacts, the method for removing obstacles along the route and method statement for landfall works (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 9(1)(f)(i)(ii) and DML Part 3b and 4b Condition 6(1)(e)(i)(ii)). Scour protection management and cable protection plan will provide details on the turbine and cable protection required and the mitigation to minimise the potential environmental impacts (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 9(1)(f)(iii), DML Part 3b and 4b, Condition 6(1)(e)(iii).

MMO (Cefas, NE, JNCC, EH, MCA and Trinity House)

Cable Specification and Installation Plan

Scour protection management and cable protection plan

Table 2.7 Operations (onshore)


Noise monitoring protocol To ensure standard industry practice is implemented. Not possible to draft pre-consent, Details the provision of landscaping and implementation and maintenance of landscaping (DCO Requirement 20 and 21). Dependent on final scheme design and appointment of landscaping contractor.

RCBC

Written Landscaping Scheme (Onshore)

RCBC EA NE



Table 2.8 Operations (offshore)


Post-construction maintenance plan

Not drafted to date. The plan will provide details on the maintenance assessed within the ES (DCO Schedule 7, DML Part 1b and 2b, Condition 16; DML Part 3b and 4b, Condition 13). Four months following the completion of construction, a post-construction maintenance plan will be submitted to the MMO, based upon the maintenance assessed within the Environmental Statement. Dependent on final scheme design. Also dependent on the appointment of offshore contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements. For these reasons, it is not possible to draft detailed content pre-consent.

MMO

Table 2.9 Decommissioning Management Plans


Decommissioning Plan Incl. Decommissioning Programme

To set out the means by which the offshore decommissioning will occur (DCO Schedule 1, Part 3 Requirement 10)). Outline Decommissioning Statement submitted with the application (application ref 8.3). Outline statement sets out the principles by which the Decommissioning Plan is to follow. Preparation of the Decommissioning Plan is dependent on final scheme design and on any notice served upon the undertaker by the SoS pursuant to section 105(2) of the 2004 Energy Act. For these reasons, it is not possible to draft detailed content pre-construction.

SoS



3 Book of Reference and Compulsory Acquisition

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The Order seeks powers to compulsorily acquire land and new rights for the

purposes of the construction and operation of the onshore infrastructure for Dogger

Bank Teesside A & B.

3.1.2 Land which is the subject of the compulsory acquisition powers sought in the Order is

referred to as the Order Land. The Order Land is described in Section 5 of the

Statement of Reasons (application ref 4.2) and is further shown coloured pink, blue

and green on the Land Plans which accompany the Application (application ref

2.3.2). The application in respect of compulsory acquisition powers also includes a

Book of Reference (application ref 4.3) identifying those persons with an interest in

the land affected by the Order, or who might be entitled to compensation,

corresponding Land Plans (application ref 2.3.2) and a Funding Statement

(application ref 4.1) which explains how the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project

and the acquisition of the necessary land and rights will be funded.

3.1.3 The Order will vest respective powers into Bizcos, including any necessary powers to

compulsorily acquire land and rights in land. Other key licence and agreements will

also be held by the Bizcos. For the purposes of the Order, Project 2 Bizco is the

undertaker in relation to the Project A Offshore and Onshore Works, and Project 3

Bizco is the undertaker in relation to the Project B Offshore and Onshore Works.

3.1.4 The Statement of Reasons (application ref 4.2) explains Forewind's rationale for the

inclusion of compulsory acquisition powers in the Order and explains why, in

Forewind's opinion, there is a compelling case in the public interest for the making of

the Order with the inclusion of those compulsory powers so as to secure outstanding

land, rights (including special categories of land) and property interests required to

enable Dogger Bank Teesside A & B to proceed.

3.1.5 However, it is Forewind’s intention that the use of these powers may not be

necessary and negotiations with landowners are progressing on this basis.

Forewind's land agent has been negotiating with all landowners; heads of terms are

under negotiation on the majority of plots, with Heads of terms provisionally agreed in

relation to the converter stations site.

3.1.6 Where, for whatever reason, it is not possible to reach agreement, the undertakers

will ensure that the use of compulsory purchase powers is consistent with the use of

powers had they been acquired by negotiation. This means that care has been taken

to ensuring that landowners affected by the exercise of compulsory purchase powers

are dealt with in a way which does not unnecessarily disadvantage them.

3.1.7 During the installation of the cables, such landowners (where their land is to be

acquired by compulsory purchase) will be treated in the same way as far as possible

as those landowners with whom the undertakers were able to reach agreement.

Where it is necessary to use a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO), the intention is



that the former landowner will be offered back the freehold subject to restrictions

designed to achieve protection of the cables.

3.1.8 The land-take for the CPO, i.e. the justification for the proposed widths of the cable

route, is set out in paragraphs 2.3.20 and 7.1.16-7.1.23 of the Statement of Reasons


3.2 Land Owners and Land Interests

3.2.1 In addition to representations received from utility owners, nine RRs were received

specifically relating to land owners along onshore cable corridor or parties with

interest in works to the sea bed. These are set out in the table below.

Table 3.1 Relevant Representations raising concerns by parties with an interest in the land (offshore and onshore)


Cleveland Potash Ltd (CPL) (RR No. 30)

CPL representation centred on safeguarding and protecting their rights, (as tenant of The Crown Estate), to freely mine potash and associated minerals from beneath the sea bed, east of Boulby, Saltburn Cleveland. CPL raise concern over the applications proposal to lay export cables on or within a part of that same seabed used by CPL, including: - CPL’s under sea reserves are

likely to be compromised or sterilised.

- Potential losses to CPL as a result of its inability to obtain investment and/or freely mine its undersea reserves.

- “Rochdale Envelope/Principle” cannot be specific at this stage as to the construction and design of the cabling, or the cabling trenches, or as to how its designs will impact on CPL.

- CPL will not in any way be held liable for any damage which may be caused through its existing or future mining activities to any cabling.

- Protection of CPL’s sea water intake.

- Protection of CPL’s treated discharge into the sea and the sedimentation this creates.

Two commercial side agreements between each Bizco and Cleveland Potash Ltd are in final agreed forms. Those agreements contain an obligation on Cleveland Potash Ltd to withdraw any representations made regarding the Order.




EDF-ER (RR No. 16)

Need to understand the impact of the windfarms proposed grid connection point and its impact on the existing connection of EDF-ER's own Teesside wind farm. (EDF-ER’s Teesside wind farm connects via its own substation at Warrenby into Northern Power Grid’s distribution network at Lackenby 66kV Substation.)

National Grid and Forewind have jointly undertaken detailed option appraisal work to identify the optimum onshore interface point(s) for the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B projects. This appraisal work has confirmed the suitability of the existing NGET Lackenby 400kV Substation as the connection points for the projects. Dogger Bank Teesside A and B wind farms will have to comply with the Connection and Use of System Code (CUSC). This is the code which constitutes the contractual framework for connection to, and use of, National Grid’s high voltage transmission system. The Grid Code specifies technical requirements for connection to, and use of, the National Electricity Transmission System (NETS). Compliance with the Grid Code is a requirement under the Connection and Use of System Code (CUSC). One of the aims of the Grid Code is to ensure that other users of the transmission system and the distribution systems are not impacted upon.

EDF-ER (RR No. 16)

How will the proposed windfarm deal with the electrical harmonics which be generated as a results of the proposed DC export system and if any impact will restrict the ability of EDF-ER's own wind farm to export.

The electricity generated by both Dogger Bank Teesside A & B will be transmitted to shore using HVDC technology. Once onshore the electricity will be converted into HVAC before connection to the NGET system at Lackenby 400kV Substation. Dogger Bank Teesside A & B will have to comply with the Grid Code. The Code sets limits on harmonics generated such that other users of the system are not affected. Dogger Bank Teesside A & B will not affect the capability of EDF-ER's wind farm to export.

Energetics Electricity Ltd (RR No. NR5)

Confirmation that Energetics Electricity Ltd does not have any plant within the area(s) specified in your request.

Noted.

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/UK/Industry-information/Electricity-codes/CUSC/The-CUSC/

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/UK/Industry-information/Electricity-codes/CUSC/The-CUSC/




Mr Langton on behalf of Michael and Patricia Scaife (RR. No 26)

Concerns over cable routing and garden land, route development and reasons for not following highways, funding, multiple project approach, environmental management and sand and gravel resources.

Forewind acknowledge the concerns raised by Mr Langton on behalf of Mr & Mrs Scaife. As private owner occupiers along the route, Forewind has a continuing dialogue with Mr Langton and are negotiating heads of terms with the aim of reaching a voluntary settlement. Forewind acknowledge the land is not used for agriculture and has been landscaped. Forewind have ensured that the works as proposed provide for the horizontal directional drill to pass underneath this parcel of land in order so as to avoid the need for open cut trenching and reduce the surface disturbance.

Mr Smith on behalf of West Midlands Metropolitan Authority Pension Fund (WMMAPF) (RR No. 23)

The area of land required for the laying of the cables is both good quality agricultural land and potential development land. WMMAPF would be content to grant a Lease for the cables, which is concurrent with the Lease which they have for the offshore wind farm. There is, in the view of WMMAPF, no justification for requiring an Easement.

Forewind acknowledge the concerns raised by Mr Smith on behalf of WMMAPF. As with parties with an interest in the land along the route, Forewind has a continuing dialogue with WMMAPF and are negotiating heads of terms with the aim of reaching a voluntary settlement.




Landgrow Company (RR No. 25)

Concerns over impact of the proposed onshore cable works on agriculture, reinstatement, funding, crossing utilities and the routing of cables under a building.

Forewind acknowledge the concerns raised by Landgrow as contract farmers on land belonging to Messrs Jowsey. Landgrow's occupier interest will be added to a revised Book of Reference provided at Appendix D. Forewind are attempting to negotiate with the owner of the land, Messrs Jowsey, with the aim of reaching a voluntary settlement. Such an agreement would provide a commitment to return the land to its former condition and, where that is not possible, compensate for any direct losses incurred. The draft DCO as submitted includes a requirement for the preparation of a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) which provides further assurance and commitment to the construction methodology proposed.

Arthur Clifford Jowsey (RR No. 35)

Concerns over loss of development potential

Forewind acknowledge that Messrs Jowsey own land affected by the cable route. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact on land value. If the land has development potential then, if a voluntary agreement cannot be concluded and the land is compulsorily acquired then that development potential will be reflected in the compensation payable.

Mr Keddie on behalf of Arthur Clifford Jowsey (RR No. 37)

York Potash (RR No. NR4)

Need to ensure that the proposed installation works for the onshore cable doesn’t have an impact on York Potash proposal for a subterranean mineral transport system, its power supply or associated equipment.

A Statement of Intent (SoI) has been agreed with York Potash. Forewind acknowledge that proposed York Potash subterranean mineral transport system is proposed to cross the proposed onshore export cable route and concerns raised by York Potash. Forewind proposals provide for a widened area of work along this part of the route so as to ensure that both projects can be facilitated.



3.3 Book of Reference

3.3.1 A Book of Reference (application ref 4.3) is submitted with the application. In

reviewing the Book of Reference, the Planning Inspectorate noted that, in their

opinion, the DCLG guidance (September 2013) ‘Planning Act 2008: guidance related

to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ had not been followed.

3.3.2 Forewind has reviewed the s51 advice and is of the view that the structure of the

Book of Reference as submitted with the application reflects the requirements of the

Planning Act 2008 and the relevant regulations.

Part 3

3.3.3 With regards to Book of Reference Part 3:

1. S57 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the categories for persons to be included in

the book of reference. Section 57(1) states:

“A person is within Category 1 if the applicant, after making diligent inquiry,

knows that the person is an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy

period) or occupier of the land.”

2. Section 57(2) states:

“A person is within Category 2 if the applicant, after making diligent inquiry,

knows that the person-

(a) is interested in the land, or

(b) has power-

(i) to sell and convey the land, or

(ii) to release the land.

3. Regulation 7(1)(c) (meaning of the "book of reference" in these Regulations) of the

Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)

Regulations 2009 (SI. 2009/2264) confirms that Part 3 should contain: the names

of all those entitled to enjoy easements or other private rights over land (including

private rights of navigation over water) which it is proposed shall be extinguished,

suspended or interfered with.

4. DCLG's September 2013 guide states that:

“… a person entitled to enjoys easements or other private rights over land

which the applicant proposes to extinguish, suspend or interfere with identified

in Part 3 should also be recorded in Part 1 as a person within categories 1 or 2

as set out in section 57 of the Planning Act.”

5. As set out above, Regulation 7(1) does not require persons identified in Part 3 to

also be recorded in Part 1. Clearly, from Regulations set out above, Part 3 of the

Book of Reference should include those persons enjoying rights over the land, for

example restrictive covenants, options, rights of way, drainage, etc. Part 1 of the

Book of Reference should include those persons who own, occupy, have the

power to sell/ convey and have an interest in the land. These have been set out

in the Application document.



6. There would be no purpose to Part 3 of the Book of Reference if this were to be

duplicated in Part 1.

7. All persons revealed by the Book of Reference were notified of the application

during Phase 2 statutory consultation (PEI3). Therefore no persons have been

disadvantaged and no detriment caused by Planning Inspectorates’ view that Part

3 persons should be included in Part 1.

Section 51 Representation

3.3.4 In response to the concern raised in the Section 51 representation and to protect the

interests of part 3 persons Forewind will ensure that, as advised documentation is

attached to the certificate of compliance with s59 which provides the names,

addresses for service and contact details of any part 3 persons not identified in part 1

of the book of reference which was submitted with the application.

3.3.5 As a consequence of questions raised by the ExA on the Creyke Beck DCO

application, Forewind consider that amendments to the Book of Reference categories

of rights should be made, these relate to:

1. The word 'category' used within page (i) to (vii) of the Book of Reference is not to

be confused with the "Category" used for the purposes of S57 of the Planning Act

2008. The rights, set out in the categories, make reference to the plot of land

noted in the Book of Reference where NEW RIGHTS are being sought, where the

freehold will not be taken in certain circumstances. Forewind are concerned that

the use of the word 'category' may have caused confusion, and will change all

references from "category/categories" to "class/classes". An introduction

explaining the purpose of the Book of Reference will also be added to the front of

the document.

2. Schedule 5 of the draft DCO as submitted sets out the rights sought over specific

plots. These plots are referenced in the Book of Reference and Onshore Land

Plans. The Schedule 5 plots correspond with specific categories/classes of rights

(which are set out at the beginning of the Book of Reference) - marked in the

second column of Parts 1, 3 and 5 of the Book of Reference. This is included in

the Book of Reference to explain the intended use of the plots.

3. The rights sought through the CPO will be NEW RIGHTS. These are detailed in

Schedule 5 of the draft DCO as submitted which sets out where NEW RIGHTS

are to be taken. This occurs either where the freehold is not proposed to be

sought through the CPO or where mutual rights for both projects are required. For

example if Project B (being Dogger Bank Teesside B) proceeds before Project A

(being Dogger Bank Teesside A), access rights across the cable route of Project

A will be required. There will be no need to take the freehold of that plot.

4. To provide a specific, practical example, the following sets out a description of

Plots 40C and Plot 34C:

Plots 40C (rights for which are sought under Part 2 of Schedule 5):

o Project A goes ahead without Project B: only RIGHTS to Plot 40C will be

required. These rights will allow access for the future maintenance of the

cables in Project A, using those access rights secured by Plots 38 and 39.



o Project B goes ahead without Project A: the freehold of Plot 40C will be

acquired to allow cables to be laid for Project B. No access to Project A will

be required.

o Project A and Project B go ahead: the freehold of Plot 40C will be acquired

to allow cables to be laid for Project B. Access rights for the future

maintenance of Project A will be obtained via this freehold acquisition.

Plot 34C (rights for which are sought under Part 3 of Schedule 5):

o Project A goes ahead without Project B: the freehold of Plot 34C will be

acquired to allow cables to be laid for Project A. No access to Project B will

be required.

o Project B goes ahead without Project A: only RIGHTS to Plot 34C will be

required. These rights will allow access for the future maintenance of the

cables in Project B, using those access rights secured by Plot 35.

o Project A and Project B go ahead: the freehold of Plot 34C will be acquired

to allow cables to be laid for Project A. Access rights will be obtained via

this freehold acquisition.

5. Three plots (Plots 4, 33A & 33B) within Schedule 5 are noted as being "part" plots,

where part of the plot would be acquired as freehold, and the remainder where

only rights are to be taken. Forewind are concerned that this may not be clear,

and so have proposed to split those plots further. An updated Schedule 5 is

provided as part of Appendix D to this WR.

6. Only rights to Plot 4 will be acquired due to the nature of the land in question. Plot

4 will be split into 4i and 4ii; compulsory acquisition of the freehold of Plot 4i will be

required, but only rights of Plot 4ii will be required. The amended Onshore Land

Plans sheets 01 is included in Appendix D to this WR.

7. Plots 33A and 33B will be split into 33Ai, 33Aii, 33Bi and 33Bii; respectively,

compulsory acquisition of the freehold of Plots 33Ai and 33Bi will be required, but

only rights of Plots 33Aii and 33Bii will be required. The reference to "part" in

Schedule 5 of the draft DCO as submitted is proposed to be removed, the

corresponding reference in the Book of Reference will also be amended, with an

appropriate amendment to the Onshore Land Plan. The amended Onshore Land

Plans sheets 03 is included in Appendix D to this WR.

Part 2

3.3.6 Part 2 Book of Reference - dividing in to Part 2a and Part 2b, without category for

S57(6)(c). This is an error, a page for Part 2c should have been included, which

covers S57(6)(c) of the Planning Act 2008. The assessment as to whether there

would be any persons falling within S57(6)(c) was undertaken as part of the process

of compiling the Book of Reference together, the omission is purely administrative in

terms of compilation of the spreadsheet for the Book of Reference.

3.3.7 To correct this error – an updated Book of Reference is submitted at Appendix D to

this WR. Appendix D includes both a tracked changes and clean versions of the

updated Book of Reference.



Part 4

3.3.8 With regards to Book of Reference Part 4. As noted above Forewind are in

discussions with CPL about their offshore interests. If it is necessary to include

compulsory purchase powers in relation to the offshore land interests then the

consent of the Crown will be required. Discussions have commenced with the Crown

on a precautionary basis.

3.3.9 With regards to Book of Reference 'new right': The references to 'new right' within the

Book of Reference refer to the plots included within Schedule 6 of the draft DCO as

submitted, where ONLY RIGHTS are being sought as these are temporary working

areas. This does not relate to the rights of persons that were not consulted; after

diligent inquiry, all persons were consulted, all those are set out in the Book of

Reference.

3.3.10 With regards to Onshore Land Plans: Correct, the Book of Reference description

should say land to the SOUTH - To correct this error – an updated Book of Reference

is submitted at Appendix D to this WR. Appendix D includes both a tracked

changes and clean versions of the updated Book of Reference.

3.3.11 With regards to ref to Lackenbury: Correct, the Book of Reference descriptions saying

Lackenbury should be Lackenby. To correct this error – an updated Book of

Reference is submitted at Appendix D to this WR.

3.3.12 In documenting that the interests of part 3 persons have not been prejudiced through

s56 notification process, shortly after the issuing of the certificate of compliance with

s59 Forewind issued proof of correspondence, names, addresses for service and

contact details of any part 3 persons not identified in part 1 of the book of reference.

All parties were therefore duly notified of the application regardless.

3.4 Compulsory Acquisition

3.4.1 A Statement of Reasons was provided with the application (application ref 4.2). The

Statement of Reasons focuses upon Forewind’s justification for the inclusion of

powers of compulsory acquisition in the Order to ensure the delivery of the onshore

infrastructure required for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. The Statement has been

prepared pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(h) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications:

Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 and in accordance with the

Planning Act 2008: Guidance Related to Procedures for Compulsory Acquisition.

3.4.2 Section 6 of the Statement of Reasons details compulsory acquisition powers,

matters prescribed by Planning Act 2008 and relevant guidance (being Planning Act

2008: Guidance Related to Procedures for Compulsory Acquisition).

3.4.3 Section 120 of the 2008 Act prescribes those matters which may be provided for in a

DCO. In particular, a DCO may impose requirements in connection with the

development for which consent is granted. Sections 120(3) and 120(4) go on to

provide that a DCO may make provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the

development for which consent is granted.

3.4.4 Those matters are listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the 2008 Act and they include the

acquisition of land and “the creation, suspension or extinguishment of, or interference

with, interests in or rights over land (including rights of navigation over water),

compulsorily or by agreement” and the payment of compensation.



3.4.5 Section 122 of the 2008 Act provides that a DCO which includes compulsory powers

of acquisition may only be granted if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the

conditions in Sections 122(2) and 122(3) of the 2008 Act are met. These conditions

are:

“a) (Section 122(2)) that the land is:

i. required for the development to which the development consent relates;

ii. required to facilitate or is incidental to that development; or

iii. replacement land which is to be given in exchange for the order land

under Section 131 or 132; and

b) (Section 122(3)) that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the

land to be acquired compulsorily.”

3.4.6 The need for compulsory acquisition under Section 122(2) is detailed in Section 7 of

the Statement of Reasons.

Special features and special categories of considerations

3.4.7 Section 9 of the Statement of Reasons deals with those parts of the order Land for

which special provision is made by the 2008 Act. It also deals with Forewind's

attempts to locate certain owners for the purpose of complying with its statutory

duties in respect of the compulsory acquisition of their interests.

3.4.8 Special features and special categories considered in the Statement of Reasons

include:

Land applicable under Section 127 - Statutory undertaker’s land

Land applicable under Section 131 to 132 - Commons, open spaces etc:

3.4.9 At the preliminary meeting, the ExA also identified other sections of interest, namely:

Land applicable under Section 130 – National Trust land

Land applicable under Section 135 – Crown Land

Land applicable under Section 127 - Statutory undertaker’s land

3.4.10 Paragraphs 9.1.2 to 9.1.6 of the Statement of Reasons details Land held by a

statutory undertaker and the provisions of Section 127 of the Planning Act 2008.

Paragraphs 9.1.2 to 9.1.6 note:

NGET: The Order Land includes land in the ownership of NGET. Forewind are

currently in negotiations with NGET with a view to entering into agreements to

acquire an interest in their land so as to deliver the Dogger Bank Teesside A &

B connections. Forewind is hopeful that mutually acceptable terms can be

agreed for a private treaty agreement, therefore avoiding compulsory

acquisition, but has included this land so that certainty of acquisition is not

compromised.

Network Rail Limited: The proposed onshore works do cross operational NRL

assets (Work No. 6A and 6B) where HDD under the railway is proposed at

Blacks Bridge/ Redcar Road. Negotiations are ongoing with NRL regarding

rights to take cables beneath the railway. It is hoped that terms can be agreed



for a private treaty agreement. Schedule 8 (part 2) to the draft DCO as

submitted contains protective provisions for NRL.

Other Utility and infrastructure Assets: The proposed onshore cables cross a

number of assets held by third party statutory undertakers (i.e. pipelines,

overhead lines, underground cables). Where these parties have been identified,

Forewind (via Dalcour Maclaren) has made contact to ascertain what

agreements and/or consents are required to secure in principal approval for the

proposed works.

3.4.11 The current situation in relation to negotiations with statutory undertakers is detailed

in Table C2 of Appendix C.

3.4.12 Paragraphs 9.1.6 of the Statement of Reasons concludes Forewind position with

regards to S127:

“Forewind are confident that the tests in section 127(3) and (6) and section

138(4) of the Planning Act 2008 will all be satisfied. The order granting

development consent can include provisions taking or creating rights, because

the Secretary of State can be satisfied that the nature and situation of the land

affected are such that it can be purchased (and not replaced) without serious

detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking. Alternatively, it may include

provisions extinguishing rights, or the removal of the relevant apparatus,

because the Secretary of State can be satisfied that doing so is necessary for

the carrying out of the development to which the order relates.”

Land applicable under Section 131 to 132 - Commons, open spaces etc.

3.4.13 Paragraphs 9.1.7 to 9.1.13 of the Statement of Reasons details open space and the

provisions of Section 132 of the Planning Act 2008. No Common land is affected by

the Order Land or subject to compulsory purchase. Provisions applicable to

Common Land is therefore not needed to be considered in the application.

3.4.14 As noted in paragraphs 9.1.7 of the Statement, Section 132 of the Planning Act 2008

(as amended by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013) sets out certain procedures

to be observed where part of the land to be acquired is considered to be open space.

Parts of the beach at landfall, shown as plots 1, 2A and 2B on the Land Plans (shown

on the Special Category Land Plan (application ref 2.11) and described in the Book of

Reference, may be open space because it meets one of the tests in Section 19 of the

Acquisition of Land Act 1981, namely that it is used for the purposes of public

recreation.

3.4.15 Paragraphs 9.1.8 to 9.1.11 note:

The beach is used for walking and other recreational activities normally

associated with a beach.

Although Section 132 provides that Special Parliamentary Procedure is required

for land which is open space, an exception is made where the SoS is satisfied

that the Order land when burdened with the Order right (i.e. the right to lay

down, etc. the cables) will be “no less advantageous” than it was before to the

persons in whom the land is vested, to any other persons entitled to rights over

it and to the public at large.



Where it will not be possible for technical reasons to HDD under the beach it

may be necessary to carry out works such as the installation of cofferdams and

open cut trenching, to reach the sub-tidal zone. The cofferdams could contain

the drill workings produced during the drilling operations and provide an area to

install cable joints. The maximum assessed dimensions of each cofferdam are

10m wide, 15m long and 3m deep. The extent of the cofferdams are described

further in paragraphs 4.1.10 to 4.1.13 of ES Chapter 5 Project Description


3.4.16 Paragraphs 9.1.12 and 9.1.13 of the Statement of Reasons concludes Forewind

position with regards to S132:

“Although there will be a temporary interference with the use of the beach whilst

the work takes place, in the long term it will remain unobstructed and available for

the purposes for which it is currently used. In particular:

o the physical appearance of the land will be unaffected;

o the use of the beach for recreation will carry on uninterrupted; and

o public access to the land will not be permanently affected.

Accordingly, based on the above information, it is submitted that the open space

when burdened with the rights sought by the Order will be no less advantageous

to the protected persons.”

Land applicable under Section 130 – National Trust land

3.4.17 No National Trust land is affected by the Order Land or subject to compulsory

purchase. Provisions applicable to National Trust land is therefore not needed to be

considered in the application. It is noted that the National Trust do have wider

environmental interests. These are considered in response to their RR.

Land applicable under Section 135 – Crown Land

3.4.18 No Crown land (onshore – i.e. above “mean low water springs”) is affected by the

Order Land or subject to compulsory purchase. Provisions applicable to Crown land

is therefore not needed to be considered in the application. Beach land ownership

and rights are detailed in Table 3.2.



Table 3.2 – Beach land ownership (Source: Book of Reference, application ref 4.3)

No. on Plan

Extent, description and situation of the land

Owners or reputed owners

Occupiers

Lessees or reputed lessees/Tenants or reputed tenants (other than lessees)/other interest to be acquired

1 12230 sq m of land forming part of the foreshore at Marske Sands and beach known as The Stray, Redcar

Northumbrian Water Limited

RCBC None

2A 14996 sq m of land forming part of the foreshore

RCBC RCBC None

2B 1756 sq m of land forming part of the foreshore

RCBC RCBC None

3.5 Unilateral Undertaking

3.5.1 The Statement of Reasons (application ref 4.2) explains Forewind's rationale at the

time of submission of the application of how it will guarantee of funds to meet

compensation liability for compulsory acquisition. The Statement of Reasons notes:

Whilst each project must be assessed in the context of its own particular facts,

the emerging practice is for the promoter of the project to give a Unilateral

Undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990.

In the case of each of the Projects authorised by the Order, the relevant Bizco

will not exercise compulsory purchase powers unless and until Unilateral

Undertakings pursuant to which an appropriate form of security has been put in

place to cover the cost of paying compensation for the acquisition of any land

and/or interests required for the delivery of that Project. "Compensation" in this

sense will also include other payments to which landowners might become

entitled, including statutory loss payments, and associated professional fees.

Each Undertaking will take account of the fact that the draft DCO contains a

power permitting the transfer of the statutory functions of the relevant Bizco to

another entity (subject to the provisions of Article 8 of the draft DCO as

submitted). In those circumstances, each Undertaking will place an obligation

on the “transferee” to enter into a Supplemental Undertaking which will provide

for (and require) the transferee to put in place the security before exercising its

powers of compulsory acquisition. In the event of a breach of this Requirement,

the liability for putting in place the security and for paying any compensation

sums due remains with the relevant Bizco.

3.5.2 The Statement of Reasons notes that the detailed form of the Unilateral Undertakings

have not yet been prepared because they will, for example, need to take account of

the number and nature of the interests which are still to be acquired by the date of



any compulsory purchase issue specific hearing (conducted as part of the

examination of the Application).

3.5.3 As an alternative to the approach detailed in the Statement of Reasons, Forewind is

exploring the approach taken by the SoS in the Able Marine DCO, which requires the

inclusion of the new article in the Draft DCO (not considered at this time in the draft

DCO Version 2 presented in Appendix A). The new article will require security to be

provided, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, ahead of any powers of

compulsory acquisition being implemented. If this alternate approach is taken, then

Forewind will seek to update the Funding Statement/Statement of Reasons.

3.5.4 This approach has only recently been considered by Forewind and RCBC. The

SoCG agreed with RCBC notes:

“On recent NSIPs Unilateral Undertakings have been provided to the relevant

council and it may be that Forewind and the Council discuss such an

arrangement. This approach would be consistent with the current Funding

Statement. However, Forewind is exploring a simpler way of dealing with

security for compensation. It may be that Forewind will seek to update the

Funding Statement/Statement of Reasons. This may change the nature of any

discussion and any subsequent agreement reached between Forewind and

the Council.”

3.5.5 Forewind will discuss this matter further through the Examination.



4 Policy Framework

4.1.1 This section considers the policy framework applicable to the application. In support

of the conclusions made in this section, reference is made to the Planning and

Design Statement (application ref 8.1) submitted with the application.

4.1.2 The Planning and Design Statement set out the planning policies which Forewind

considers are applicable to the proposed Dogger Bank (Teesside A & B) offshore

wind farm, documenting:

The legislation framework applicable to the application – setting out the

planning policy and other relevant legislation;

The decision-making considerations and criteria in S104(2) of the Planning Act

2008 (as amended) (the Planning Act 2008), and applied the tests within

relevant planning policy, including the NPSs and the Marine Policy Statement

and relevant regional and local planning policy and guidance;

Policy compliance, assessing both:

o The performance of the project against overarching principles, including

project need, assessment of alternatives and the application of ‘good

design’; and

o The performance of the project against topic specific matters (linked to ES

chapters);

Design and access rationale, detailing some of the key design decisions taken

to justify the proposed development parameters;

4.1.3 The Statement concluded with the planning balance of the application - drawing

together the assessment within the Statement, applying the considerations and tests

under S104 of the Planning Act 2008 and reaching a judgement on the determination

of the application. The statement concludes:

There is an urgent need for new (and particularly low carbon) energy, new

renewable energy projects need to continue to come forward urgently to ensure

that the UK meets its target of sourcing 15% of its total energy from renewable

sources by 2020 (EN-1 paragraph 3.4.1). Offshore wind is expected to provide

the largest single contribution towards the 2020 renewable energy generation

targets (EN-1 paragraph 3.4.3).

EN-1 makes clear that the SoS should start with a presumption in favour of

granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs unless any more specific and

relevant policies set out in the relevant NPS clearly indicate that consent should

be refused (EN-1 paragraph 4.1.2).

In Forewind’s opinion there are no such policies that would indicate against this

presumption in favour as a starting point.

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B will make a very substantial contribution towards

the UK’s legal commitment to meeting 15% of the UK’s energy demand from



renewable sources by 2020, the recently agreed European targets for 2030 of

cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared with 1990 levels and to

satisfying the need for new renewable energy NSIPs.

The development proposal is in accordance with NPS requirements and there is

also support for the development from local policies.

The development is acceptable in policy terms and the development accords

with the NPS, which are the primary framework against which this application

should be determined. No other policies indicate that consent should be

refused. As such, Forewind contends that development consent should be

granted subject to the requirements set out in the draft DCO.

4.1.4 The supporting appendices to the Planning and Design statement (application ref

8.1) included tables of compliance with:

EN-1 Overarching NPS for Energy;

EN-3 Renewable Energy Infrastructure;

EN-5 Electricity Networks Infrastructure;

Draft East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plans (since adopted post submission -

updated Table of Compliance provided at Appendix E);

Redcar & Cleveland Local Development Framework; and

Redcar & Cleveland Draft Local Plan.



MMO (RR No. 12)

MMO provide a detailed overview of their remit and responsibilities under the various legislation and state that there is a good level of correspondence with the Applicant and will soon be entering into discussions regarding a SoCG. MMO provide comment on the overview of legislation and policy provided in the ES and state that it should be updated to state how the project complies with the newly published Marine Plan policies. At the time of submission the East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plans were in draft form. On 2 April 2014, the draft plans were formally adopted.

A SoCG has been agreed with MMO (F-EXL-CG-024 MMO OFF) submitted at Deadline II. Since submission of the application the East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plans have been adopted (and are therefore no longer in draft form as stated in the Planning and Design Statement of the application). An updated Table of Compliance is provided at Appendix E following adoption of the East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plans. Noting no works are proposed in East Inshore Marine Plan area.



4.2 National policy

4.2.1 NPSs provide the primary policy against which applications for Nationally Significant

Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) should be assessed. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the

Planning and Design Statement (application ref 8.1) describe the relevant policies in

the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1), Renewable Energy Infrastructure NPS (EN-3)

and Electricity Networks Infrastructure NPS (EN-5).

4.2.2 Under S104(2) of the Planning Act 2008, the SoS must also have regard to any local

impact report, any relevant matters prescribed by the Regulations, the Marine Policy

Statement and any applicable Marine Plan and any other matters which the decision

maker thinks are both important and relevant to its decision. The remainder of

Section 2 of the Planning and Design Statement therefore summarises the other

policies relevant to the decision, including the Marine Policy Statement Plan, the

National Planning Policy Framework and regional and local policy.

4.3 Support for renewable energy

4.3.1 EN-1 makes clear (at paragraph 3.3.15) that there is an urgent need for new (and

particularly low carbon) energy NSIPs to be brought forward as soon as possible, and

certainly in the next 10 to 15 years. New renewable energy projects need to continue

to come forward urgently to ensure that the UK meets its target of sourcing 15% of its

total energy from renewable sources by 2020 (paragraph 3.4.1). Offshore wind is

expected to provide the largest single contribution towards the 2020 renewable

energy generation targets (paragraph 3.4.3).

4.3.2 Given the level and urgency of need for such infrastructure, EN-1 makes clear that

the SoS should start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications

for energy NSIPs unless any more specific and relevant policies set out in the

relevant NPS clearly indicate that consent should be refused (paragraph 4.1.2). In

Forewind’s opinion there are no such policies that would indicate against this

presumption in favour as a starting point.

4.3.3 Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, with a proposed installed capacity of up to 2.4GW, will

make a very substantial contribution towards:

The UK’s legal commitment to meeting 15% of the UK’s energy demand from

renewable sources by 2020;

The recently agreed European targets for 2030 of cutting greenhouse gas

emissions by 40% compared with 1990 levels; and

Satisfying the need for new renewable energy NSIPs.

4.3.4 ES Chapter 2 Project Need (application ref 6.2) provides additional detail on the

benefits and the need of the project.

4.3.5 Dogger Bank Teesside A & B presents a real opportunity to help support the UK and

regional economies and drive forward the Government’s economic growth agenda.

The value that these projects will have on the region is acknowledged by both UK

Trade and Industry and Hartlepool Borough Council in their RRs.

4.3.6 UK Trade and Industry highlights Government’s Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy

(August 2013) which estimates that under a strong growth scenario, the industry

could deliver up to £7bn Gross Value Added by 2020/21 to the UK. The Industrial



Strategy delivering economic growth creating long term jobs, a clear and

sustainable project pipeline, major manufacturing facilities in the UK, the

development of a competitive UK-based supply chain and a technology cost-

competitive with other low carbon technologies.

4.3.7 UK Trade and Industry also notes that investments in projects such as Dogger Bank

Teesside A & B:

Play an important role in ensuring the UK sees the economic benefits of the

offshore wind industry.

Every permitted offshore wind project in the pipeline ensures potential inward

investors and adds to the attraction of suppliers to set up operations in the UK.

Benefits UK companies in the supply chain from the growing market – acting as

a springboard to export overseas.

4.3.8 Hartlepool Borough Council note that they have no objections to the proposals and

support the development of offshore wind sector and in particularly warmly

welcomes the development at Dogger Bank. The potential development

opportunities associated with renewable energy are highly significant and are seen

as a key economic driver to develop a sustainable and successful economy.

4.3.9 The support from UK Trade and Industry and Hartlepool Borough Council is

reinforced by an Economic Benefits Study, produced by Forewind to provide a high

level review of the supply chain and the potential economic benefits of the Dogger

Bank Zone, provided at Appendix G.

4.4 Dogger Bank Economic Benefits

4.4.1 Forewind commissioned management consultancies GENECON and Parsons

Brinckerhoff to undertake a study to identify the potential economic benefits from

the development of offshore wind farm projects in the Dogger Bank Zone in the

North Sea. The study looked at the opportunities both for the UK as a whole and for

the two most relevant regions, the North East and Yorkshire & the Humber.

4.4.2 The study, published in May 2014, looked at three scenarios: Scenario 1: 2.4 GW

by 2025, Scenario 2: 4.8 GW by 2029 and Scenario 3: 7.2 GW by 2030 and

assessed the potential high and low investment levels, and identified the potential

employment and Gross Value Added (GVA)2 gains based on three development

options, namely the delivery of two, four or six 1.2 gigawatt (GW) wind farm projects

in the Dogger Bank Zone.

4.4.3 The study covered the potential benefits accrued from the project management and

development of the wind farms through to the manufacturing, installation, and

operation and maintenance phases.

4.4.4 Figures from detailed assumptions were combined with the results of a high-level

review of the existing supply chain to develop model-based scenarios for each build

out option. Metrics and weightings from national accounts and industry sources

were applied to derive the likely economic benefits. Two approaches were used to

2 GVA measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector. It is the primary

measure of productivity in the UK.



determine a range of benefits and the actual benefits could fall anywhere within that

range.

4.4.5 The study concludes:

With its current industrial base, the UK could provide up to 38 per cent of the

total content of the Dogger Bank projects, and for the mid scenario of four wind

farms, this equates to an investment of close to £7 billion.

However, if new relevant manufacturing facilities (OEM3) are established here,

UK based companies could secure up to 72 per cent of the content, which

equates to an investment of around £13 billion in the four-project scenario.

Delivering the four Dogger Bank projects currently in the planning process (i.e.

Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B) could create

more than 4500 new direct and indirect jobs and generate an additional £1.6

billion for the UK economy (GVA). With the successful establishment of new

manufacturing facilities, however, the UK could see around 9000 new jobs

created giving a £3.4 billion boost to the national economy (GVA).

4.4.6 Combined, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B could

realise the following benefits for the North East and Yorkshire and Humber regions:

With its current industrial base, the North East and Yorkshire & the Humber

(NE&YH) could provide up to 36 per cent of the total content of the Dogger

Bank projects, equal to an investment of up to £5.5 billion in the four-project

scenario. This figure could increase to up to 61 per cent (worth £9.3 billion) with

additional relevant manufacturing facilities established in the area.

The four Dogger Bank projects currently in the planning process could create

more than 4000 new regional jobs generating an additional £1.3 billion for the

North East and Yorkshire & the Humber economies. With the successful

establishment of new manufacturing facilities, around 7000 new regional jobs

could be created generating an additional £2.2 billion for the regional economy.

While the highest number of new jobs will be in the manufacturing, construction

and installation phases of the Dogger Bank projects, the jobs in the operation

maintenance phase will be longer term and individually generate a higher return

to the UK economy. In effect these represent jobs for generations.

4.4.7 The NE&YH regions are well placed to secure a high proportion of the work

associated with the Dogger Bank Zone. The regions are geographically close to the

Zone but also have existing strengths in terms of large-scale production, port and

port-side facilities and offshore industry support. This gives businesses located in

the NE&YH regions a competitive advantage over the rest of the UK, increasing

their chances of winning a high proportion of the work.

4.4.8 This competitive advantage is linked to:

3 Defined in the EBS as facilities for the main components required for a Wind Turbine Supply Agreement – i.e. nacelles, blade sets and towers. Other OEMs that could develop in this definition include the potential for additional cable manufacturing (onshore and offshore).



The region’s proximity to the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B offshore wind farm,

proposed cable corridors and construction ports, which could result in cost

efficiencies.

The existing skilled workforce has a higher than UK average competence in

large-scale manufacturing, offshore oil and gas, engineering and logistics. A

fifth of all national manufacturing and a seventh of all national energy production

jobs are located in NE&YH.

Identified port-side availability around the Humber, Tees, Sunderland, Tyne and

Blyth.

Significant historic and continued ports and renewables sector-led promotion

activities within the Humber, Tees Valley, Sunderland, Tyne and Blyth areas.

4.4.9 The combined results of the study are presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.



Table 4.1 Potential Dogger Bank Economic Benefits (UK, NE&YH Regional Scenarios) – Content and Spend

Study Scenario With/Without OEM Potential UK Content Potential NE&YH Content

Potential UK Spend Potential NE&YH Spend

Scenario 1: 2.4 GW by 2025

Without OEM 38% 36% £3.5bn £2.8bn

With OEM 72% 61% £6.7bn £4.7bn



With OEM 72% 61% £13.4bn £9.3bn



With OEM 72% 61% £20.0bn £14.0bn

Table 4.2 Potential Dogger Bank Economic Benefits (UK, NE&YH Regional Scenarios) – Jobs and Gross Value Add

Study Scenario With/Without OEM Potential UK FTE Jobs Potential NE&YH FTE Jobs

Potential UK GVA Potential NE&YH GVA


Without OEM 2,250 – 2,400 2,050 – 2,200 £650m – £900m £550m – £750m

With OEM 4,250 – 4,750 3,450 – 3,750 £1.2bn – £1.7bn £900m – £1.2bn


Without OEM 4,450 – 4,750 4,100 – 4,350 £1.1bn – £1.6bn £1.0bn – £1.3bn

With OEM 8,500 – 9,050 6,900 – 7,350 £2.7bn – £3.4bn £1.7bn – £2.2bn


Without OEM 6,700 – 7,150 6,150 – 6,550 £1.7bn – £2.4bn £1.5bn – £2.0bn

With OEM 12,750 – 13,550 10,350 – 11,000 £3.3bn – £4.5bn £2.5bn – £3.3bn



4.5 Updates to Local Planning Policy

Local Development Scheme 2014 – 2017 (updated June 2014)

4.5.1 The updated Local Development Scheme advises of a revised timetable and

milestones for the drafting, examination and adoption of Redcar and Cleveland Local

Plan. The timeframes advised in paragraph 2.7.6 of the Planning and Design

Statement (application ref 8.1) are now therefore superseded as follows:

Publication version of Local Plan August 2014. New stage not previously

advised.

Examination of Local Plan November 2014 - May 2015. Previously advised as

May – October 2014;

Adoption of Local Plan June 2015. Previously advised as December 2014.

4.5.2 Based on the revised timetable therefore:

Examination of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan will be under taken

concurrently with the examination of this application.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan will remain in draft form through the

examination of the application and consideration of the application by the Panel.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan may be adopted prior to determination of this

application by the SoS.

Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

4.5.3 In May 2014, RCBC published Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary

Planning Document (SPD) for consultation. Comments on the Draft Developer

Contributions SPD closed on 16th July.

4.5.4 On adoption (anticipated date of adoption unknown), the SPD will form part of the

Development Plan for Redcar and Cleveland and will therefore become a material

consideration when assessing the application. However, as noted in paragraphs

2.1.6 and 2.7.7 of the Planning and Design Statement (application ref 8.1) whilst

Forewind has paid regard to emerging draft policy, it considers that the weight

attached to it in the assessment of the proposed works is limited until such time that

the plans are adopted.

4.5.5 The draft SPD sets out the Councils’ approach for securing developer contributions to

ensure that adequate infrastructure, services and facilities such as roads, open

space, leisure facilities or community services are provided to support the new

development.

4.5.6 Paragraph 2.8 of the draft SPD references Policy DP4, Developer Contributions of

Development Policies DPD (Adopted July 2007), which states:

“The Council will seek to negotiate planning obligations to secure necessary

community benefit required as a consequence of the development. The level

of developer contribution will be commensurate with the scale and nature of

the proposal. The Council will follow detailed guidance set out in its SPD in

order to determine the levels of contributions and procedures to secure them”.



4.5.7 The draft SPD details the mechanisms which can be used by RCBC to secure

developer contributions: namely:- planning conditions, planning obligations or the

community infrastructure levy.

4.5.8 It is noted that the application as submitted does not provide for or trigger the need

for a planning condition (or order requirement) which requires payment of a developer

contribution. As noted in the SoCG agreed with RCBC (SoCG (F-EXL-CG-044-

RCBC ON) submitted at Deadline II), Forewind is considering the need for and scope

of a Unilateral Undertakings with RCBC with regards to Compulsory Acquisition.

Irrespective of the outcome of this consideration, it is not the intent of the scope of the

Unilateral Undertakings to be extended to cover:

Delivery of any infrastructure – provided by either the applicant, future

developers or operators of each project or by a third party, such as RCBC or the

Highways Authority; or

Financial compensate for the specific restriction on use, or continuous provision

of a service for a set period.

4.5.9 Forewind considers that the application is exempt from the provisions Community

Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) as the only onshore ‘buildings’

being the two converter stations are buildings into which people go only intermittently

for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery (ref Regulation

6(2) of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010).

4.5.10 Notwithstanding this exemption, the draft SPD provides for contributions to open

space and play areas, community facilities, educational facilities and healthcare

facilities for residential developments or site areas over 0.5ha. Contributions are

calculated by the number of people in the development. As the proposed

development will not house or accommodate any permanent persons a contribution

to these facilities is not considered applicable under draft SPD.

4.5.11 The draft SPD also requires contributions to drainage and flood prevention where

Sustainable Drainage System is required off site. As documented in the FRA

(application ref 6.24.3) the application does not require the installation of any offsite

Sustainable Drainage Systems. A contribution to drainage and flood prevention is

therefore not required or provided for.

4.5.12 The draft SPD also establishes the need for contributions to local labour and training

– maximising local labour during construction and where applicable occupation

phases of the development, setting the following thresholds:

All residential developments comprising a net increase of 50 or more dwellings

(or a site area of 2.5ha or more);

Non-residential developments with a floor space of 2,000m2 or more; or

Developments that will require 25 or more full time equivalent employees.

4.5.13 The first two thresholds are not considered applicable. Whilst each onshore

converter station (the only above ground works) are greater than 2,000m2 in floor

space, such floor space is not considered applicable as, consistent with exemptions

provided for Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, these works are only

used intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or

machinery.



4.5.14 With regards to developments that will require 25 or more full time equivalent

employees, the draft SPD promotes:

To reduce unemployment in the area, to encourage developers to provide

opportunities for employment and training for the local labour market throughout

the construction phase of a development and for the end use of non-residential

development;

Developers will be asked to work closely together in partnership with the

RCBC’s Routes to Employment service to maximise the benefits offered by the

development for local labour and training opportunities.

Developers will be asked to recruit residents of the Borough to work in the

construction and (where applicable) occupation phases of the development.

Developers and those employers involved in the end use of the site (where

applicable) will also be asked to work with the service to take on young people

from Redcar and Cleveland as apprentices.

Partnership working between developers and the Routes to Employment

Service, may include providing work experience placements; delivering

presentations, workshops or themed group work; or supplying information

appropriate to the audience about career roles, pathways and opportunities

within the sector.

4.5.15 The draft SPD notes that the mechanism by which the developer and the Council will

work together to maximise access to employment opportunities for local labour will be

specified in a Local Employment Agreement. The Local Employment Agreement

should relate to both the construction and occupation phases of development and

could include:

A targeted recruitment and training method statement setting out targets for

recruitment of local residents and setting out actions that will achieve this;

The provision of recruitment and/or training facilities;

A financial contribution that can be used to support targeted recruitment; and

Other measures which will help support access to jobs.

4.5.16 The draft SPD also notes that where the value of a development exceeds £5 million,

the Local Employment Agreement should include a Local Procurement Plan. The aim

will be to ensure at least 20% of the qualifying supplies and services used as part of

the development to be provided from companies and organisations based or

operating in the borough. Developers will be asked to make local firms aware of

contract and other business opportunities, and to support arrangements to enable

businesses to access these opportunities.

4.5.17 This application does not include provisions for Local Employment Agreement or

Local Procurement Plan. With respect to wider supply chain engagement, Forewind

is engaging at a high level to help the supply chain understand the scale of the

opportunity that the Dogger Bank projects create. It is noted that the operators of



each project will be need to ensure that procurement is undertaken in a legally

compliant manner4.

4.5.18 Through Forewind’s development role, Forewind has initiated a careers-based

schools programme called Champions for Wind, which aims to educate secondary

school students about the job opportunities in offshore wind and help to encourage

that a skilled UK workforce will be in place post-consent.

4.5.19 Teesside and North Yorkshire schools involved in the Champions programme

include: Dykehouse; Hartlepool Pupil Referral Unit; Bydales; Kirtkleatham Hall

School; Ryehills School; Cleveland and Redcar College; St Peters School; Eskdale

School; Caedemon School and Castleton, Zetland, Glaisdale and St Heddas Primary

Schools. Forewind is also a supporter of the ‘Trust 4 Learning’ schools network.

4.5.20 By facilitating careers education for young people in the area around the Dogger

Bank projects' onshore infrastructure, Forewind aimed to meet the needs of the local

community while also supporting the wind industry by boosting the number of

motivated young people entering into it.

4.5.21 As it will be lead operators who will then take the projects forward to construction and

the long-term operation and maintenance phase, it is these organisation that will look

to initiate longer term community commitments, local labour and training. Each lead

operator will have its own ongoing relationship with the local community as they will

provide training and employment, plus supply chain and business opportunities over

the 50 years lifespan of the wind farm.

4.5.22 It is noted that each of the owner companies currently has community benefit

activities related to their existing offshore wind farms, so it is highly likely they will do

the same for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. However at this stage, until the lead

operator has been finalised and construction programme established, it is considered

too early to commit to supporting specific activities not directly related to the

'development' work.

4.5.23 In reviewing the draft SPD, Forewind therefore considers that draft SPD does not

require a planning condition/order requirement, or wider S106 contribution to be

made. The approach adopted by Forewind at the time of submission therefore does

not change as a result of the publication of the draft SPD.

4 Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement

by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC



5 Topic specific assessment

5.1 Environmental Statement

5.1.1 The DCO application is accompanied by a comprehensive ES under the

Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (EIA) Regulations 2009

in which all likely significant effects have been assessed, including cumulative effects.

The topic assessments within the ES are based on worst case scenarios due to the

flexibility which is sought in the draft DCO.

5.1.2 This section focuses on matters raised through the RRs. This section should be read

in conjunction with the suite of SoCG agreed with key stakeholders as submitted to

the Planning Inspectorate on 28 August 2014 in accordance with Deadline II.

5.2 Fish and shellfish ecology – offshore biodiversity

Environmental assessment and policy compliance

5.2.1 Within EN-1 (paragraph 5.5.7) the only requirement relating to fish ecology states that

applicants should assess the effects of the proposed project on marine ecology. ES

Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish Ecology (application ref 6.13) describes the

potential impacts upon fish and shellfish ecology predicted to arise from the

development.

5.2.2 EN-3 specifically notes the areas on which the assessment should focus (in

paragraph 2.6.74 of EN-3) and Table 2.1 in ES Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish

Ecology (application ref 6.13) identifies the relevant sections of the ES which

address each of these points.

5.2.3 The impact assessment predicts that based on the characterisation of the existing

fish and shellfish environment, fish and shellfish may be affected as a result of

temporary physical disturbance during construction, and permanent loss of habitat

during operation of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. All residual impacts identified for

fish and shellfish ecology are minor adverse or negligible, with no significant residual

impacts.

5.2.4 Concerns have also been raised on the impact that the proposed development may

have on sandeels. Section 4.2.27 of ES Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish Ecology

(application ref 6.13) acknowledges that sandeel are an important prey species for

marine mammals, including harbour porpoise and for marine birds (section 4.2.28).

In assessing the impact on sandeel, the ES concludes a minor adverse impact. To

mitigate against adverse impacts, Forewind has moved (prior to phase 2 of statutory

consultation) the western boundary of the ‘developable area’ of the Dogger Bank

Zone to avoid the known dense sandeel grounds.

5.2.5 Embedded mitigation measures are presented which minimise the effects, as set out

in more detail in sections 3.3.12 – 3.3.14 of ES Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish

Ecology (application ref 6.13). These include burying or protecting cables where

feasible, thereby reducing the potential effects of EMF on sensitive fish and shellfish

receptors as proposed in paragraph 2.6.76 of EN-3. Further, providing the opportunity



for 24 hour working practices (offshore) may be employed to reduce the overall

construction time and the total duration over which impacts on fish and shellfish from

construction activities could occur.

5.2.6 To secure appropriate cable burial and/or protection, a cable specification and

installation plan, has to be submitted to and approved in writing by the MMO. On this

basis Forewind therefore considers the development to be in accordance with the

relevant policies contained in EN-1 and EN-3.



MMO (RR No. 12)

MMO note the advice given for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and the importance of the Flamborough Head herring spawning ground. Grab sampling along the export cable route shows substrate that may not be suitable for herring spawning but ask for additional stations from the IHLS survey to be considered within the Herring Classification Note to determine this (completed). Only a single sandeel specific survey was undertaken and suggest that monitoring throughout the life of the windfarm would be the only true gauge of the impacts, they suggest this commitment has already been made. Previous advice that Nephrops Norvegicus should be of regional rather than local importance has not been actioned.

Forewind has entered into a SoCG with the MMO (F-EXL-CG-024 MMO OF). Appendix 4 of the SoCG provides Forewind’s point by point responses to the MMO’s relevant representation. Responses to herring spawning concerns are covered in response 4.1.2 to 4.1.4 and as a separate appendix, ‘Appendix 5 Herring Spawning Clarification Note’ of the SoCGs. Response 4.1.8 of Appendix 4 of the SoCGs is provided on the requirement for future sandeel monitoring. Forewind do not believe that sandeel specific surveys are appropriate, but will monitor the sandeel population via DTU Aqua annual survey results (Mosegaard et al.,) and sandeel fishing activity (via Danish fisheries statistics) within the vicinity of the Dogger Bank.

With respect to the MMO advice that Nephrops Norvegicus should be of regional importance rather than local, and that this was not updated in the application, Forewind acknowledges this is an error in the text and should be ‘regional’.

MMO (RR No. 12)

Additional information regarding the distribution of brown crab should be updated and require justification as to why these changes were not made to the ES as previously requested.

A response has been provided in respect to brown crab in 4.1.12 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG.

MMO (RR No. 12)

Clarification is also sought on the assessment of brown crab (ovigerous) to increased suspended sediment.

A response is provided with respect to clarification on suspended sediment to brown crab in sections 4.1.14 to 4.1.17 of Appendix 4 of the SoCGs.




Natural England (RR No. 38)

NE disagrees with the conclusion that burial of herring eggs under other eggs can be equated to impacts from sediment exposure and require further discussions with the applicant. Reiterate that their preferred approach is cable burial to an optimum depth particularly in herring spawning areas and request further discussion if cable protection is to be used in the inshore spawning grounds.

Forewind have entered into a SoCG with Natural England (F-EXL-CG-031 NE OF) of which there are now no matters unresolved for fish & shellfish ecology. The query relating to herring eggs has been responded to in a sections 3.1.2 to 3.1.11 of Appendix 12 of the SoCGs. Cable burial with respect to herring spawning grounds is covered in section 3.2.2.

Sandeels

5.2.7 Forewind fully considered the impacts on fish, including sandeel, within section

4.2.27 and 4.2.28 of ES Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish Ecology (application ref

6.13). The assessment acknowledges that sandeel are an important prey species for

marine mammals, including harbour porpoise and birds and concludes a minor

adverse impact on sandeel.

5.2.8 A sandeel specific survey was undertaken in tranches A and B in March 2012 and is

detailed in Appendix F of ES Chapter 13 (application ref 6.16.6). The survey

documented that sandeel were found in highest numbers along the western boundary

of Tranche A with fewer sandeel present in Tranche B as shown in Figure 4.2 of ES

Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish Ecology (application ref 6.13).

5.2.9 Forewind has also moved (prior to phase 2 of statutory consultation) the western

boundary of the ‘developable area’ of the Dogger Bank Zone to avoid the known

dense sandeel grounds.

5.3 Intertidal and subtidal – offshore biodiversity


5.3.1 Impacts upon biodiversity in the intertidal zone are specifically referenced in EN-3

paragraphs 2.6.78 to 2.6.89. ES Chapter 12 (application ref 6.12) addresses these

assessment requirements from EN-3, with cross references to relevant sections of

the Chapter set out in Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 12 (application ref 6.12).

5.3.2 The assessment of and effects upon benthic ecology are also covered in ES Chapter

12 (application ref 6.12), which includes detail on the effects of scour and changes

to hydrodynamic and sedimentary processes on subtidal habitat. There are also

strong links with ES Chapter 9 Marine Physical Processes (application ref 6.9).

5.3.3 Paragraphs 2.6.84 and 2.6.115 of EN-3 note that the conservation status of both

intertidal and subtidal habitat is of relevance to the decision maker. Impacts upon

sites of marine nature conservation interest are assessed within the ES and

international sites are covered within the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report


5.3.4 A robust site selection process was undertaken, which includes the selection of the

landfall area and the offshore cable route. A detailed explanation is provided in the

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Landfall Selection Report which is Appendix D to ES



Chapter 6 (application ref 6.6.4). These explain how the choice of route aimed to

minimise disturbance in the intertidal habitat, whilst balancing other factors, showing

compliance with EN-3 paragraph 2.6.85. The landfall was selected, as far as

reasonably practicable, to avoid ecologically sensitive areas and commercial

shellfisheries and also selected a route where there is greater likelihood of achieving

cable burial. The feasibility of cable burial informed the route of the corridor through

avoidance of known areas of active sandwaves and exposed bedrock, which were

established through reconnaissance surveys. No areas of sensitive subtidal habitats

were identified, meeting the requirements of paragraph 2.6.116.

5.3.5 ES Chapter 9 Marine Physical Processes (application ref 6.9) captures mitigation

for intertidal ecology in terms of physical processes. For example, sediment releases

have been minimised through the use of HDD techniques at the landfall, where

practicable, and deemed Marine Licence conditions set out the need for pre- and

post-construction surveys. Paragraph 2.6.88 of EN-3 recognises that effects on

intertidal ecology cannot be avoided entirely, but in this instance it is considered that

the impacts are minimised through project design.

5.3.6 Paragraph 2.6.120 and 2.6.89 of EN-3 refer to minimising cumulative effects upon

intertidal and subtidal habitats. No significant cumulative impacts are predicted.



Environment Agency (offshore) (RR No. 31)

The Environment Agency (EA) has no objections to the proposed development. All previous issues in relation to marine ecology and bathing waters have been addressed within the final application documents.

A SoCG has been signed wit the Environment Agency (F-EXL-CG-013 EA ON OFF) for which there are no unresolved matters for offshore. Re. Marine and intertidal ecology, It has been agreed with EA (SoCG paragraph 3.3.A.1 - 3.3.F.1) appropriate legislation, planning policies and guidance relevant to offshore matters for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B are listed in Section 2.1 Marine Water and Sediment Quality of ES Chapter 10 (application ref 6.10). The methodology (detailed in Section 3 of ES Chapter 10 (application ref 6.10) and ES Chapter 13 (doc 6.13), existing environment and realistic worst case scenarios are appropriate and agreed. Further, it is agreed that an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) will be produced and is secured in the draft DCO. Re. Bathing waters: It has been



agreed with EA (SoCG paragraph 3.3.F.2) that in the case of works within the intertidal zone the area will be reinstated to its former condition. The potential works at the beach and temporary closures will be discussed further with the EA in the pre-construction stage.

MMO (RR No. 12)

Benthic ecology:- MMO seeks further clarification regarding the geophysical data used to derive the seabed habitat characterisation and how the different data sets have been merged. The survey design and sampling methods employed are appropriate however further clarity is requested regarding the use of drop down video with a freshwater lens as they suggest this compromises quality in good visibility. Clarification on what modifications have been made to the "modified Hamon Grab" used to take samples. Further clarification required on the use of Decon 90 and the effect on interpretation of results. Intertidal phase 1 & 2 surveys are appropriate but require clarification as to the type of containers used for storage and transport of samples and their preparation and cleaning ahead of use. Biotope classification methodology is considered appropriate, but state that consideration should be given to future monitoring to enable appropriate merging of datasets. Longer term post construction monitoring may be more appropriate over the life of the wind farm but state that the provisions in the DML are sufficient to allow this.

Forewind has entered into a SoCG with the MMO (F-EXL-CG-024 MMO OF) and there are now no matters unresolved with respect to marine and intertidal ecology. Point by point responses to the MMO’s relevant representation have been provided as Appendix 4 of the SoCG and the query over the geophysical data is clarified in section 3.1.2. The query over the fresh water lens is clarified in section 3.1.4 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG. The query over the modified Harmon grab is clarified in section 3.1.6 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG. The use of Decon 90 is clarified in section 3.1.8 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG. The use of sample containers in the intertidal surveys is clarified in section 3.1.10 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG. Future monitoring requirements are acknowledged by Forewind. Forewind will draft an ‘In Principle Monitoring Plan (IPMP) and will continue to consult with the MMO on this.

MMO (RR No. 12)

Disposal site characterisation:- Clarification is sought on a number of points, namely the area to be used as a disposal site, abandonment of a drill location if unsuitable ground encountered, the definition of "temporary work areas" within the

Section 3.2 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG provides clarification on the concerns raised over the disposal site, abandonment of sites and temporary works areas.



report and which SAC the conservation objectives in the report relate to. MMO reiterate again the need to post construction monitoring to validate the assumptions of the dispersal models and the impact predictions.


Scour Protection:- NE suggest that a modelled approach should be used to assess operational scour impacts along the cable route. NE also require clarification on how operational impacts of export cable protection and auxiliary structures have been included within the model. NE request confirmation from the applicant when operational scour data might be available for the Teesside Offshore Wind Farm.

Point by point responses to NE’s relevant representations are provided in Appendix 12 of the SoCG (F-EXL-CG-031-NE-OF). These concerns are covered in detail in sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.5, 1.6.1 to 1.6.3 and 1.7.2 to 1.7.3.


Marine Physical Processes:- NE ask for further clarification of how cable lengths requiring protection have been derived. NE state that they consider the assessment of the active transport zone to be incomplete and questions whether there is further movement offshore beyond the 10m contour.

Point by point responses to NE’s relevant representations are provided in Appendix 12 of the SoCG (F-EXL-CG-031-NE-OF). These concerns are covered in detail in sections 1.2.2 to 1.2.5 and 1.4.2 to 1.4.5.


Marine Water and sediment quality:- NE note the conclusions of negligible impact on deterioration of water quality due to re suspension of contaminated sediments along the cable route but note that no information is provided regarding recovery. NE consider the speed of installation to be an unsatisfactory explanation for low magnitude of effect and require further discussion.

Point by point responses to NE’s relevant representations are provided in Appendix 12 of the SoCG (F-EXL-CG-031-NE-OF). These concerns are covered in detail in sections 4.1.2 to 4.1.3.


Marine and intertidal Ecology:- Cumulative operational impacts of the introduction of hard substrates into a mainly sedimentary environment. NE require further justification regarding the conclusions drawn on the basis of shipwrecks and cumulative impacts between different projects.

Point by point responses to NE’s relevant representations are provided in Appendix 12 of the SoCG (F-EXL-CG-031-NE-OF). These concerns are covered in detail in sections 2.2.2 to 2.2.3 and 2.4.2 to 2.4.3.



NE highlight outstanding concerns regarding biotope mapping and the consistency and comparison of data between Creyke Beck and Teesside A & B. Cumulative impacts, NE note the zonal representation of biotopes but request it would be useful to have a zonal representation of the VERs. Sample size, NE question why no spatial distribution diagram is presented for the cable route that passes through Tranche A.


Marine and intertidal ecology:- NE advise that the two rMCZs within the study area assessed should be treated as MCZs to future proof the consent.

This has been acknowledged by Forewind.


Pre and post construction monitoring:- NE are pleased to note the commitment to pre and post construction monitoring but state this should be consistent with the in principle monitoring plan being agreed for Creyke Beck. NE ask that although brittle stars are not a species of conservation interest that the impacts of construction and operation are monitored and advise that impacts to the ocean quahog should be minimised.

Forewind intends to build on the In Principle Monitoring Plan (IPMP) developed for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application and will endeavour to maintain consistency where possible and appropriate. Forewind will consult with NE when developing the IPMP.


Marine and intertidal ecology:- NE raise concern over how sensitivity has been assessed but do not require any further work to be undertaken.

This has been acknowledged by Forewind.

5.4 Marine mammals – offshore biodiversity


5.4.1 Paragraph 2.6.92 of EN-3 identifies the details required within an assessment of the

effects on marine mammals. Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 14 (application ref 6.14)

shows where each of these assessment criteria are presented within that specific

chapter.

5.4.2 In particular EN-3 sets out the need to reasonably minimise significant disturbance

effects on marine mammals (paragraph 2.6.94). This specifically refers to methods of

construction and foundation types, which are not yet known for this project. To

address this, a marine mammal mitigation protocol (MMMP) is required to be agreed

in writing with the MMO before construction commences. This will cover the detail of

mitigation measures once the type of foundation has been determined, and also



capture the outcomes of on-going industry-wide research. Notwithstanding this, the

MMMP is likely to capture the need for soft start piling procedures in line with current

industry guidance and the possibility of 24 hour working practices to reduce the

length of exposure to noisy activities (namely pile driving) and any subsequent

impacts, meeting the requirements of EN-3 paragraphs 2.6.98 and 2.6.99.

5.4.3 In addition, in accordance with EN-3 paragraph 2.6.97, where driven or part-driven

pile foundations are proposed to be used then the deemed marine licences requires

monitoring to take place of noise generated by the installation of the first four

monopile foundations.

5.4.4 Concerns have also been raised on the risk of corkscrew injuries, also known as

spiral injuries, in relation to harbour and grey seal arising from the use of dynamically

stationed construction vessels. The risk of spiral injury is considered section 6.4.3 of

ES Chapter 14 (application ref 6.14) in accordance with guidance agreed by the

Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies (April 2012). Given the distance between the

proposed development site (including export cable corridor) and the closest harbour

seal (>30 nautical miles (nm)) and grey seal (>4nm) SACs the risk is considered low

in both species (Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies April 2012). Based on this

low risk level, mitigation is not required and the impact is assessed as minor adverse

in harbour seal and negligible in grey seal.

5.4.5 The ES identifies that no significant adverse impacts are predicted on marine

mammals as a result from the construction or operational noise from the turbines and

vessels. In this regard Forewind therefore considers the development to be in

accordance with the relevant policies contained in EN-3. Further – key embedded

mitigation in the design development of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B works has

helped mitigate adverse impacts. These include:

Moving the developable area (pre Phase 2 statutory consultation) away from

the preferred sandeel grounds, which are a marine mammal prey resource, is a

positive mitigation measure reducing the potential impact on marine mammals.

Ensuring that export cable avoids harbour seal and grey seal SACs reduces the

risk of direct collision with vessels or spiral injuries associated with ducted

propellers during the construction phase.

5.4.6 Based on a precautionary assessment, the ES does identify residual moderate

impacts on harbour porpoise and grey seal from underwater construction noise when

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B is considered cumulatively with projects outwith the

Dogger Bank Zone on harbour seal from collision risk when Dogger Bank Teesside A

& B is considered cumulatively with projects outwith the Dogger Bank Zone. In light of

the precautionary assessment undertaken, consideration of alternatives and

mitigation, Forewind contends that the granting of the DCO would be in accordance

with marine mammal policies contained in EN-3.







NE note the cumulative impact assessment undertaken but suggest that it should be the regulators responsibility to investigate cumulative impacts in a more strategic manner. Identify concerns extending to number of Harbour porpoise disturbed, reduce acoustic output through the use of alternative installation techniques, need for a MMMP, watching brief on outputs from ORJIP on acoustic mitigation devices, construction programmes between individual sites or clusters of sites should be considered and impact monitoring is considered. Note an EPS licence will be applied for when the foundation type is known. They welcome the receipt of our harbour porpoise PVA and note that no further work is required on this.

A SoCG has been agreed with NE (F-EXL-CG-031 NE OF) submitted at Deadline II. The SoCG confirms there are no matters unresolved in regards to marine mammals. Appendix 12 of the SoCGs provides a full response to the points raised in the RR.




National Trust (RR No. 42)

The National Trust have concerns about spiral injury mortalities to seal and cetacean populations arising from the use of construction vessels utilising 'ducted propellers'. No mitigation is proposed in regards to this and marine consents could contain licence conditions to mitigate these impacts.

A SoCG has been agreed with NT (F-EXL-CG-070 National Trust OF) submitted at Deadline II. The SoCG confirms there are no matters are unresolved. The NT has advocated that the mitigation agreed for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project is implemented for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. This is acknowledged by Forewind and Forewind confirm that the same approach can be adopted for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. Details of the National Trusts proposals can be found in Appendix 3 of the SoCG between Forewind and the NT. In summary, the mitigation agreed for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck included an updated wording to requirement 9(1)(e) of DMLs 1 & 2 of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Draft DCO (version 2). This updated wording will allow the implementation of a marine mammal mitigation protocol which allows for ducted propeller related issued, should this be deemed necessary at the time of development of the MMMP. Appendix 2 of the SoCG provides a full response to the points in the RR.




Whale and Dolphin Conservation (RR No. 6)

Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC) note that the area of interest for harbour porpoises at Dogger Bank is also the UK Dogger Bank cSAC. The construction of this development has the potential to negatively impact key prey species for several cetacean species. WDC is concerned about the potential for cetaceans to be disturbed and displaced, including by the noise introduced into the environment. WDC suggest that: - Foundations requiring piling are not used; - Further assessments are made on alternative foundations - To apply effective noise-reducing measures where piles are driven.

A SoCG has been agreed with WDC (F-EXL-CG-066 Whale and Dolphin Conservation OF) submitted at Deadline II. One matter remains to be agreed with WDC in relation to the conclusion that if two projects are constructed concurrently, an overlap in noise footprints could reduce the size of the noise footprint compared to the two projects being built sequentially. Forewind note that the ‘footprint’ approach used in the assessment accounts for variation in noise propagation which could occur across the development area and that this approach is highly precautionary. Full details are provided within section 3.2 of SoCG between Forewind and WDC.

The Wildlife Trusts (RR No. 34)

The Wildlife Trust (TWT) note that as this development is taking place in an area designated for nature conservation the Applicant should look to have a positive impact on marine biodiversity and that biodiversity gains should be built into the project design. TWT would like to see a commitments to develop a MMMP regardless of foundation type used and think that an extended exclusion zone out to 700m should be compulsory. TWT believe that site specific monitoring, pre, during and post construction should be a requirement, to validate the predictions made in the ES.

A SoCG has been agreed with TWT (F-EXL-CG-068 Wildlife Trust OF) submitted at Deadline II. There are no matters unresolved.

5.5 Birds – offshore biodiversity


5.5.1 ES Chapter 11 (application ref 6.11) presents the assessment of marine and

coastal ornithology, which covers the points raised in paragraphs 2.6.102 to 2.6.105

of EN-3. Table 2.2 of ES Chapter 11 (application ref 6.11) signposts where each of

the assessment requirements is covered within the chapter. In relation to ornithology,

EN-3 relies upon the general biodiversity decision making principles in section 5.3 of

EN-1 and 2.6.68 to 2.6.71 of EN-3.



5.5.2 Through the early design development of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, the

development has taken significant steps through embedded design so as to avoid

significant harm to birds and minimise potential impacts in line with paragraph 5.3.7 of

EN-1 and paragraph 2.6.70 of EN-3. These mitigation measures embedded in the

project design, secured through the DCO include limiting the maximum number of

turbines per wind farm to 200 (secured within Schedule 1, Part 1 of the draft DCO as

submitted and within the descriptions for the array – defined through Work No.s 1A

and 1B) and providing for a minimum lower blade tip height above highest

astronomical tide of 26m (draft DCO requirement 4(1)(d)). These mitigation

measures where further enhanced by the moving (prior to phase 2 of statutory

consultation) of the western boundary of the ‘developable area’ of the Dogger Bank

Zone to avoid the known dense sandeel grounds.

5.5.3 In line with paragraph 2.6.71 of EN-3, requirements attached to the DCO and

deemed marine licences require monitoring of ornithological activity to take place pre-

and post-construction to establish whether numbers of marine birds change within the

wind farm areas during and after construction. The exact scope of these will be

agreed with key stakeholders prior to construction and the purpose is to monitor the

outcomes in the ES concerning key ornithological interests of relevance to the

authorised scheme, in order to validate these predictions.

5.5.4 As a result, Forewind concludes that the development proposal has fully considered

the impacts on marine and coastal ornithology and has therefore satisfied NPS

requirements in this regard.






Use of Option 3 – NE recommends use of the basic Band collision risk model. Collision risk results to be presented for a range of model options and avoidance rates. Use of a gradated displacement rate in the buffer area. Use of 0% mortality rate for northern gannet in the project alone assessment. Use of 50% displacement rate and 5% mortality rate for auk species. Request consideration of appropriate BDMPS. Concerns over the apportioning methodology in the assessment, although acknowledge this has been improved in the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck examination and so should be applied here. Omission of operational (Tier 1) projects from the cumulative and in-combination assessment. Concerns regarding effects on migratory waterbirds and Multiple impacts on northern gannet. Appropriate recovery (‘f’) factor in population modelling results.

A SoCG has been agreed with NE (F-EXL-CG-031 NE OF) submitted at Deadline II. Forewind has provided a point- by-point response to many of the concerns both at the section 42 consultation stage (Appendix 1 of the SoCG between Forewind and NE), and in Appendix 2 of the SoCG between Forewind and NE. Forewind has also agreed to update the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B assessment to bring the apportioning methodology up to date with that agreed for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. Further, more detailed clarification notes have been provided to address the issues highlighted in the relevant representation:- Appendix 3 of the SoCG between Forewind and NE – Option 2 collision risk tables. Appendix 4 of the SoCG between Forewind and NE – Option 3 Study. Appendix 9 of the SoCG between Forewind and NE – Review of CEH study on displacement.


Population Scales NE highlight the need to assess predicted mortality at the appropriate population scale, they highlight the ongoing discussions in respect of Creyke Beck and assume the final approach agreed would then be adopted for this application.

A SoCG has been agreed with NE (F-EXL-CG-031 NE OF) submitted at Deadline II.




RSPB (RR No. 40)

RSPB raised concerns regarding the use of Option 3 and the use of appropriate avoidance rates in collision risk modelling, and disagreed with the use of a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) model to set thresholds for impacts on protected sites.

A SoCG has been agreed with RSPB (F-EXL-CG-049 RSPB OF) submitted at Deadline II. Forewind has provided clarification notes to show why Option 3 is appropriate for use in collision risk modelling and to support the use of a 98% avoidance rate with this model (Appendix 1 of the SoCG between Forewind and RSPB), and has provided a response on the concerns of RSPB with respect to PBR modelling at Appendix 3 of the SoCG between Forewind and RSPB.

5.6 Commercial fisheries and fishing


5.6.1 Paragraph 2.6.92 of EN-3 identifies the details required within an assessment of the

effects on commercial fishing and Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 15 (application ref 6.15)

shows where each of these issues is presented within that specific chapter.

Consultation with relevant stakeholders was carried out in line with Appendix B

Fisheries Liaison Plan of Consultation Report (application ref 5.1.2). Table 2.2

of ES Chapter 15 and sections 6.3 and 8.15 of the Consultation Report

(application ref 5.1) demonstrates how the development was designed taking these

representations into account, in line with paragraph 2.6.133 of EN-3.

5.6.2 Forewind is also committed to following the ‘Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and

Wet Renewables Group’ (FLOWW) (2014) guidance which considers other potentially

applicable mitigation. This is an update to the guidance currently referred to in

Appendix B Dogger Bank Fisheries Liaison Plan of the Consultation Report

(application ref 5.1.2). This will address mitigation which meets the requirements of

paragraph 2.6.135 of EN-3.

Offshore

5.6.3 Offshore - ES Chapter 15 (application ref 6.15) confirms that fishing vessels from

the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Norway, France and Sweden

target several commercial species of fish and shellfish, with a variety of fishing gears,

in the Dogger Bank Zone and the Export Cable Corridors, with the peripheral areas to

the west of the Dogger Bank Zone particularly important for sandeel fishing.

5.6.4 In general, mitigation has been addressed through the site design and the proposed

layout of the wind farm, including:

Moving (undertaken pre Phase 2 Statutory Consultation) the western boundary

of the ‘developable area’ of the Dogger Bank Zone to avoid the known dense

sandeel grounds. The impacts from Dogger Bank Teesside A & B construction,

operation and decommissioning on the current sandeel grounds have been

predicted to be not significant in EIA terms.



Within the Rochdale Envelope, Forewind have also allowed for the potential to

use a dense perimeter of turbines (minimum spacing of 750m) to allow for

maximum turbine spacing within the site. Although Forewind cannot commit to

using such a layout at this time, it has been acknowledged that such a layout

would further assist in allowing all fishing practices (including seine netting) to

continue within the wind farms once operational, as stated in consultation with

the Danish Fishermen’s Association SoCG (Appendix 1, F-EXC-CG-016 DFA

OF).

Removing the option for curved arrays from the wind farm layout rules following

feedback from fishing representatives.

5.6.5 Through ongoing consultation with relevant stakeholders, it has been agreed with the

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation (NFFO), the Dutch (VisNed) and

Danish fishermen that given the maximum spacing of turbines (the larger of six times

the turbine rotor diameter or a minimum of 750 metres (requirement 4(1)(c) in the

draft DCO) a number of fishing activities would be able to continue within the

operational wind farm in the right conditions.

5.6.6 It is recognised by Forewind that the areas to the west and north west of the Dogger

Bank Zone are particularly important for sandeel fishing, whilst shellfish fisheries

dominate the nearshore sections of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Export Cable

Corridor. A flat fish fishery is active within the wind farm boundaries.

5.6.7 To respond to and manage concerns from commercial fisheries, Forewind has

committed to the preparation of a Fisheries Liaison Plan for Dogger Bank Teesside A

& B (supplementing Zonal FLP published by Forewind in 2011 and 2013 respectively

(application ref 5.1), appointment of a Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO), and as

necessary, the appointment of a Fishing Industry Representative (FIR).

5.6.8 The ES assessment concludes, with the exception of the seine net fishery, the

impacts on commercial fisheries are minor adverse or lower, as result of the overall

comparatively very low levels of fishing activities recorded within Dogger Bank

Teesside A & B and along the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B export cable corridor.

5.6.9 In considering the cumulative impacts on commercial fishing activities occurring as a

result of the development of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, as well as other plans,

projects and activities within known fishing ranges, the cumulative impact assessment

(CIA) within the ES concludes that no significant cumulative impacts have been

identified, with the exception of the seine net fishery during construction and

operation.

Relevant representations (Offshore fisheries)





Coöperatie Kottervisserij Nederland u.a (VisNed) (RR No. 27)

It is VisNeds opinion that the degree to which fisheries will be able to continue during the operational phase will be dependent upon the final project design. VisNed feels the EIA does not cater well in terms of assessing the impacts at the scale of individual businesses, or vessel sub-groupings and does not provide sufficient assurance of mitigation to maximise the scope for co-existence. Notwithstanding this, it is unlikely in their opinion that seine netting will be able to operate within the confines of the wind farm and provisions for such groups presently seem inadequate. VisNed request the following should be addressed through the examination: - Approaches to address any loss of earnings - Allowing for consultation on cable installation plans - Provisions to ensure exposed cable assets located outside of safety zones are protected through the use of guard vessels. - Post-installation trawl surveys. - On-going funding mechanism.

A joint SoCG was prepared between Forewind, the NFFO, VisNed and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (F-EXC-CG-065 NFFO-VisNed OF). Forewind appreciate that final design of the project will determine how fishing can resume within the windfarm. The worst case scenario of 750m minimum turbine spacing has been assessed throughout the ES. Forewind have followed standard EIA principles and it was not within the scope of the assessment to consider the extent of an impact on a vessel by vessel basis. Forewind however appreciate that although on national scales the development may have low impacts on fisheries (e.g. flatfish fishery), the development may potentially have significant impacts on certain individual vessels. Forewind have agreed to remove curved arrays from the layout rules in order to reduce potential impacts to the fishing industry.

Danish Fishermens Association (RR No. 26)

Continuation of fisheries during the operational phase will be dependent upon the design and delivery of the project. DFA feel there is not sufficient assurance within the ES that appropriate levels of mitigation will be applied to the project design to maximise scope for co-existence. Notwithstanding this, it is highly likely that seine netting will be unable to operate within the confines of the wind farm and current provisions for such groups are deemed inadequate.

Forewind has agreed a SoCG with the Danish Fishermen’s Association (F-EXL-CG-008 DFA OF) of which all matters are agreed and no matters remain unresolved.




MMO (RR No. 12)

Commercial Fisheries MMO note Forewind’s commitment to work with the seine net fishermen to mitigate impacts.

A SoCG has been entered into with the MMO, including agreement on the commitment to discuss appropriate mitigation options with impacted seine fishermen as soon as it is deemed the appropriate time.

The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (RR No. 21)

NFFO's view that the degree to which fisheries will be able to resume during the operational phase will be dependent upon the final project design. NFFO are of the opinion that the EIA does not cater well in terms of assessing the impacts at the scale of individual businesses, or vessel sub-groupings and does not provide sufficient assurance of mitigation to maximise the scope for co-existence. Notwithstanding this, it is unlikely that seine netting will be able to operate within the confines of the wind farm and provisions for such groups presently seem inadequate. NFFO request the following should be addressed through the examination: - Approaches to address any loss of earnings - Allowing for consultation on cable installation plans - Provisions to ensure exposed cable assets located outside of safety zones are protected through the use of guard vessels. - Post-installation trawl surveys - On-going funding mechanism

A joint SoCG was prepared between Forewind, the NFFO, VisNed and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (F-EXC-CG-065 NFFO-VisNed OF). Forewind appreciate that final design of the project will determine how fishing can resume within the windfarm. The worst case scenario of 750m minimum turbine spacing has been assessed throughout the ES . Forewind have followed standard EIA principles and it was not within the scope of the assessment to consider the extent of an impact on a vessel by vessel basis. Forewind however appreciate that although on national scales the development may have low impacts on fisheries (e.g. flatfish fishery), the development may potentially have significant impacts on certain individual vessels. Forewind have agreed to remove curved arrays from the layout rules in order to reduce potential impacts to the fishing industry.




North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (NEIFCA)

NEIFCA concerns relate to the inshore 6nm of the cable corridor. Considering proposed mitigation, the only remaining concern relates to sediment loading in the water column and potential impacts of deposition in sensitive areas (i.e. spawning grounds). Assurances have been made, by the developer, that this will cause minimal impact using best practice methodologies. Officers will now maintain a watching brief

A SoCG has been entered into with NEIFCA (F-EXC-CG-035 NEIFCA OF). All matters are agreed.




Scottish Fishermen's Federation (RR No. 39)

The SFF are concerned that there may be a loss of fishing grounds which could affect different sectors of the fleet and are not sure that this is adequately reflected in the EIA. Mitigation measures would need to be negotiated if this became a reality and there would be merit in involving the fishermen during the design phase of the project to help achieve co-existence. Consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of displacement and appropriate mitigation designed.

A joint SoCG was prepared between Forewind, the NFFO, VisNed and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (F-EXC-CG-065 NFFO-VisNed OF). ES Chapter 15: Commercial fisheries (ref 6.15) and ES Appendix A of ES Chapter 15 (ref 6.15.1) included the most relevant and up to date fisheries datasets currently available. Both UK and Marine Scotland datasets (landings values, effort and VMS statistics by species and/or gear type) include Scottish vessels. The commercial fisheries EIA evaluated potential impacts on a fishery by fishery basis. Impacts on Scottish vessels were therefore assessed within the relevant categories. It is understood that the most relevant fisheries to Scottish vessels in the vicinity of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B are the Nephrops and Scallop fisheries which for the most part are located in areas relevant to the export cable corridor, although these areas are targeted less frequently those located elsewhere within the North Sea and other sea areas. In addition, based on the information obtained to date it is understood that a single Scottish pelagic vessel periodically targets sandeels on the Dogger Bank. This vessel was included within Appendix A ES Chapter 15 and an assessment of potential impacts included within the relevant section of ES Chapter 15.

Seine net fishery

5.6.10 A significant impact (moderate adverse) was predicted for the potential loss of fishing

area for the seine net fishery during construction and operation.

5.6.11 Forewind has actively mitigated impacts on this fishery on a zonal level through

project design by avoiding the seine net fishery identified as the ‘triangle’ between

Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck B and Dogger Bank

Teesside B.

5.6.12 As stated in the Danish Fishermen’s Association SoCG (DFA SoCG paragraph 3-E-

6) and in sections 7.2.48, 8.2.24, 9.7.1 – 9.7.6 and 11.3.7 of ES Chapter 15

(application ref 6.15) Forewind is committed to the principle of working with the DFA



to mitigate impacts to the Seine net fishermen who may be affected during the

construction and operation phase. Discussions regarding mitigation are more

appropriate at the time of pre-construction, construction and operation.

Inshore

5.6.13 The commercial fisheries baseline for inshore fishermen is presented in Appendix A

ES Chapter 15 (ref 6.15.1), with inshore fish and shellfish characterisation surveys

provided at Appendix C ES Chapter 13 (ref 6.13.3).

Relevant representations (Inshore fisheries)


Hartlepool Fishermen's Society Ltd (Prepared by Epic Regeneration) (RR No. 32)

Hartlepool Fishermen's Society (HFS) believe that the routing of the inshore section of the HVDC cable will have a significant adverse impact on their traditional fishing grounds, particularly should rock armouring be used to protect the cables. It is HFS opinion that rock armouring will eradicate Nephrops habitat and populations and create no-trawl zones for small vessels. HFS are concerned about the potential impact of HVDC cables on commercial fish stocks, as they believe heat output from the cables may alter the hydrodynamics of the area and note that there is little research in this field. HFS are also concerned about the potential displacement of commercial vessels at anchor waiting to enter Teesport onto their fishing grounds and the cumulative impact on inshore commercial fishing.

Forewind has engaged in consultation

with HFS in order to enter into a

SoCG. This is currently in ‘draft’ form,

with some points agreed and some

points for further discussion (F-EXC-

CG-014 Epic HFS OF).

5.6.14 A SoCG has been agreed (after Deadline II and submitted at Deadline III) between

Forewind and Redcar and Teesbay Fishermen's Association. Redcar and Teesbay

Fisherman’s Association represents the views and concerns of 28 licensed and

registered commercial fishing boat owners and crews operating from ports and

beaches between the Tees mouth and Marske. This represents over 95% of small

commercial inshore boats based within this area. There are no matters currently

unresolved between Forewind and RATFA in relation to commercial fisheries.

5.6.15 Through the preparation of the SoCG with inshore fisheries stakeholders, the key

outstanding concerns relate to the ability of fishing (trawling) to continue to operate

within the vicinity of the nearshore export cables during construction and operation

and not solely on an assumption that fishing vessels have other grounds to fish or

can continue to fish over buried or protected cables. With stakeholders expressing

that there currently exists significant uncertainty over whether this will be achieved



and the ability of trawling to continue over the export cables will depend on the

success of cable burial (including being able to maintain this burial) and the protection

measures used where burial is not feasible.

5.6.16 It is noted that inshore fisheries stakeholders also raised concerns as to the level of

impact cable installation or protection may have on nephrops. This is considered

under Fish and Shellfish Ecology.

5.7 Historic environment – offshore


5.7.1 Section 5.8 of EN-1 sets out how potential cultural heritage impacts should be

assessed and paragraph 2.6.139 of EN-3 describes how cultural heritage assets can

be affected by offshore wind farm development, both directly (through physical

damage) and indirectly (through changes to the physical environment). Furthermore,

paragraph 2.6.141 of EN-3 highlights the need to take into account results from any

geotechnical or geophysical surveys undertaken.

5.7.2 ES Chapter 18 (application ref 6.18) makes an assessment of the historic

environment within the intertidal and offshore areas. An explanation of the relevant

policy is provided in section 2.1 of ES Chapter 18 (application ref 6.18) and a

detailed breakdown of where the specific points from EN-1 and EN-3 are addressed

is set out in Table 1 Appendix A of ES Chapter 18 (application ref 6.18.1).

5.7.3 The principal mitigation tool is embedded mitigation in careful site selection –

avoiding areas of heritage value. This is secured through the route design, captured

within the Order limits (which avoids known assets or features including the Red

Howles site) and preservation in situ.

5.7.4 Where preservation in situ is not possible, appropriate excavation and recording or

targeted geoarchaeological investigations will be carried out with all archaeological

measures being underpinned by a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).

5.7.5 No significant residual adverse impacts are predicted in any project phase. As

impacts have been minimised throughout the development phase, and there are no

significant impacts arising from this topic, Forewind considers the development is in

compliance with the historic environment policies contained in EN-1 and EN-3.



English Heritage (RR No. 41)

EH note that full consideration should be given to the historic environment through the WSI when undertaking design activities and that any finds encountered during construction should be reported through the WSI.

ES Chapter 18 (application ref 6.18)

- guidance not to be confused with statutory instruments of primary policy.

Forewind have entered into a SoCG with English Heritage (F-EXL-CG-011 EH OF) with all matters agreed and no matters remaining unresolved. Clarification on the points raised by English Heritage in their relevant representation are in Appendix 1 of the SoCG.



EH note the targeted approach to data analysis given the volume of data. EH acknowledge the assessment and identification of various aspects of interest. HSC - they note the assessment of HSC is based on the pilot HSC project. Clarification is sought regarding how the Teesside Offshore Wind Farm should be dealt with within the assessment and the use of "current" within the assessment of HSC. EH note the assessment presented in

ES Chapter 20 (application ref 6.20). They also note the positive contribution to be made through the correct dissemination of information.

Tees Valley RIGS Group (TVRIGS) (RR No 40)

Tees Valley RIGS wishes to ensure the protection of the Red Howles site from potential damage caused by the landfall works. It is agreed that the landfall proposals do not directly impinge on the Red Howles site boundaries but note the need for continuing recognition of the desirability to protect the site if-and-when amendments are made to plans. Positive mitigation measures should be undertaken by Forewind to ensure accidental damage to the Red Howles site does not occur and propose enforcement of such measures. Tees Valley RIGS seeks commitment from Forewind that 'added value' actions will be entered into.

A SoCG has been agreed with Tees Valley RIGS Group (F-EXL-CG-058 Tees Valley RIGS OF) submitted at Deadline II.

In response to concerns raised by the Tees Valley RIGS Group, pre submission of the application, Forewind reduced the temporary works areas at the landfall to ensure accidental damage to the site does not occur. As there are no significant impacts predicted for the Red Howles site and the landfall proposals do not directly impinge on the site boundaries, Forewind believe that further mitigation is not required. Further details can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 3 of SoCG between Forewind and Tees Valley RIGS.

Tees Valley RIGS raised the possibility of ‘added value’ in their RR. Forewind are committed to adding value through the sharing of information relevant to the local geology, once publically available however, Forewind are not considering financial added value due to no significant impacts being identified. This remains an issue unresolved between both parties and



is outlined in Section 3.2 of SoCG.

5.8 Navigation and shipping


5.8.1 Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 16 (application ref 16.16) sets out how the assessment

criteria within EN-3 policies have been addressed within the chapter. In particular, to

show compliance with paragraph 2.6.153, the consultation carried out with the

navigation sector is summarised in Section 2.2 and Table 2.2. Section 8.16 of the

Consultation Report explains how the outcome of consultations has fed into the

project design; in particular Forewind has (prior to submission of the application)

removed curved layouts from the design envelope in response to comments from the

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the Royal Yachting Association (RYA), the

Chamber of Shipping, The Cruising Association and Trinity House Lighthouse

Services. In addition, various nationalities of fishing associations commented that

curved layouts could prove problematic for the continuation of fishing within the

project areas and these views were also taken into account in the decision to remove

curved layouts from the design envelope. The ‘layout rules’ are described in ES

Chapter 5 (application ref 6.5) and these principles are captured as draft DCO

requirement 7 and DML1&2 condition 5, which require the wind turbines to be

arranged in accordance with these layout parameters, with the final layout to be

approved by the MMO.

5.8.2 A Navigational Risk Assessment based upon recognised methodology was submitted

with the application (Appendix A ES Chapter 16) in order to inform the assessment

within the ES, in line with EN-3 paragraphs 2.6.156 and 2.6.157. The assessment

included collision risk modelling and a formal safety assessment for all phases of the

development as well as an assessment of cumulative effects.

5.8.3 In relation to safety zones (EN-3 paragraphs 2.6.158 and 2.6.159), the Safety Zone

Statement submitted with the application (application ref 7.2) clarifies that the

ultimate need for navigational safety measures will be defined based on the final

project design and in consultation with the relevant marine authorities. The

assessment did however include the known worst case parameters which are rolling

500 metre safety zones during the construction phase around active construction

works, and during the operational phase around the sites of any exceptional major

maintenance works. 500 metre zones are also proposed around manned platforms,

such as accommodation platforms for safety reasons.

5.8.4 The assessment concluded that no significant effects on shipping and navigation are

predicted which is summarised in Tables 12.1 to 12.3 of ES Chapter 16 (application

ref 6.16).

5.8.5 Mitigation is also proposed in DCO requirement 10, which requires an Emergency

Response Co-operation Plan (ERCoP) for construction, operation and

decommissioning, to be agreed in consultation with the MCA. Further minor

amendments have been made to requirement 10:

Replacing approval of the plan from the SoS to the MMO (in consultation with

the MCA); and



ErCOP shall include the identification of a point of contact for emergency

response.

These amendments are detailed in the DCO Change Log at Appendix B.

5.8.6 Further DCO requirements 11 to 15 set out the aids to navigation in accordance with

Trinity House requirements and specify the need for notices.



Cruising Association (RR No. NR6)

The Cruising Association are satisfied that views in relation to recreational sailing have been taken into account and will therefore not make further representations.

This is acknowledged by Forewind. Forewind has received confirmation that the Cruising Association do not wish to enter a SoCG. A SoCG has therefore not been produced.

EDF-ER (RR No. 16)

Objection to the name of the proposed offshore windfarms, and the use of Teesside.

EDF-ER have stated that a SoCG is not required with Forewind. A SoCG has therefore not been produced. Forewind has committed to renaming the projects should consent be granted. Dogger Bank Teesside A & B is the naming given to the projects through the consenting process so as to ensure that stakeholders are aware of the location of the offshore location (being the Dogger Bank zone) and onshore connection point (being Teesside). Post consent – pre construction/operation, the name of each project will be determined by the lead operator in consultation with other lead operators of Dogger Bank projects, The Crown Estate and relevant coastguard agencies such as MCA.




EDF-ER (RR No. 16)

Need clarification of the cable route and its impact on the export cable route of Teesside Offshore Wind Ltd's.

Forewind has undertaken a robust site selection process, which includes the selection of the landfall area and the offshore cable route, as part of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B EIA. During this process Forewind identified the presence of the EDF Teesside Offshore Wind Farm export cable corridor. Consequently Forewind selected a more southern landfall on the Teesside coastline located between Redcar and Marske-by-the-Sea. As a result the minimum distance between the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B export cable corridor and the EDF Teesside Offshore Wind Farm export cable corridor is 5.5km. Further details of the site selection process are described in ES Chapter 6 Assessment of Alternatives and its supporting appendices.

MMO (RR No. 12)

Shipping and navigation. MMO note the Moderate impact when considering all other projects together and the statement that the contribution of the Dogger Bank projects is limited. MMO request further justification regarding this statement and the strategic level work being undertaken to address this.

Paragraph 6.1.2 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG (F-EXL-CG-024 MMO OF) between Forewind and the MMO clarifies the points raised by MMO.

Royal Yachting Association (RR No. 4)

The RYA note the number of layout options considered within the ES, however, would have expected greater clarity on the layout at this stage and a clear indication of unobstructed lines of orientation. The RYA commend Forewind for developing its own Array Layout Rules however, the RYA are unconvinced that curved layouts are appropriate for Search and Rescue activities. The RYA note that the worst case layout is based on a regular straight line grid.

A SoCG has been agreed with RYA (F-EXL-CG-051 RYA OF) submitted at Deadline II. Forewind note that the option for curved arrays has been removed from the Rochdale envelope, as described within section 5.2 of Chapter 5 of the ES (REF 6.5), with only the option for curved boundaries remaining. This has been agreed with the RYA in a SoCG. A full response to the points raised in the RYA’s RR is provided in Appendix 2 to the SoCG between Forewind and the RYA.




UK Chamber of Shipping (RR No. 17)

Object to the name the projects on the basis that the current naming policy has the potential to increase risk during normal navigation operations and search and rescue activities due to the presence of the existing Teesside Offshore Wind Farm off Redcar. Welcome the applicant’s commitment to renaming the projects should consent be granted.

A SoCG has been agreed with UK Chamber of Shipping (F-EXL-CG-003 UK Chamber of Shipping OF) submitted at Deadline II. Forewind has committed to renaming the projects should consent be granted. Post consent – pre construction/operation, the name of each project will be determined by the lead operator in consultation with other lead operators of Dogger Bank projects, The Crown Estate and relevant health and safety agencies such as MCA. A full response to the point raised in the UK Chamber of Shipping RR is provided in Appendix 4 to the SoCG between Forewind and the UK Chamber of Shipping.

5.9 Oil, gas and other infrastructure and activities

Offshore


5.9.1 EN-3 recognises the importance of interactions with other Marine Users and Table

2.1 of ES Chapter 17 Other Marine Users (application ref 6.17) sets out how the

assessment and stakeholder engagement has met the criteria set out in EN-3.

5.9.2 Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 17 Other Marine Users (application ref 6.17), explains

how the requirements of EN-3 are addressed and Section 2.2 of this WR details the

status of any third party agreements with owners of other infrastructure.

5.9.3 Forewind has undertaken a thorough and on-going stakeholder engagement, as

described in EN-3 paragraphs 2.6.179-2.6.181 and in the Consultation Report






The Crown Estate (RR No. 1)

Registered an interest in the project. Forewind holds an Agreement for Lease from The Crown Estate for the area of seabed to be occupied by the project, and (subject to obtaining the necessary development consents) The Crown Estate will issue a lease to Forewind for construction of the project.

Forewind have been working in partnership with TCE as it brings forward the development of the Dogger Bank Zone. There are no outstanding points between Forewind and TCE. TCE consent to the wording within the draft DCO.

Cleveland Potash Ltd (RR No. 30)

Cleveland Potash Limited (CPL) are making these representations in order to safeguard and protect their rights, (as tenant of The Crown Estate), to freely mine potash and associated minerals from beneath the sea bed, east of Boulby, Saltburn Cleveland. The Application seeks to lay export cables on or within a part of that same seabed, in order to serve the project. (Addressed under Table 2.2)

Two commercial side agreements between each Bizco and Cleveland Potash Ltd are in final agreed forms. Those agreements contain an obligation on Cleveland Potash Ltd to withdraw any representations made regarding the Order.

Onshore

5.9.4 Onshore protection is afforded by way of third party agreements and Schedule 8

(Protective Provisions) of the draft DCO which contains a number of protective

provisions for the benefit of a number of statutory bodies. All of the provisions are

based upon recent precedents.

5.10 Physical environment – offshore


5.10.1 EN-3 recognises that changes to marine physical processes can indirectly influence

the degree of impact experienced by a range of receptors, for example increases in

sediment levels can lead to effects upon commercial fisheries. In addition, EN-1

states that new development should not normally be consented in areas of dynamic

shoreline and impacts on coastal processes must be managed to minimise effects.

5.10.2 ES Chapter 9 Marine Physical Processes (application ref 6.9) includes the

assessment of bathymetry and topography, physical processes (wave and tidal

regimes), sedimentary processes (sediment transport, erosion and deposition) and

geomorphology. Table 2.1 captures how and where each of the relevant assessment

criteria within EN-1 (paragraphs 5.5.6 to 5.5.9) and EN-3 (paragraphs 2.6.81, 2.6.113,

and 2.6.189 to 2.6.195) are included within the ES.

5.10.3 A comprehensive range of modelling and assessment activities were carried out, in

order to properly predict potential marine physical processes changes. Impacts

arising from changes to marine physical processes are addressed in the relevant ES

chapters (e.g. Chapter 10, Chapter 13 and Chapter 14 (application ref 6.10, 6.13



and 6.14), including assessment of impacts and identification of appropriate

mitigation measures.

5.10.4 As a result, Forewind concludes that the development proposal has fully considered

the impacts arising from changes to marine physical processes and has therefore

satisfied NPS requirements in this regard.

Relevant Representations


MMO (RR No. 12)

Coastal and physical processes Concerns include:- clarity is sought on the underlying geology, justification for use of existing wave data, construction durations stated, discrepancy in the durations for installation of the cofferdams is highlighted and clarity is sought, mud content of any drill arising’s, MMO do not agree that all the mud content would disperse and that a proportion will not disaggregate. This needs to be accounted for within the assessment and suggest monitoring as part of the normal suite of surveys to determine the fate of any mounds left, details should be provided regarding how the beach levels north and south of the cofferdams will be monitored, MMO requested that a more quantitative assessment be undertaken of the impacts of remedial cable protection along the export and inter array cables in terms of effects on bed load sediment transport.

Section 2 of Appendix 4 of the SoCG (F-EXL-CG-024 MMO OF) between Forewind and the MMO clarifies the points raised by MMO.


Marine Physical Processes NE require further detail regarding the sediment bypassing method to be employed when using cofferdams should the monitoring suggest bypassing is necessary. NE further require clarification regarding the cohesion of beach sediment and question whether this is based on geotechnical data. NE require further clarification regarding the assessment of transboundary impacts of cumulative operational impacts of sediment deposition and suspended sediment plumes and whether this is based on sampling locations.

Appendix 12 of the SoCG (F-EXL-CG-031 NE OF) between Forewind and the NE clarifies the points raised by NE on marine physical processes.




NE request a targeted approach to scour protection, leaving scour pits to reach equilibrium before deciding upon protection, but recognise this may not be possible from an engineering perspective.

North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

NEIFCA concerns relate to the inshore 6nm of the cable corridor. Considering proposed mitigation, the only remaining concern relates to sediment loading in the water column and potential impacts of deposition in sensitive areas (i.e. spawning grounds). Assurances have been made, by the developer, that this will cause minimal impact using best practice methodologies. Officers will now maintain a watching brief

There are no issues unresolved between Forewind and the NEIFCA regarding commercial fisheries or marine biodiversity.

5.11 Seascape and visual effects – offshore


5.11.1 Section 5.9 of EN-1 covers generic landscape and visual impacts. EN-3 includes

consideration of seascape as an additional requirement for offshore wind farm

applications.

5.11.2 In relation to seascape, visual impacts are considered in ES Chapter 20 Seascape

and Visual Character (application ref 6.20). NPS requirements, and where they are

addressed in the chapter, are described in Table 2.1 of that chapter.

5.11.3 ES Chapter 20 Seascape and Visual Character (application ref 6.20) assessed

the temporary effects of the development on seascape and visual receptors during

construction and during operation on recreational users. The ES concluded that

construction impacts are localised and temporary. Also, as no permanent features will

be visible from land during the operational phase the assessment concluded that, in

the absence of any land based receptors to be visually impacted by the development,

and the over-riding need for it to be conspicuous to shipping, no additional mitigation

is proposed during operation.

5.11.4 The ES identifies moderate impacts on the seascape character of the development

area are predicted, although within the context of the North Sea, these will be minor

adverse. The level of visual impact as a result of the presence of wind turbines within

areas up to 15-20km from the development area boundary will be moderate adverse

in clear weather conditions, affecting a small number of transient recreational

receptors. Beyond this, the visual impact will be minor adverse or negligible.



5.11.5 In accordance with paragraph 2.6.210 of EN-3, the final layout of the turbines will be

designed and approved in accordance with the layout rules described in ES Chapter

5 Project Description (application ref 6.5), and secured by DCO requirement 7 and

DML1&2 condition 5. These rules aim to minimise harm upon safety, engineering and

design parameters. In addition, pre-construction surveys will identify ecological

constraints to feed into the final layout, to take account of ecological effects. In

particular DML1&2 condition 9(3) and DML 3&4 condition 6(3) require a survey to

determine the location and extent of any benthic Annex 1 Habitat within the Order

limits.

5.11.6 The SoCG with Natural England agree that there are no outstanding concerns

regarding the seascape and visual character assessment and that the ES

appropriately assesses all relevant impacts.



English Heritage (RR No. 8)

EH note the assessment presented in ES Chapter 20 (application ref 6.20). They also note the positive contribution to be made through the correct dissemination of information.

A SoCG has been agreed with EH (F-EXL-CG-012 EH ON) submitted at Deadline II. Appendix 1 of SoCG between Forewind and EH provided in response to comments made by EH in their RR and includes further details on the assessment of the Historic Seascape Character.

5.12 Air quality – onshore


5.12.1 The assessment of air quality within ES Chapter 30 Air Quality (doc 6.30) complies

with the requirements specified in paragraph 5.2.7 of EN-1 through the assessment

of impacts of the onshore elements on air quality arising from the construction,

operation and decommissioning stages of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. The ES

chapter also considers potential air quality impacts, at identified onshore receptors,

from offshore activities within the identified offshore cable corridor, up to 2km from

landfall.

5.12.2 Onshore - construction activities associated with Dogger Bank Teesside A & B have

the potential to affect local air quality due to dust emissions generated by excavation

and construction earthworks along the cable route and converter stations; emissions

of NO2 and OM10 from NRMM and emissions from construction traffic. A

comprehensive range of mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 30 (doc 6.30).

These include standard best practice measures to mitigate dust emissions in

accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) which will be

outlined within a CEMP (secured through draft DCO requirement 26)..

5.12.3 As a result, no significant adverse impacts have been identified on air quality.

Forewind contends the proposal is in full accord with both local policy and NPS policy

requirements relating to air quality.





Public Health England (PHE) (RR No. 36)

Accepts the approach and methodology used to consider the impact of the development on human and public health, including possible chemical or environmental hazards which may arise from the development.

Forewind acknowledge PHE’s comments. Public health issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and PHE (F-EXL-CG-043-PHE ON V1) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.1. No matters of disagreement have been identified.

5.13 Biodiversity and geological conservation – onshore


5.13.1 Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 24 Geology (application ref 6.24) and ES Chapter 25

(application ref 6.25) and demonstrates how the requirements in EN-1 paragraphs

5.3.3 and 5.3.4 are met within the application documents. In line with paragraph 5.3.7

of EN-1 the development has avoided significant harm to biodiversity and geological

conservation interests given the mitigation measures proposed. In relation to

terrestrial designations which could be affected by the development, Teesmouth &

Cleveland Coast (RAMSAR and SPA) falls within the 5km buffer. ES Chapter 8

Designated Sites (application ref 6.8) concludes negligible impacts.

5.13.2 The onshore cable route is approximately 9km long (7km of HVDC and 2km HVAC).

The ES has provided a characterisation of the existing environment for terrestrial

ecology based on existing data, which has established that, using the worst-case

scenarios, there are minor adverse residual impacts to: Redcar and Saltburn Local

Wildlife Site, hedgerows, wintering birds, breeding birds, and bats during

construction, and negligible impacts to bats during operation.

5.13.3 These impacts are minimised as far as possible through embedded mitigation,

including the avoidance of all statutory designated sites, woodlands and ponds. An

integrated design approach to the landscaping of the converter stations site will also

extend to the detailed design of the general (re)planting schedules. Mature trees have

also been avoided, and throughout the iterative process, minor adjustments to the

cable route have been made for reasons of safeguarding ecological features.

5.13.4 Key additional mitigation includes maintaining a strict construction footprint, adhering

to standard construction practices and pollution prevention guidance, undertaking

construction outside sensitive times (such as breeding periods) where possible,

reinstating features to their baseline condition or better.

5.13.5 Table 12.1 ES Chapter 25 (application ref 6.25) notes that an ecological clerk of

works (ECW) will supervise the key stages of the works at the landfall and will provide

toolbox talks to contractors, supervise vegetation clearance prior to construction and

implement agreed pollution prevention protocols and Section 13 Appendix A

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Technical Report of the ES Chapter

21 (application ref. 6.21) notes that an ECW will monitor the implementation of

landscape mitigation during construction. The commitment for an ECW is secured in



draft DCO requirement 29 and Section 9.2 of the Outline CoCP (ref. 8.2) sets out

the content of the final code in relation to the role of ECW.

5.13.6 Chapter 25 (application ref 6.25) contains a comprehensive listing of all potential

impacts and proposed mitigation measures (Table 12.1 of ES Chapter 25

(application ref. 6.25)). The development of the cable route, including embedded

mitigation measures, is described in Chapter 6 (application ref 6.6).

5.13.7 No significant adverse terrestrial ecological residual impacts were identified on

protected species, designated sites or habitats as a result of Dogger Bank Teesside

A & B. Together with the terrestrial ecological enhancements proposed on the

converter stations site, the proposal is fully in accord with both local policy and NPS

requirements.



Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) (RR No. NR1)

BCT recommends that an ecological survey is carried out at the earliest possible date so that any considerations to bats can be included from the outset. Details on different factors to consider when as part of a development include; lighting, the removal of surrounding vegetation, noise and the changing of internal temperature.

NE approved the Ecological Scope of Works in February 2012. The surveys were implemented in accordance with the approved Scope of Works and survey areas were implemented during baseline data collection (detailed in Section 3 of ES Chapter 25 (application ref 6.25)). The bat surveys have been undertaken by suitably qualified and licensed ecologists and in accordance with BCT guidelines (detailed in Section 4.4 of ES Chapter 25 (application ref 6.25)). Minor adverse impacts are identified to bats during construction, and no impacts on bats are anticipated during the operational phase of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. Terrestrial Ecology issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and NE (F-EXL-CG-032a-NE ON V2) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.1.

Natural England (NE) (onshore) RR No. 38

NE has outstanding concerns regarding wintering birds (golden plover and lapwing) at the landfall site in the area known as Grundales Fields in relation to disturbance from onshore cable installation. Natural England welcomes further discussions with the Applicant on this

Forewind has undertaken pre-application consultation with NE throughout the development phase which has informed Forewind's decision making and information presented in the ES. Terrestrial Ecology issues are considered in the SoCG between




matter. Forewind and NE (F-EXL-CG-032a-NE ON V2) and Statement of Uncommon Ground (SoUG) (F-EXL-CG-032b-NE ON V1) submitted at Deadline II. Matters of specific agreement are detailed in Section 3 of the SoCG and matter of specific disagreement (wintering birds) is detailed in Section 3 of the SoUG. Forewind are currently in discussion with NE to reach an agreement on matter unresolved with respect to wintering birds at the landfall. Minutes of the meetings and email conversation NE’s response to the Forewind on 4 August 2014 are attached to the SoCG and SoUG submitted at Deadline II. Forewind’s Position Statement is presented in Appendix H to this WR.

Environment Agency (offshore) RR No. 31)

No objection and no specific comments on onshore aspects

The SoCG prepared between the EA and Forewind (F-EXL-CG-013-EA ON OFF V2) confirms in relation to geology, water resources and land quality the EA agree that appropriate legislation, planning policies and guidance relevant to the water resources, protection of groundwater, flood risk and waste management for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B have been listed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of Chapter 24 Geology, Water Resources and Land Quality of the ES (application ref. 6.24). The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been produced in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and associated Technical Guidance (published in March 2012) and is presented in Appendix B Flood Risk Assessment of Chapter 24 of the ES (application ref. 6.24.2).



Wintering Birds

5.13.8 NE has outstanding concerns regarding wintering birds at the landfall site in the area

known as Grundales Fields, as submitted within NE Relevant Representation.

Grundales Fields predominantly extend to Work Nos 5A and 5B and the coastal end

of Works No 6A and 6B. A SoCG between Forewind and NE (F-EXL-CG-032a-NE

ON), and a Statement of Uncommon Ground (SoUG) (F-EXL-CG-032b-NE ON) were

submitted at Deadline II, to highlight the specific areas of agreement and

disagreement.

5.13.9 As stated within ES Chapter 25 (application ref 6.25), golden plover and lapwing on

the arable fields at the landfall represent an important aspect of the ecology within the

study area for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. However when considering two

projects, Forewind have identified a minor adverse effect is anticipated on wintering

birds.

5.13.10 Forewind acknowledge the response received from NE regarding timing of

landfall works at the coastal fields, however maintain the position that the impacts

have been correctly identified and proportionate mitigation has been proposed.

Construction activities within the coastal fields and at the landfall location will be

avoided during the key wintering bird months of November and December. The

impacts to wintering birds at the landfall have been considered throughout the

remaining autumn/winter months (October, January, February and March) and a

combination of the mitigation measures which are listed in Table 6.4 of ES Chapter

25 (application ref 6.25) shall be implemented at various stages of the construction

period. These mitigation measures are secured through draft DCO Requirement 26

the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) and Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP). Further details on Forewind’s position in relation to

wintering birds are presented in Appendix H of the Written Representation.

5.13.11 Forewind is continuing to engage with NE, to discuss key issues with the aim

reaching a satisfactory agreement regarding mitigation during construction.

5.14 Civil and military aviation and defence


5.14.1 ES Chapter 19 (application ref 6.19) provides a characterisation of the existing

environment for military activities and civil aviation. In line with paragraphs 5.4.11 and

5.4.12 of EN-1 there has been extensive consultation throughout the pre-application

stages of the development with the relevant authorities, as described in section 8.19

of the Consultation Report and Table 2.2 of ES Chapter 19 (application ref 6.19).

5.14.2 More detail on the type of navigational and aviation lighting likely to be required is

provided in section 7.5 in ES Chapter 5 (application ref 6.5), although the specific

lighting requirements will be the focus of on-going consultation with appropriate

stakeholders post-consent. The proposal has been designed as far as possible within

the Rochdale Envelope approach to minimise adverse effects in line with paragraph

5.4.14 of EN-1 and draft DCO requirement 8 (aviation lighting) requires the

boundaries of projects to be illuminated in consultation with the Ministry of Defence.

5.14.3 As a result, after this mitigation only negligible impacts are predicted on the majority

of military activities and civil aviation, and SAR operations can take place safely as



long as revised procedures, taking account of the changes caused by the wind farm,

are followed. Therefore, there is no conflict with the criteria set out in paragraph

5.4.17 of EN-1.

5.14.4 The impact of navigational lighting upon seascape and visual character has been

assessed within ES Chapter 20 (application ref 6.20), which predicts some

moderate adverse change arising from the development as a whole (not solely

relating to lighting), but recognises that measures to reduce impacts of lighting on

transitory, sea-based visual receptors are not considered practical, or to be required,

in this context. Standard measures such as the use of directional up or down lighting

will be adopted where practicable.



NATS Ltd (RR No. 5)

NATS Ltd (the main air navigation service provider in the United Kingdom) does not anticipate an impact from the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B developments. As such it has no objections to the development.

NATS position is noted. Forewind does not consider a SoCG is required with NATS as their RR states that they have no objection to the application.

Civil Aviation Authority (RR No. 13)

CAA confirms that appropriate statutory aviation consultees have been identified. Consultation is ongoing and this should continue at every stage of planning to establish the official position of all aviation stakeholders regarding the proposed development. The report correctly identifies that the impact of wind turbines on aviation may include the potential impact that wind turbines have on the communications, navigation and surveillance infrastructure and also that turbines can cause a physical obstruction to aviation stakeholders which should be taken into account. Identify the need to inform the Defence Geographic Centre [email protected] of the locations, heights and lighting status of the turbines and meteorological masts, the estimated and actual dates of construction and the maximum height of any construction equipment to be used, prior to the start of construction, to allow for the appropriate inclusion on Aviation Charts, for safety purposes.

CAA position is noted. Forewind have attempted to engage with the CAA in order to reach agreement on a SoCG on several occasions; however there has been a lack of engagement on the CAAs behalf. A SoCG has therefore not been agreed. A log of consultation between Forewind and the CAA has been submitted at Deadline II (F-EXL-CG-024-CAA). Forewind note that a SoCG was agreed with the CAA for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck (attached to the CAA submission at Deadline II). As raised by the CAA in their RR, the need to inform the Defence Geographic Centre of the locations, heights and lighting status of infrastructure and construction dates has been agreed with the MoD in a SoCG (F-EXL-CG-027-MOD).



5.15 Historic environment – onshore


5.15.1 Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 27 Terrestrial Archaeology (application ref 6.27)

demonstrates how the requirements in EN-1 paragraphs 5.8.8 to 5.8.10 are met

within the application documents. The assessment within ES Chapter 27 Appendix

A Onshore Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (application ref 6.27.1) and

provides the ExA with the information necessary to assess the significance of

heritage assets including their settings, and Table 2.3 of ES Chapter 27 (application

ref. 6.27) provides a summary of consultation with key stakeholders, as required in


5.15.2 Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 27 Terrestrial Archaeology (application ref 6.27) details

the full range of NPS requirements and describes where in the chapter they are

addressed. Key consultees for this issue have been English Heritage and Redcar &

Cleveland Borough Council.

5.15.3 The impact assessment has identified seven significant impacts relating to non-

designated assets, and mitigation has been recommended in order to reduce the

level of residual impact. This mitigation includes measures such as archaeological

evaluation, excavation and reporting. Assuming the mitigation measures are properly

implemented the minor adverse residual impacts relate to Brickearth Pit and sites

identified from geophysical surveys (Area 8a, Area 11, Area 17, Area 3 and Area 5).

5.15.4 The minor adverse residual impacts also relate to Kirkleatham and Yearby

Conservation Areas, Old Hall farmhouse, Stable Range Byre barn, Turner’s Arms

Farmhouse, Ryehills Farmhouse, barn and wall and historic landscape (no specific

assets identified).

5.15.5 Consideration against Redcar & Cleveland Local Development Framework, in

particular Policy CS25 protection and enhancement of the built and historic

environment, DP9 Setting of a Conservation Area and DP11 Archaeological Sites

and Monuments is provided in ES Chapter 27 (application ref 6.27). As the ES

predicts no significant post-mitigation impacts on cultural heritage assets, Forewind

contends the proposal is fully in accordance with local policies.

5.15.6 The ES has concluded there will be no significant impacts to designated cultural

heritage assets arising from the construction, operation or decommissioning of

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B, and in accordance with the guidance in the NPPF, the

residual impacts indicate there will be no substantial harm to heritage assets as a

result of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B.

5.15.7 Draft DCO requirement 27 requires a WSI for onshore archaeology. Prior to any of

the onshore works commencing, a scheme must be submitted for that stage of works

(termed scheme specific WSI) which describes how the archaeological evaluation will

be carried out post-consent, including any mitigation measures. The wording of this

requirement complies with EN-1 by including an obligation to publish the analysis and

site records (paragraph 5.8.20), agree a WSI with the local planning authority

(paragraph 5.8.21) and to set out the procedures by which assets will be dealt with

during construction (paragraphs 5.8.23), i.e. preservation in situ by avoiding assets

where possible, and a programme of excavation and recording where this is not

possible. Section 3.1 of the SoCG between Forewind and EH (F-EXL-CG-012 EH



ON V3) submitted at Deadline II lists all matters of agreement related to the onshore

historic environment. No matters of disagreement have been identified.

5.15.8 Scheme Specific WSIs are dependent on final scheme design, the appointment of

construction contractor/s and provision of contractor method statements. All stages

of field work and reporting will be in accordance with IfA guidance and a WSI.



English Heritage (Onshore) (RR. No. 8)

The proposal would not harm (directly or indirectly) any designated heritage assets. EH would not object to the terrestrial aspects of the development taking place. Non-designated archaeological sites and remains would be affected by the proposed onshore works and EH suggests Forewind liaise with RCBC and the appointed archaeological advisor.

Forewind notes EH confirmation that the proposal would not harm (directly or indirectly) any designated heritage assets and EH would not object to the terrestrial aspects of the development. Onshore historic environment issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and EH (F-EXL-CG-012-EH) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.1. No matters of disagreement have been identified. RCBC appointed archaeological advisors from North East Archaeological Research Ltd who have been consulted with during the pre-application process, a record of this consultation can be found in Section 2.3 of ES Chapter 27 (application ref 6.27) and also within Appendix A ES Chapter 27 (application ref 6.27.1). Onshore historic environment issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and RCBC (F-EXL-CG-044-RCBC) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.10. No matters of disagreement have been identified.

5.16 Landscape and visual – onshore


5.16.1 ES Chapter 21 Landscape and Visual Impact (application ref 6.21) addresses the

onshore landscape and visual effects predicted to arise from the development. Table

2.1 of ES Chapter 21 (application ref 6.21) sets out how the assessment principles

in EN-1 have been taken account of within the application documents. EN-1

recognises that all proposed energy infrastructure is likely to have landscape and

visual effects, so residual significant effects should be weighed in the planning

balance and are not in themselves determinative.



5.16.2 The bulk of onshore infrastructure will be buried, with the exception of the converter

stations; hence, the majority of adverse impacts occur during the construction phase

and are temporary in nature.


particular Policy CS25 protection and enhancement of the built and historic

environment and DP2 Location of Development and emerging draft local plan policy

Policy N 1 Landscape is provided in ES Chapter 21 (application ref 6.21).

5.16.4 Within the vicinity of the converter stations site, moderate adverse residual impacts

are predicated on views available to residential receptors within the northeast of

Lazenby, and negligible impacts on all other visual receptors. Paragraph 5.9.8 of EN-

1 recognises that the extent of the effects will depend on the existing character of the

local landscape, its current quality, how highly it is valued and its capacity to

accommodate change. Locating the converter stations site within the industrial

environment of the Wilton Complex and by making good use of existing screening

afforded by bunds along with the provision of further landscaping, Forewind considers

compliant with relevant policy.

5.16.5 Requirement 20 and 21 of the draft DCO as submitted requires landscaping to be

provided to mitigate against the visual impact of the onshore converter stations.

Requirement 20 requires a written landscaping scheme and associated work

programme to be prepared prior to the commencement of onshore works. The

written landscaping scheme has to be approved by the relevant planning authority

(RCBC). Each landscaping scheme must include details of all proposed hard and

soft landscaping works.



RCBC (RR No. 22)

RCBC have been working with Forewind during the pre-application discussions as part of the application. RCBC considers to be important locally (applicable to Landscape and visual): - Impact on landscape/ecology during the construction phase of development and the remediation strategy for the landscape. - The siting of the converter stations and the associated impacts from these including noise generation and visual appearance It is considered through the submission of the LIR and the SOCG, RCBC's view will be submitted as part of the application process

Landscape and visual issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and RCBC (F-EXL-CG-044-RCBC) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.4. No matters of disagreement have been identified. Forewind acknowledge RCBC’s comment and the Written Landscaping Scheme and associated work programme will be prepared and agreed with RCBC prior to the commencement of onshore works.



5.17 Land use – onshore


5.17.1 The assessment criteria set out in paragraphs 5.10.5 to 5.10.10 of EN-1 are

addressed in Table 1 of ES Chapter 26 Land Use and Agriculture (application ref

6.26), which assesses the impact of the development on the baseline land use and

agricultural environment. The main impacts identified are during the construction

phase for a temporary period.

5.17.2 The residual impacts on land and soil resources, land drainage, the biological

environment and existing Environmental Stewardship Agreements were assessed as

minor adverse or below. Following the completion of the construction stage the

majority of the areas will be reinstated, where possible, to their former condition and

land use.

5.17.3 It is noted that summary of ES Chapter 26 Land Use and Agriculture (application

ref 6.26) states there is moderate impact in relation to soil degradation. This main

body of ES Chapter 26 (principally table 6.4) concludes that impacts are minor

adverse.

5.17.4 The exception to this is the land at the converter stations site and areas associated

with jointing pits, both of which are retained for operational use. Land at the Wilton

Complex is however designed for industrial development through its local plan.

5.17.5 Dogger Bank Teesside A & B has been designed to minimise the loss of agricultural

land during operation through burying the export cables to a depth to enable farming

to continue to take place. During operation the only minor adverse residual impacts

identified are therefore as a result of land taken out of existing use at the converter

stations site restriction on land use practices and for land drainage. The loss of land

has been avoided to the best extent possible, whilst still allowing the proposal to

proceed; therefore there is not considered to be any conflict with local policies, and

consequently paragraph 5.10.13 of EN-1.

5.17.6 The justification of the converter stations sites is set out in more detail in Appendix C

Onshore Study Area Characterisation of ES Chapter 6 (application ref 6.6.3) and

supporting Appendix E Onshore Converter Station Sites Identification and

Characterisation (application ref 6.6.5), Appendix F Identification of a Preferred

Converter Station Site: Lackenby Connection of (application ref 6.6.6) and

Appendix G Onshore Site Selection: Part 3 (application ref 6.6.6).





RCBC (RR No. 22)

RCBC have been working with Forewind during the pre-application discussions as part of the application. The main considerations that the Council considers to be important locally (applicable to land use and agricultural environment) include: - Impact on landscape/ecology during the construction phase of development and the remediation strategy for the landscape. - The siting of the converter stations and the associated impacts from these including noise generation and visual appearance It is considered through the submission of the LIR and the SOCG, RCBC's view will be submitted as part of the application process.

Land use and agricultural environment are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and RCBC (F-EXL-CG-044-RCBC) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.9. No matters of disagreement have been identified.

5.18 Noise – onshore


5.18.1 The assessment of onshore noise is set out in ES Chapter 29 Noise and Vibration

(application ref 6.29), and Table 2.1 of this chapter identifies how the assessment

criteria in EN-1 are met throughout the ES. The project has been designed to

minimise the noise levels by locating the converter stations site and cable route away

from residential areas where practicable, meeting the requirement of paragraph

5.11.8 of EN-1.

5.18.2 There are potential minor residual noise and vibration impacts identified as a result of

on-site construction noise and equipment operation (during the operational phase).

5.18.3 Noise impacts during operational phase are principally controlled through requirement

28 of the draft DCO which restricts noise emanating from the operation onshore

converter stations (including transformers, cooling fans, switch gear and power lines)

to no more than 42dB at any residential receptor or 46 dB at any non-residential

receptor.

5.18.4 Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 6 and Section 7 of

ES Chapter 29 will ensure there are no significant residual impacts related to noise

and vibration. As a result, the development proposals are fully in accordance with the

requirements of NPS policy requirements in this area.





RCBC (RR No. 22)

RCBC have been working with Forewind during the pre-application discussions as part of the application. The main considerations that the Council considers to be important locally (applicable to noise) include the impacts from noise and vibration during construction and from the resulting converter stations. It is considered through the submission of the LIR and the SOCG, RCBC's view will be submitted as part of the application process.

Noise and vibration issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and RCBC (F-EXL-CG-044-RCBC) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.12. In addition the final CoCP will be developed by the future developers, operators and principle construction contractor of each project and agreed in advance of any works with RCBC.

5.19 Socio-economic

5.19.1 The need to address socio-economic impacts (beneficial and adverse) is identified in

EN-1. In particular, EN-1 refers to work and training opportunities arising from the

project, impacts on local services, indirect impacts on areas such as tourism and the

cumulative impacts with other projects. Table 2.1 in ES Chapter 22 Socio-

economics (application ref 6.22), explains where in the chapter the specific

requirements of EN-1 are addressed. Impacts on other activities are addressed in

separate chapters – ES Chapter 15 (application ref 6.15), ES Chapter 23 Tourism

& Recreation (application ref 6.23) and ES Chapter 26 Land Use & Agriculture


5.19.2 ES Chapter 22 (application ref 6.22) draws on a range of public domain sources to

produce estimates of potential capital spend and resultant economic impacts. Given

the scale of the development, potential expenditure is significant, leading to beneficial

socio-economic benefits. As full details of equipment/services source are not yet

available, the estimates are split into regional, national and international elements.


particular Policy CS8 Scale and Location of New Employment Development and

CS11 Innovation and New Technologies and wider objectives of draft emerging Local

Plan Outcome 1 ‘Grow our economy and create more jobs’ is provided ES Chapter

22 (application ref 6.22).

5.19.4 ES Chapter 22 identifies that for a single project (i.e. either Dogger Bank Teesside A

or B) an estimated 396 FTE direct and indirect jobs are expected to be created during

the operation. For both projects, this increases to 792 FTE direct and indirect jobs.

5.19.5 The wider benefits of developing the Dogger Bank Zone (focused on the first six

projects) are assessed in supporting Economic Benefits Study. – referenced under

Section 4.4.

5.19.6 The key findings from the ES, RRs and Zone wide Economic Benefits Study is that

Teesside is well placed to take advantage of the development activity associated with

offshore wind activity.





Hartlepool Borough Council (RR No. NR7)

Have no objections to the proposals. HBC supports the development of offshore wind sector and in particularly warmly welcomes the development at Dogger Bank. The potential development opportunities associated with renewable energy are highly significant and are seen as a key economic driver to develop a sustainable and successful economy.

Forewind welcomes the support for the project and the proactive measures they are taking to help accommodate and facilitate the growth of the industry.

RCBC (RR No. 22)

RCBC have been working with Forewind during the pre-application discussions as part of the application. The main considerations that the Council considers to be important locally (applicable to socio-economic) include: - The socio-economic benefits from the development including supply chain benefits and local labour. It is considered through the submission of the LIR and the SOCG, RCBC's view will be submitted as part of the application process.

Socio-economic issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and RCBC (F-EXL-CG-044-RCBC) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.5. No matters of disagreement have been identified. The opportunity this application presents to supporting local supply chain and long term skilled employment is detailed in the findings presented in the Chapter 22 (application ref 6.22) and Economic Benefits Study provided at Appendix G.

UK Trade and Industry (RR No. 14)

UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) support the application. Sighting: UKTI formed Offshore Wind Investment Organisation (OWIO) Government’s Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy (August 2013). RenewableUK Report (September 2013). In the context of the relevant National Policy Statements and the UK Renewable Energy Strategy, UKTI believe that this application has significant renewable energy generation, sustainable development and socio-economic development benefits, which should outweigh any adverse impacts. It will also help deliver investment and associated jobs into the UK supply chain and economy in line with the Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy.

Forewind welcomes the support for the project and the proactive measures UKTI are taking to attract inward investment and support UK based suppliers. Forewind is of the understanding that this is the first such project to gain support from UKTI. Recognising the scale and opportunity that these projects will play to attracting investment and supporting a clear and sustainable project pipeline.



NEPIC (RR No. 18)

The development as offers a new source of low carbon energy potentially at low marginal cost which can be integrated into the industrial complex. This will provide benefits in terms of improved competitiveness and resulting wealth and job creation for the Tees valley and the UK.

Forewind welcomes the support for the project from NEPIC and highlighting the positive impact that this project will have for the North East and established manufacturing base within Teesside. The support from NEPIC assists in supporting the findings of ES Chapter 22 Socio Economic (application ref 6.22) and Economic Benefits Study provided at Appendix G.

5.20 Tourism and recreation

5.20.1 EN-1 emphasises the need to address the impacts of the development on tourism

and recreation. Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 23 (application ref 6.23), describes the

detailed requirements of EN-1 and where in the chapter these are addressed.

Onshore

5.20.2 The onshore assessment focusses on impacts on sensitive tourist destinations

(including North York Moors National Park, museums, other attractions, towns and

villages and historic sites) and recreation receptors (including national cycle

networks, proposed English Coast Path, and other receptors including Public Rights

of Way (PRoW)).


particular Policy CS1 Securing a Better Quality of Life, CS23 Green Infrastructure,

DP2, Location of Development, DP8 Heritage Coast is provided, DP13 Protecting

Open Space is considered in ES Chapter 23 (application ref 6.23).

5.20.4 The ES establishes that there are potential minor adverse residual impacts

associated with disruption and reduced amenity to local tourist attractions, towns,

villages or recreational access points such as the National Cycle Trail, PRoWs and

the beach at the landfall location during construction.

5.20.5 These are all localised and temporary impacts which will be managed through a

Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) secured in the DCO through requirement 26,

which will be agreed with RCBC post consent/pre-construction of onshore works.

5.20.6 In relation to PRoW, Schedule 3 and Article 13 of the DCO include the powers to

temporarily stop up PRoW during the construction phase, for safety reasons.

Offshore

5.20.7 Minor adverse residual impacts have been identified for offshore tourism and

recreation receptors in inshore and coastal areas (diving and watersport, and

recreational angling). Impacts are reduced to negligible further offshore, reflecting

the lower levels of activity in these areas.

5.20.8 Impacts on sailing are addressed in ES Chapter 16 (application ref 6.16). No

significant offshore impacts are predicted during any development phase. Given the

temporary nature of most of the impacts predicted, there is no conflict with local policy

and this proposal is fully in accord with relevant NPS requirements.





Public Health England (PHE) (RR No. 36)

Accepts the approach and methodology used to consider the impact of the development on human and public health, including possible chemical or environmental hazards which may arise from the development. Seeks confirmation/clarification that the EMF Health Impact Assessment presented in Appendix C ES Chapter 5 (application ref 6.5.3) correctly refers to AC and DC sources, voltage quoted, electric field reference levels, source of the DC magnetic field values predicted for 400 kV HVDC cables and guideline limit values for static magnetic fields, which are provided in ICNIRP Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Static Magnetic Fields

Health Physics 96(4):504‐514; 2009.

The Appendix C Health Impact Review of Chapter 5 of the ES (application ref. 6.5.3) was updated and final version agreed with the PHE. Appendix 1 to the SoCG between Forewind and PHE (F-EXL-CG-043-PHE) submitted at Deadline II includes the updated Health Impact Report. No matters of disagreement have been identified. In addition tourism and recreation issues are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and RCBC (F-EXL-CG-044-RCBC) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.6. No matters of disagreement have been identified.


The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposed development. All previous issues in relation to marine ecology and bathing waters have been addressed within the final application documents.

Re. Bathing waters, the EAs support, by way of absence of any objections, is welcome. It has been agreed with EA that in the case of works within the intertidal zone the area will be reinstated to its former condition. The potential works at the beach and temporary closures will be discussed further with the EA in the pre-construction stage. The final detailed mitigation methodologies will be outlined in EMMP and suitable pollution prevention methods will be detailed in the Marine Pollution Contingency Plan. The final form and scope of the EMMP will be discussed with the relevant authorities including the EA.

North Yorkshire County Council (RR No. 2/29)

NYCC is satisfied with the documentation and its contents and has no further comments to make in conjunction with the application. This position is as per its response to the final pre-application consultation dated.

NYCC position is noted. Forewind does not consider a SoCG is required with NYCC as their RR states that they have no objection to the application.

Michael John O'Carroll

Concerns regarding environmental and health impacts. It is not always

The response is noted.




(RR No. 10)

sufficient to ensure minimal compliance with national policy, especially where there may be options available which would reduce impacts with little cost or impediment. Also concerned about the potential transmission implications of this substantial build up of capacity in Teesside, mainly destined for the south of England, following the issues in the 1990s with National Grid's second North Yorkshire 400 kV line.

All onshore and offshore works and supporting apparatus will be compliant with relevant environmental, health and safety standards applicable at the time on installation. The transmission connection points for the proposed works are agreed with National Grid Electricity Transmission plc, operators of the national transmission network.

5.21 Traffic and transport


5.21.1 Table 2.1 of ES Chapter 28 Traffic and Access (application ref 6.28) describes

relevant EN-1 requirements relating to traffic and transport, and identifies in the

chapter where they are addressed. The ES assessment concludes that the residual

impacts of the proposed development are negligible, with the exception of the

predicted impact on highways safety assessed as minor adverse.

5.21.2 The Traffic and Access Strategy and associated control and enforcement measures

would be implemented through a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and

Construction Travel Plan (CTP) which are proposed within draft DCO requirement 30

which requires:

No stage of the onshore works commencing until written details of a

Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Construction Travel Plan

(CTP) to be used for the management of construction traffic has been submitted

to and approved in writing by the relevant planning authority and the Highways

Agency.

The CTMP and CTP shall include details (including agreed routes) for abnormal

indivisible loads (AIL).

Any drilling works under highways shall be carried out in accordance with

Highway Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

5.21.3 Additionally, a CoCP is required and the outline Code submitted with the application

(application ref 8.2) makes a commitment to produce a CTMP and CTP to manage

the arrival and departure of staff and encourage sustainable transport.

5.21.4 This strategy is in accordance with concerns raised by the Highways Authority (HA)

and RCBC and is considered sufficient to manage the impact on the transport

infrastructure.

5.21.5 This position is reflected in the RRs received relating to traffic and transport.





The Highways Agency (RR No. 7)

Chapter 28 (application ref 6.28) has considered all issues discussed during Scoping. The impacts are not considered material and there are no capacity issues. HA have no safety issues on the SRN. Routes A1 or A2 are HA preferred routes. HA are content with the findings of the Traffic Assessment and recommend conditions be attached:

- HDD drilling is undertaken in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges(DMRB) guidance (in full consultation with the HA); and

- HA is fully involved in the CTMP and CTP process, specifically regarding abnormal load routes and potential cumulative impacts with York Potash Project.

Forewind has entered into a SoCG with the HA (F-EXL-CG-019-HA). Matters of specific agreement in relation to traffic and access are listed in Section 3.1. No matters of disagreement have been identified. Forewind will consult with the HA to ensure their involvement and agreement in the CTMP and CTP process. Requirement 30 of the draft DCO as submitted makes provision for these requirements. No stage of the onshore works commencing until written details of a CTMP and CTP to be used for the management of construction traffic has been submitted to and approved in writing by the relevant planning authority and the HA. The CTMP and CTP shall include details (including agreed routes) for abnormal indivisible loads (AIL). Any drilling works under highways shall be carried out in accordance with Highway Agency’s DMRB.

RCBC (RR No. 22)

RCBC have been working with Forewind during the pre-application discussions as part of the application. The main considerations that the Council considers to be important locally (applicable to traffic and transport) include:

- Highway implications during the construction phase of development including any temporary road closures.

It is considered through the submission of the LIR and the SOCG, RCBC's view will be submitted as part of the application process.

Traffic and transport are considered in the SoCG between Forewind and RCBC (F-EXL-CG-044-RCBC) submitted at Deadline II, and matters of agreement are detailed in Section 3.11. No matters of disagreement have been identified. No stage of the onshore works commencing until written details of a CTMP and CTP to be used for the management of construction traffic has been submitted to and approved in writing by the relevant planning authority and the Highways Agency.

5.21.6 Forewind therefore concludes that no significant adverse traffic impacts are predicted

in any development phase and as a result Forewind considers the proposal is fully in



accord with local policy and paragraphs 5.13.6 and 5.13.7 of EN-1 of NPS policy

requirements.

5.22 Waste management


5.22.1 To address the criteria in paragraphs 5.14.6 and 5.14.7 of EN-1, a draft Site Waste

Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared and is included as Appendix C Site

Waste Management Plan Report of Chapter 24 (application ref 6.24.3). This sets

out the principles by which waste will be minimised and managed. The CoCP

secured by draft DCO requirement 29 explicitly references sustainable waste

management measures, and section 6 of the Outline Code (application ref 8.2)

confirms the final CoCP will be based upon the draft SWMP. This conforms to





No objection and no specific comments on onshore aspects.

The SoCG prepared between Forewind and the EA (F-EXL-CG-013-EA ON OFF) submitted at Deadline II confirms that the SWMP provided at Appendix C of Chapter 24 (application ref. 6.24.3) adheres to the requirements of the SWMP Regulations 2008. The provision of the SWMP accords with paragraphs 5.14.6 of NPS EN-1. These Regulations were repealed in December 2013, which removed the requirement to produce a SWMP, but the regulations themselves still represent a robust approach to preparing a SWMP. It is noted that additional Protective Provisions have also been included within the Draft DCO, refer to the DCO Change Log at Appendix B.

5.23 Flood risk and water quality


5.23.1 Table 2.1 within ES Chapter 24 (application ref 6.24) explains how the assessment

meets the requirements in paragraphs 5.15.2 and 5.15.3 in relation to water quality

and resources. In line with paragraph 5.15.6 of EN-1 a Water Framework Directive

compliance report is provided as Appendix E Water Framework Directive

Compliance Assessment of Chapter 24 (application ref 6.24.5), which concludes

there is unlikely to be any impact upon the status of surface water bodies arising from

the proposed works. DCO requirement 26 sets out the need for a CoCP to be

submitted and implemented, and section 8 of the Outline Code submitted with the



application (application ref 8.2) describes the specific mitigation measures relating

to water management and pollution control which are stated within in the ES.

5.23.2 A FRA is provided in Appendix B ES Chapter 24 Flood Risk Assessment

(application ref 6.24.3), which accords with paragraphs 5.7.4 and 5.7.5 of EN-1. The

FRA confirms flood risk issues at the converter stations site have been assessed for

both flood risk to the site and also any potential flood risk issues that their

construction could cause.

5.23.3 The FRA notes:

Consultation has been carried out with the EA, RCBC and Northumbrian Water;

The converter stations site is within Flood Zone 1 demonstrating it is not at risk

from fluvial sources;

Solutions are proposed within the design to reduce the rate of surface water

runoff from the converter stations site; and

The enabling works at the existing NGET substation at Lackenby are to be

carried out within the existing site which is entirely within Flood Zone 1.

5.23.4 Further, the cable route between the landfall and the site of the converter stations site

has also been assessed for flood risk only during construction. Once operational it will

be underground.

5.23.5 There are no significant flood risk issues identified with the associated watercourse

crossings as the location of the cable route was selected to avoid developed areas

where possible. As the cable route generally passes through agricultural land, it is

generally rural local context and so watercourse crossings do not coincide with built

up areas.

5.23.6 The FRA concludes, that based on the information gathered and the proposed

mitigation measures, in line with the technical guidance provided by the NPPF, it is

considered that the construction of converter stations on the site are appropriate in

terms of flood risk and, further, meet key consultees’ requirements.





Environment Agency (onshore) RR No. 31)

No objection and no specific comments on onshore aspects

A SoCG has prepared between Forewind and the EA (onshore and offshore) (F-EXL-CG-013-EA ON OFF). The FRA presented in Appendix B Chapter 24 (application ref. 6.24.2) has been produced in accordance with the NPPF and associated Technical Guidance (published in March 2012) and methodology for FRA and associated flood modelling was agreed between the EA, RCBC and Forewind. The provision of the FRA accords with paragraphs 5.7.4 and 5.7.5 of NPS EN-1. A WFD assessment has been undertaken and is detailed in Appendix E Chapter 24 (application ref. 6.24.5) there will be no deterioration in the status of the water bodies considered within the assessment. The scheme is compliant with the requirements of the WFD. The WFD assessment accords with paragraphs 5.15.2 of NPS EN-1. The calculated Greenfield discharge rate of 16 l/s was agreed with the EA as an acceptable level. Requirement 24 of the draft DCO suitably makes provision for surface and foul water drainage. It is noted that additional Protective Provisions have also been included within the Draft DCO, refer to the DCO Change Log at Appendix B.

5.24 Cumulative impact assessment

5.24.1 Within each chapter of the ES a robust justification is provided for the projects

included within the cumulative assessment with a summary of the results provided in

Chapter 33 of the ES.

5.24.2 The offshore assessment is based upon the principles set out in the cumulative

impact assessment (CIA) strategy document for the offshore elements of the scheme,

which are provided within Appendix A Forewind Cumulative Impact Assessment

Strategy – Offshore of Chapter 4 (application ref 6.4.1). This was produced by

Forewind for consultation purposes prior to submission, in order to gain agreement

and consensus on the projects to be included within the CIA. The onshore



assessment is set out in Chapter 33 Cumulative Impact Assessment of the ES

(application ref. 6.33).


5.24.3 Some RRs specifically referred to cumulative assessment. Where these were specific

to one topic, these are captured within the topic specific sections; however more

general responses, or those related to more than one topic, are set out in the table

below.


East Anglia Offshore Wind Limited (RR No. 15)

Like the opportunity to comment on any issues which could potentially impact on the East Anglia Offshore Wind Projects within Zone 5 of the Round 3 programme. This may include cumulative and in-combination impacts.

Forewind notes East Anglia Offshore Wind Limited interest in the project. Forewind notes that a SoCG is not being progressed with East Anglia Offshore Wind Limited as Forewind does not consider a SoCG is required at this time. This position can be reviewed following receipt of any WR which objects to the application or matters are identified through the examination which affects cumulative and in-combination assessment and effects through the ES or HRA.

MMO (RR No. 12)

Cumulative Impact Assessment MMO reiterate the advice given in the Section 42 pre application consultation that Chapter 33 should list all the plans and projects screened into the CIA, they state it is important that not only projects consented or being determined but also reasonably foreseeable projects are included and robust rationale for exclusion of projects is provided. In addition, MMO state that the National Grid Yorkshire and Humber Carbon Capture and Storage Cross Country pipeline be included within the CIA or that further justification is provided for its exclusion. MMO do not accept its exclusion based on distance and spatial extent as works overlap with the Creyke Beck export cable and the Hornsea OWF Zone.

Forewind has entered into a SoCG with the MMO (F-EXL-CG-024 MMO OF). Section 4 of the SoCG details matters agreed regarding cumulative, in combination and inter-related effects. The SoCG confirms that it is agreed that all relevant offshore wind farm projects have been included in the cumulative impact assessments. Further clarified by Forewind’s point by point response to MMOs Section 42 consultation response (Appendix 2) to the SoCG. Following discussions with the MMO, it is also agreed that National Grids Yorkshire and Humber Carbon Capture and Storage Cross Country Pipeline project does not need to be included within the cumulative assessment due to the distance from the project and no effect – receptor interaction.

Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd

Promoters of Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project One (Project One) and Project Two.

Forewind welcomes Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd support for the application in so far as it will provide



(RR No. 20)

In principle, the Hornsea Projects are supportive of the Dogger Bank Teesside application in so far as it will provide an important contribution to help meet the government's commitment on renewable energy. Notwithstanding this, specific areas where the Hornsea Projects may consider making representations on this application are in relation to the cumulative and in-combination assessment and effects which include Hornsea, both in the environmental assessment and the Habitats Regulations Assessment. In particular this could relate to ornithology, marine mammals, shipping and navigation, although other topics may also be relevant. The Hornsea Projects have not undertaken a detailed review of the Dogger Bank Teesside application at this stage and therefore reserves its rights to raise further and more detailed points within any WRs and throughout the examination process.

an important contribution to help meet the government's commitment on renewable energy. Forewind notes that a SoCG is not being progressed with Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd (or other Hornsea partners) as Forewind does not consider a SoCG is required at this time. This position can be reviewed following receipt of any WR which objects to the application or matters are identified through the examination which affects cumulative and in-combination assessment and effects through the ES or HRA.



6 Habitats Regulations Assessment

6.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment

6.1.1 The application documents include a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Report

(application ref 5.2), including an Information for Appropriate Assessment Report

(IfAA), as required by Regulation 5(2)(g) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications:

Prescribed Forms And Procedures) Regulations 2009) and in accordance with the

assessment principles in EN-1. In preparing this report, Forewind has also been

mindful of the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 10 ‘Habitats Regulations

Assessment’ and has submitted screening and integrity matrices with the application

documents in line with this advice.

6.1.2 In accordance with the Rule 8 letter, Forewind will submit revised screening and

integrity matrices at Deadline IV.




Natural England raised specific concerns over three Special Protection Areas (SPAs):

Flamborough and Filey Coast pSPA;

Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA and

Farne Islands SPA. The majority of concerns relating to these SPAs are linked to those listed in section 5.5 of this document pertaining to birds. In addition, Natural England raised concerns regarding the use of appropriate recovery (‘f’) factors in the population modelling for these protected sites, and the methodology used to apportion impacts to these sites.

A SoCG has been agreed with NE (F-EXL-CG-031 NE OF) submitted at Deadline II. Forewind has agreed to update the apportioning methodology for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B to bring it up to date with agreements made with Natural England during the examination of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, as noted in the relevant representation. These methodologies have been supplied as Appendices 5-7 of the SoCG between Forewind and Natural England. Concerns regarding the use of an appropriate ‘f’ factor have been responded to in Appendix 2 of the SoCG between Forewind and Natural England.





Natural England noted that their advice on the Dogger Bank SCI mirrors its position with regard to Dogger Bank Creyke Beck; at a project alone level, subject to successful decommissioning, Natural England can conclude no AEOI; in-combination with other plans and projects excluding fishing activities lies within the contentious range for previous decisions and other considerations such as the ecological function should be tested as well as the habitat loss itself; in-combination with other plans and projects including fishing activities it cannot conclude no AEOI but it acknowledges the overwhelming contribution that the fishing activities have to this effect. Natural England also notes that it is undertaking further discussions with Forewind to see how this advice applies to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and to evaluate the additional in-combination impacts of Dogger Bank Teesside C&D.

A SoCG has been agreed with NE (F-EXL-CG-031 NE OF) submitted at Deadline II. Forewind considers that fishing activities do not qualify under the Habitats Regulations and maintains confidence in its assessment, which includes assessment of ecological function of the SCI, and the conclusions of no AEOI. Further detail on Forewind’s position can be found in its response to Question 2.22 of ExQ1, submitted at Deadline III.



7 Conclusions

7.1 Conclusion 7.1.1 This document provides an overview of the potential impacts and mitigation

associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of Dogger Bank

Teesside A & B offshore wind farm. The mitigation proposed in the ES has either

been embedded into the design, for example selection of project boundaries, wind

farm array layout rules, cable route selection and location and design of the converter

stations site; or through requirements within the DCO, for example a CoCP. As noted

throughout this document and within the SoCGs submitted on 28th August 2014, in

most cases it is agreed with stakeholders that the draft DCO adequately secures the

mitigation for the development.

7.1.2 As stated in Section 4, the primary policy documents against which this application

should be assessed are the NPS EN-1 and EN-3; therefore to assist the decision-

maker this document makes reference to compliance with the relevant policies.

7.1.3 The relevant NPSs make clear the urgent need for new energy infrastructure and

maintain that substantial weight should be given to this issue when considering

applications. As demonstrated throughout this document, the development proposal

is in accordance with NPS requirements and no other policies indicate that consent

should be refused. As such, Forewind contends that development consent should be

granted subject to the requirements set out in the DCO.

Forewind Written Representation - Planning … · Forewind Written Representation ... light...

Documents

Transcript of Forewind Written Representation - Planning … · Forewind Written Representation ... light...