OFFSHORE WIND CAPITAL

GRANTS SCHEME

North Hoyle Offshore Wind Farm 3rd Annual Report

JULY 2006 – JUNE 2007

URN NUMBER: 08/P47

Capital Grant Scheme for the North HoyleOffshore Wind FarmAnnual Report: July 2006 –June 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Built in 2003, North Hoyle was the UK’s first major offshore wind farm and represents a major milestone in the UK’s drive towards cleaner sources of power.

The project is located 4-5 miles off the North Wales coast between Rhyland Prestatyn and comprises 30 Vestas V80 2MW wind turbines.

The majority of the offshore construction work at North Hoyle wascarried out during 2003. The work was carried out by The North HoyleConsortium, a consortium of two UK companies –Vestas Celtic WindLtd and Mayflower Energy Ltd.

Total overall final project cost totalled £81m (prior to grant) whichequates to £1.35m/MW. The BERR grant for the project of £10mreduced the total cost to £1.18m/MW.

The ownership of the wind farm changed in December 2005 fromnpower renewables to Beaufort Wind Limited.

The wind farm has successfully completed its 3rd full year of operationachieving 87.4% availability without any major Health & Safetyincidents.

CONTENTS

Site Plan 2Construction

1. Overview of the construction programme 32. Description of the construction methods 3

Wind Farm Annual Operational InformationPerformance reporting

1. Availability 52. Wind speed (m/s) and wind rose 53. Output (MWh) 64. Load factor (Capacity factor, %) 65. Annual input (MWh, MVAr) 6

Operational Reporting1. Operating and Maintenance Cost 72. Operational issues 73. Health & Safety 84. Environmental 85. Public relations 15

Review and Future prospects 16

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 2 of 16

SITE PLAN

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 3 of 16

CONSTRUCTION

1. Overview of the Construction Programme

The approximate timeline for the different components of construction was asfollows:

Wind turbine foundations April 2003–July 2003 Boat landings June 2003–August 2003 Transition pieces July 2003–August 2003 Export Cables August 2003–October 2003 Wind turbines August 2003–March 2004 Offshore cable works September 2003–December 2003 First power generation November 2003

2. Description of Construction Methods:

The construction methods used at North Hoyle, together with a description of thoseissues which impacted on the original programme schedule, are set out below

Construction of foundations

30 Tubular steel piles (monopiles) were fabricated in Holland by Smulders BVand transported to Port of Mostyn by barge in groups of 4. Foundations weredesigned by LIC engineering and the design is certified by Germanisher Lloyd.After delivery monopiles were temporarily stored in a compound at Mostyn. Steelstoppers were then fitted to both ends of the monopiles which were then floated tosite and lifted to the exact final position by the installation barge Excalibur. Thepile was then installed into the sea-bed by a combined drive - drill - technique.The pile was initially driven through upper sand and clay layers, then a hole wasdrilled into the underlying rock layers and the pile finally driven into this hole.After the pile was installed the transition piece was landed and grouted in placefrom the jack up vessel Wind. The J-tubes for protection of power cables andturbine access ladders were then installed on hangars and bolted into place fromthe barge Forth Guardsmen.

Erection of towers

The towers and nacelles were delivered to Port of Mostyn by barge from thefabrication yard at Cambletown in the West of Scotland. Towers were lifted ontothe transition pieces then bolted into place. The first 27 towers were installed bythe MEB JB1 and Seacore Excalibur vessels, with the final three towers beinginstalled by the Mayflower Resolution.

Installation of nacelles

Nacelles were assembled in Cambletown and delivered to Port of Mostyn bybarge and road. Final assembly and checking of the nacelle were completed inMostyn. Nacelles were then delivered to site by barge and lifted into position bythe construction jack-up vessels. Nacelles were then bolted into place on top of thetowers. Delays of varying degrees to nacelle installation were caused by ground

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 4 of 16

conditions, weather conditions (preventing lifts) and also storm damage to one ofthe construction vessels.

Fixing of blades to hubs

Nacelles were installed on the towers in a “bunny-ears” configuration, with two blades attached. The third blade of each machine was bolted onto the hub of thenacelle after the nacelle was in position on top of the tower. Some delays to bladeinstallation were caused by high wind speeds preventing safe lifting.

Power cable installation and connection.

Power cables were installed by two different methods offshore. The interarraycables were installed by a new remotely operated vessel, the LBT1. The inter-array cables were wound directly onto a drum on the LBT1 and were unrolled intoa trench cut by the vessel on the seabed. Some programme delay was experienceddue to the late arrival of the LBT1 from the fabrication yard in Middlesborough.

The beach to wind farm cables (the export cables) were installed by a new ploughconstructed in Newcastle which arrived on site on time. The plough was towedbehind the vessel the Pontra Maris and the cable was dragged into the trenchbehind the plough.

The export cables were connected to land based cables installed into buried ductsin Rhyl, connecting through to the substation and the grid at the Manwebcompound next to the technical college in Rhyl.

Installation vessel issues

It was originally intended for the Mayflower Resolution to install all monopiles,towers and nacelles at North Hoyle and also support the installation of inter-arraycables by the LBT1. This brand new and purpose-designed vessel experienced asubstantial delay in delivery from the shipyard. This impacted on the North Hoylebuild programme in various ways, however major delays were avoided byprocuring and adapting existing construction vessels (MEB-JB1 and SeacoreExcalibur) to undertake the work originally intended to be undertaken by theResolution.

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 5 of 16

WIND FARM ANNUAL OPERATIONAL INFORMATION

PERFORMANCE REPORTING

1. Availability (%)

Wind turbine and wind farm commercial availability (%).(Note reported availability considers scheduled servicing and non-access time as unavailable time)

WTG Jul06

Aug06

Sep06

Oct06

Nov06

Dec06

Jan07

Feb07

Mar07

Apr07

May07

Jun07 Overall

Overall 85.0 91.2 93.6 97.9 90.2 89.6 82.7 86.5 83.0 86.5 87.0 83.1 88.0

Commercial availability (DNO related downtime assumed as unavailable time) 87.4

Total Budgeted Availability 92.5

Availability is an operational term used to describe the percentage of time a turbine is freeof faults and capable of operating. This measure is independent of wind speed.

Turbine availability was seriously affected by the extended failures on three turbines,predominantly due to the long delay in sourcing a specialist vessel to undertake the repairs.If a suitable vessel had been sourced earlier, turbine availability would have significantlyimproved and been much closer to budget.

The causes of non-availability are further discussed in the Operational Issues Section.

2. Wind speed (m/s) and wind rose

[m/s] Mean wind speedat 67 m 1 (m/s)

Gust wind speed at67 m (m/s)

Jul-06 5.9 20.8Aug-06 8.1 19.8Sep-06* 7.3 24.6Oct-06* 8.7 27.0Nov-06 10.5 29.7Dec-06* 11.1 40.9Jan-07 13.7 42.3Feb-07 7.7 33.3

Mar-07* 10.6 31.8Apr-07* 6.3 21.7May-07 7.9 28.0Jun-07 6.4 25.3Overall 8.7 42.3Budget 9.0 -

* Data coverage for these months is 55 - 90%. Remaining months are > 90%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

>9 (m/s)

6-9 (m/s)

3-6 (m/s)

0-3 (m/s)

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 6 of 16

3. Output (MWh)

Wind turbine and wind farm net output (MWh)Note production figures use the Wind Turbine Generator Counters, these do not directly correlate to the metered export of the site.

WTG Jul06

Aug06

Sep06

Oct06

Nov06

Dec06

Jan07

Feb07

Mar07

Apr07

May07

Jun07 Overall

Overall 7,011 15,908 12,537 19,654 22,074 21,669 27,653 11,783 17,458 8,752 12,184 9,287 185,971

Total metered output at the point of export 184,737

* Note this is the Beaufort Wind Limited P50 budget Total budgeted output 197,400*

The difference between budget and actual output is due to the combined effect ofavailability and wind speeds.Electrical losses within the wind farm are estimated to be approximately 0.7% basedupon the net metered export and wind turbine generator counters.

4. Load factor (Capacity factor, %)

Load factor is the actual generated output as a percentage of the notional maximum potential output.The notional maximum potential output is the output that would be generated with a plant availabilityof 100% and sufficient wind speed to generate at full rated capacity (60MW) constantly all year.

Wind turbine and wind farm capacity factor (%)Note production figures use the Wind Turbine Generator Counters, and therefore the periods may not correspond exactly to calendar months.

WTG Jul06

Aug06

Sep06

Oct06

Nov06

Dec06

Jan07

Feb07

Mar07

Apr07

May07

Jun07 Overall

Overall 15% 36% 29% 44% 51% 49% 62% 29% 39% 20% 27% 21% 35%* Note this is the Beaufort Wind Limited P50 budget Budgeted capacity factor 37.6%*

5. Annual input (MWh, MVAr)

Imported power (real)Jul06

Aug06

Sep06

Oct06

Nov06

Dec06

Jan07

Feb07

Mar07

Apr07

May07

Jun07 Overall

MWh 69.4 29.9 45.2 17.3 18.8 29.5 11.2 45.1 26.1 50.2 34.9 61.9 439.6

No specific import power budget was established at the start of the year (this beingpart of the overall import electricity line item which includes import power, use ofsystems costs and metering costs) and reactive power statistics are not available (theseare not routinely recorded and have not been invoiced by the DNO).

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 7 of 16

OPERATIONAL REPORTING

1. Operating and Maintenance Cost

Total annual operating costs in the 3rd year of operation amounted to £2.8m(equivalent to £47k/MW or 1.51p/kWh). The wind farm continues to show financialperformance in line with expectations. As stated in previous reports this is notunexpected as the wind farm remains within its warranty period and therefore theavailability and non-routine maintenance cost risk is carried by the manufacturer.Insurance costs have increased reflecting wider market forces, although no insuranceclaims were made relating to North Hoyle.

As highlighted in last years report the following cost items may be subject tosignificant future changes.

Reduction in environmental management costs relating to a reduced consentcompliance monitoring programme (anticipated to be completed in 2007);

North Hoyle is currently within its warranty period and the availability and non-routine maintenance cost risk is carried by the manufacturer.

Insurance costs will reflect trends in the insurance markets especially those whichprovide cover for off-shore wind farms and the wider offshore oil and gas business.

2. Operational issues

The overall availability for the year is reported as 87.4%Examples of major component failures that made a significant contribution to thedowntime and significant periods of grid loss are summarised below:

The 2 WTG with gearbox high speed bearing failures previously reported (WTG20, WTG 24) returned to operation in August.

4 further WTG have suffered extended outages due to gearbox bearing faults(WTG 24, WTG 25, WTG 30), and chipped teeth (WTG 16), resulting in gearboxreplacements. Gearbox replacement was delayed by several months as no suitablemaintenance vessels were available.

2 WTG experienced rotor cable faults (WTG 22, WTG 26) 2 WTG had circuit breaker issues (WTG 21, WTG 28) WTG 27 was on extended outage with a cracked hub strut. WTG14 was on extended outage with yaw motor failures. There was an unplanned grid outage during July lasting 9 hours and a planned

outage during May lasting 56 hours.

In addition to the above there is the ongoing operation and maintenance cycle ofmonitoring, investigation and unscheduled repairs which cause downtime of varyinglengths.

The availability of specialist contactors to perform repairs to major components hascaused some longer repair times than anticipated, reflecting growth and stretchedresources in the wind energy market.

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 8 of 16

The present transfer method is a classical access ladder and boat fender system inwhich the vessel presses against the outer tubular steel fenders while the techniciansteps either from boat to ladder or ladder to boat. As a result there are periods whenweather and wave conditions prevent travel and transfer to the turbines extendingdown time. However it is rare for these conditions to persist for more than a couple ofdays when they do occur. There is clearly a seasonal relationship, with winter accessbeing most affected.

Occasionally, where a minor defect is identified, turbines are set to operate ‘curtailed’, where the power is limited by pitching the blades. This reduces the loading on thestructure and enables the turbine to remain available until the full repair isco-ordinated.

Planned maintenance has principally comprised the performance of routine 6 and 12monthly services. Some minor retrofit programmes also took place to address specificplant issues. Typically each of these services would require 3 days to undertake anddepending on scheduling, can have a significant impact on the availability of the windfarm during individual months. However, it continues to represent a small proportionof any downtime during the year (<1% of annual availability).

3. Health & Safety

Health & Safety is a high priority and collaboration across the offshore and onshorewind industry is improving Health & Safety Standards and allows lessons learnt fromincidents to be shared. In excess of 12,000 transfers between boat and tower haveoccurred without major incident at North Hoyle.

A close working relationship with contractors and regular face to face reviews allowany incidents and near misses to be assessed and actions to improve Health & Safetyconsidered jointly. There have been few incidents in the last year, see summarybelow:

A cut to the head, sustained by a technician whilst accessing the hub. Work wasresumed once the bleeding had stopped.

A technician slipped whilst in the nacelle and banged his knee The chain on the internal winch slipped and hit a service technician in the eye.The injured party’s received minor medical attention on site and they were able toreturn to work immediately.

A technician bumped his head on an oil cooler beam whilst in the nacelle (no firstaid treatment required)

A near miss due to a 25ltr water container falling into the sea during a loweringoperation.

An incident, in which a bag dropped into the sea whilst being lifted from thenacelle

An environmental incident in which 5ltrs of oil were spilt into the sea from a Jackup barge. The spillage was controlled, cleaned up with a boom and declared clearby the harbour master.

A number of proactive improvements have been made in various areas to preventre-occurrence of accident types as follows:

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 9 of 16

1. Revised procedure for lifting items from the vessel to the turbine2. Fitting of tool boxes on each turbine to reduce number of lifts taking place3. Technician Safety meetings4. Regular Toolbox talks5. Wind Turbine Safety Rules

This goes along with continued monthly operational meetings which cover safety as apriority to ensure continuous safety improvements.

4. Environmental

Environmental monitoring has continued during the reporting period up to andincluding March 2007 and focussed on the following areas:

Ornithology Benthic Ecology Fish & Fisheries Marine Mammals Scour monitoring

The final FEPA (Food and Environment Protection Agency) report is yet to besubmitted to the Marine and Fisheries Agency due to delays in supply of informationfrom contractors relating to the statistical analyses of 5 year overview data from theentire monitoring campaign. However, submission of the FEPA report is imminent.

The preliminary results of the environmental monitoring again indicate that nosignificant impacts have occurred at the North Hoyle. Trends seen in theenvironmental datasets can be attributed to natural processes for the vast majority ofthe monitoring programme. Further information will be provided at the time ofsubmission of the final FEPA report to conclude the monitoring campaign.

OrnithologyOrnithological monitoring was conducted during the period April 2006 to March 2007.This period constitutes the fifth and final year of the five year bird monitoringprogramme required as a FEPA license condition. In 2005/6 more than 2.5 times asmany birds had been recorded during the boat surveys (using identical methods butmostly different observers) as in the previous period March 2004 to March 2005, butthe range of species recorded was similar. In 2006/7 almost three times as many birdswere recorded compared with the previous 2005/6 period.

For the first time, the data from boat and aerial surveys have been combined todetermine whether ecologically significant change may have occurred. Densityestimates were obtained from the boat surveys and the aerial surveys. Aerial surveysgave much lower density estimates than the boat surveys, suggesting that many birdswere missed.

The only indications of possible changes in numbers were for red-throated diver andguillemot. There may have been a reduction in numbers of red-throated divers and anincrease in numbers of common guillemot within the wind farm area (although itshould be noted that RTD numbers were extremely low for this area in the first place).No clear evidence was found of changes in density for any other species or speciesgroups between the pre-construction, construction and operational phases.

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 10 of 16

This report has incorporated additional data on common scoter in particular from thepre-construction period. The analyses have included the only available pre-consentboat survey data to bolster the pre-construction baseline data as requested by CCWand further statistical refinements. However, the amount of information from thattime is still rather limited. This has restricted the comparisons that can be carried outand reduced the chances of detecting changes. Within these limitations, there appearsto be little evidence of changes in numbers, whether increases or decreases. Thecombination of boat and aerial data suggest an increase in numbers of common scotersince the wind farm became operational; in particular, and it is unlikely that there hasbeen any decrease in the buffer area.

The zone analysis of boat survey data compared the distribution of birds within 2.5kmof the wind farm. This found no evidence of changes in distribution relative todistance from the turbines. There was no evidence that the wind farm forms a barrierto common scoter or influences flight directions of that species. There were threerecords of flying common scoter within the wind farm itself during the constructionphase and six records since it became operational. Thus the wind farm does not createan impenetrable barrier, but could have an inhibitory effect.

In 2006/7 the total bird numbers recorded flying at rotor height were 305. In 2004/50.3% (seven gulls), and in 2005/6 3% (182) of total bird numbers were recordedflying at rotor height, during the current reporting period the equivalent figure wasapproximately 2%. In 2005/6 only 22 of the 182 birds seen at rotor height were seenwithin the wind farm. In 2006/7 103 of the 305 birds recorded at rotor height wereseen within the wind farm. The number of birds of the 11 key species qualifying thenearby SSSIs and SPAs seen flying at rotor height (mostly cormorant and kittiwake)appear too low to justify modeling collision risk, or to have warranted collisionmonitoring.

Benthic EcologyBenthic InvertebratesThe twenty wind farm benthic monitoring sites were surveyed in September 2006using identical methodologies to the previous monitoring surveys (2001-2005) toallow direct comparisons.

Sediment analysis results from 2006 showed findings consistent with previoussurveys with the sediments of the area generally being classified as sandy gravels.Inshore monitoring sites and those located towards the mouth of the Dee Estuary(south east of the wind farm) were, as expected, well/moderately sorted fine andmedium sands. Sites located within the wind farm area were mostly poorly sortedcoarse sands classified as Sandy Gravel.

Results from the 2006 faunal analysis recorded 9,664 invertebrates individuals from244 taxa with a further 21 species of colonial invertebrates (mostly bryozoans andtunicate species). The most common species recorded were the ribbon wormsNemertea spp. 17 individuals of the nationally scarce thumbnail crab Thia scutellatawere recorded from 7 sites (9 of these individuals were recorded from sites locatedwithin the wind farm). Overall, monitoring sites with the largest numbers of taxa andindividuals were recorded from either within the wind farm array or along the cableroute. The lowest numbers of both taxa and individual invertebrates were recordedfrom the monitoring sites located to the east of the wind farm. Results from the

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 11 of 16

Shannon-Wiener diversity index for 2006 revealed sites displaying the highestdiversity to be those located within the wind farm array itself. Those with the lowestwere either inshore of the wind farm or located to the south-east of the turbinestowards the mouth of the Dee Estuary. This spatial pattern in diversity was attributedto the sediment types found at these sites with the sandier locations inshore and to theeast supporting less diverse fauna than the monitoring sites within and around thewind farm where the deeper sedimentary environment is mostly coarse sand andgravels and is able to support a richer faunal community.

2006 results revealed numbers of benthic invertebrate individuals and taxa atmonitoring sites to be similar to those recorded from the 2005 survey, and higher thanthose from previous surveys (2001-2004). Increases were not spatially limited andwere evident across the entire survey area (including wind farm, near-field and far-field control sites). Variation in results between the survey years was linked to naturalvariation in factors such as the nature of the sediment or recruitment and survival oforganisms, both of which are known to vary greatly from year to year in shallowwater marine environments.

Benthic epifauna & demersal FishTwenty-two 2m beam trawl sites were surveyed in August 2006 as part of the fifthyear of FEPA monitoring at the wind farm. All epifauna and demersal fish specieswere counted and identified with commercial fish and elasmobranchs also beingmeasured.

Results from 2006 recorded a total of 20 species of fish and 32 species of epifauna.The most abundant fish species were: lesser weever (common on the sandysubstratum sites found inshore and to the east of the wind farm), solenette (mostlyrecorded inshore of the wind farm) and Dab (recorded from most sites). Commonepifaunal species were starfish (recorded from all monitoring sites), plumose anemone(found at the coarser substratum sites to the North of the wind farm) and brittlestar(found on soft-substratum to the middle and the east of the survey area). Two speciesof elasmobranchs were recorded during 2006: Thornback ray (Raja clavata) and thelesser spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus caniculus). These were all recorded at sitesoutside the wind farm.

The similarities between the demersal-fish epifaunal assemblages at each monitoringsite were statistically compared and results showed similarities to be based upongeographic location. Comparisons to previous results revealed that over the five yearsof survey there was a high fluctuation in temporal and spatial variation and this wasfound to occur not only within the wind farm but also outside at the control sites.This was attributed to natural fluctuations within populations rather than theconstruction of the wind farm. Overall, the demersal fish-epifaunal assemblage acrossthe area remained unchanged over the five year survey period.

Fish & Fisheries –CEFASResults of the CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science)beam trawl survey in the Irish Sea examined trends in the relative abundance of thedominant demersal fish species in the eastern Irish Sea region and at the station in thevicinity of the wind farm. Approximately 40 species of demersal fish occur in thevicinity of the North Hoyle site, with about 15 of these abundant.

Data from 2004–2006 indicated that the catch rates of most of the species examined atthe station near North Hoyle, including the three species of elasmobranch, were

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 12 of 16

within the long-term range observed from preceding years (1993 onwards). In themost recent years, catch rates of some species (e.g. dab, solenette and scaldfish) haveincreased. Although the catch rates of sole have declined, this decline is also apparentat a regional scale.

Data from 2004-2006 indicated that the catch per unit effort of most of the speciesconsidered were broadly comparable to previous years and within the long-term range,with some species showing recent increases (e.g. dab and scaldfish), and some speciesshowing a recent decrease (e.g. plaice and sole). Catches of three species ofelasmobranch all fluctuated around the long-term mean for the site. Catches of poggeat the North Hoyle site have been at record low levels for the period 2004–2006, butmirror the regional trend.

Catch rates of fish can be highly variable, and the catch rates at North Hoyle werehighly variable for most species. The seven species which had the more consistentcatch rate over time (1993 to 2006) at this site (CV < 80%) were pogge, dab, plaice,lesser weever, solenette, scaldfish and common dragonet.

Fish & Fisheries - Fisheries ConsultationIt is now nearly 5 years since work began on construction of the North Hoyle windfarm. Throughout this period contact has been maintained with representatives of theUK and Irish fishing industry and individual skippers who have an interest in fishingwithin Liverpool Bay. Each year, as part of the annual FEPA monitoring programme,the majority (if not all every year) of these contacts have been invited by letter or e-mail to comment on, or have been spoken with to discuss any effects that the windfarm may have had on fishing. The extent to which any individual or organisationfeels that they may have been affected has varied but on one thing they are all agreed;in common with all offshore wind farms, the wind farm represents a loss of fishingopportunity, not only through limited access to the site itself but also to a buffer zonearound the site they must maintain for safety. (Set netters, for example, set fleets ofnet typically 2000 m long and must, therefore, work more than 2000 m from thenearest turbine.)

The access issue apart, however, there appears to have been relatively little adverseeffect on fishing activity. Indeed, even during pile driving in 2003, three local boats(two netters and an under-10 m trawler) that hitherto fished each season near theNorth Hoyle ground, did not notice any significant difference in their catchcomposition or catch rate compared with earlier years (FEPA Report 2004). Thischanged the following year (2004), however, when catch rates were poor comparedwith what was normally expected and two of the locally-based netters moved togrounds further west or further north than they had tended to work previously.Similarly, the inshore, under-10 m trawlers that occasionally worked the area did notwork closer than 5 miles as catches were poor. A third netter, who only works inshoreof the wind-farm site due to the size of boat had a very poor season with catches welldown on average but could not move elsewhere. In effect, this skipper believed he hadlost a season’s fishing through wind-farm effects.

In 2005, some skippers (both netters and inshore trawlers) maintained the patternestablished in 2004 where their catches had proved satisfactory. Others, including thenetter working inshore of the wind farm, returned to their established pattern offishing. In all cases, they reported that fishing was satisfactory with catch compositionand catch rates comparing favourably with those preceding wind-farm construction. In

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 13 of 16

general, this experience and response to consultation has proved the consistent picturefor commercial vessels from 2005, through 2006 and 2007.

A similar pattern of responses to consultation has been gathered from (Rhyl-based)charter-angling boat skippers. If there was any adverse effect on catch composition orcatch rates it was highly localised and short lived. For the past three years the Rhyl-based charter boats have been working the wrecks and other marks they havefavoured historically around the northern and western boundaries of the wind farm.Like the local commercial boats, they are satisfied that there has been no discernibleadverse effects on their business interests.

Inevitably, however, although there is general overall consistency in informationgathered during consultations, there are exceptions. One skipper who works a smallinshore trawler from Rhos-on-Sea down to Rhyl (but rarely more than a mile or sooffshore) believes that there are fewer Dover sole on the ground than there werebefore the wind farm was commissioned. Although he attributes this decline to theeffects of export-cable EMF (Electromagnetic field) or turbine vibration on the fish,such claims need to be viewed in the context of a c. 40% fall in Dover sole spawningstock biomass and concomitant fall in catch per unit effort in the Irish Sea 2000-2005(ACFM Report–ICES, 2006).

Similar concerns have been expressed for EMF driving tope from the area betweenthe wind farm and the foreshore –but not the inshore channels relatively close to theeast and west of the wind farm. As an elasmobranch, tope may be sensitive to EMFassociated with the export cables and may be deterred from occupying this localisedarea. Until such times as the COWRIE elasmobranch-EMF study group report,however, this perceived cause and effect must remain a matter of conjecture.Nevertheless, it is possibly fortunate that the effect, if it exists, appears to be fairlyspecific in its distribution and not one covering the North Hoyle area as a whole.

Marine MammalsThere is no formal FEPA licence condition for the monitoring of marine mammals atwind farm; however, in order to improve understanding in this area, data has beencollated from a variety of sources including site-specific marine mammal observationsduring the ornithological monitoring programme. Further sources include casualsightings data from environmental surveyors undertaking work within or around thewind farm area, scientific reports and EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment)information from other developments within Liverpool Bay e.g. Rhyl Flats andGwynt y Môr wind farms.

Results from this data collation indicate that the most common marine mammalspecies within this area are the harbour porpoise and grey seal. Both these species areat times found within and around the wind farm but they exhibit a distinct seasonalmovement offshore during the summer months, most likely linked to following theirprey species. Such movements were recorded during the North Hoyle ornithologicalmonitoring surveys (visual surveys) and TPOD, towed hydrophone and visual datafrom the Rhyl Flats and Gwynt y Môr site-specific marine mammal surveys tosupport the EIA work on those projects.

Since construction, the Sea Watch Foundation has provided an update on marinemammal sightings data for this region of the eastern Irish Sea. Results suggest noevidence for long-term distributional changes of any cetacean species from a

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 14 of 16

comparison of sightings data before wind farm construction commenced with thosethereafter.

Anecdotal information has revealed that both harbour porpoise and grey seals aretravelling through the wind farm and are also utilising the wind farm for foragingpurposes.

Although no systematic effort-related marine mammal distribution data has beencollected in relation to North Hoyle a significant amount of information has beencollated and it can be stated that the predictions of the EIA are valid in that wind farmhas not had an adverse impact upon the marine mammal populations of Liverpool Bayand the Eastern Irish Sea

Physical ProcessesAnalysis or the latest 2007 geophysical survey results around each of the monopolefoundations has not revealed any scour development at the turbine monopiles orrelated rock protection. Turbines 3 and 5 (and possibly 12 and 28) show indicationsthat rock armour may have settled slightly since the last survey, but no secondaryscour was evident. It was also noted that a build up of sediment adjacent to structureshad caused the rock armour to blend into the surrounding seabed at turbine 10 andsimilarly a build up of sediment was noted south east of turbine 14.

The data from the Osiris Spring 2006 and Spring 2007 surveys indicate thatmovement of sediment is occurring for the majority of the turbine survey boxes.However, it is thought that the predominant process occurring across the wind farmarray is that of sediment movement attributable to natural coastal processes and thechanges in seabed levels found in the studies are likely to be the result of theseprocesses. Small bedforms were noted at a number of survey boxes in the side scanplots (notably at turbines 13 and 19) and volumetric comparison plots clearly showedchanges in seabed depth resulting from sediment movement within the survey boxes.

The comparative lack of change in seabed levels in the 2007 study suggests thatstability or equilibrium has been reached following the 3 years since construction tookplace. Generally, survey boxes exhibited a narrowing of range between maxima andminima seabed depths (27 out of 30 WTGs).

Thresholds for sea bed mobility indicate that currents alone only create live bedconditions for the sandy material, with large storms required to exceed thresholds forboth sands and gravels. The largest gravels are immobile and are generally regardedas a lag deposit.

Environmental implications are effectively negligible as no distinct scour pits havedeveloped. Placement of rock around the J-Tubes has generally remained in-situ withpotential movement occurring at 4 locations.

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 15 of 16

5. Public relations

In the summer of 2007, a long-term community project supported by npowerrenewables at Gwaenysgor Viewpoint (above Prestatyn) celebrated its completionwith an opening ceremony. During the early development of the North Hoyle project,npower renewables pledged a donation of £10,000 to help enable the refurbishment ofthe viewpoint, which has wide-ranging views across Liverpool Bay, taking in NorthHoyle Offshore Wind Farm. The refurbishment includes new signs, new Welsh oakbenches and a new watercolour interpretation panel which now incorporates NorthHoyle as one of the features of the view across the bay.

The North Hoyle Offshore Wind Farm Community Fund, launched in September2005, was set up by npower renewables in partnership with Denbighshire CountyCouncil and the Area Partnerships for Rhyl and Prestatyn & Meliden, to deliver£60,000 (index-linked) into communities local to North Hoyle every year for the 20year life of the wind farm to support local community projects.

Since the Fund was established, the Area Partnerships in Denbighshire have beenrestructured and reconstituted as the Rhyl and Prestatyn & Meliden CommunityPartnerships, independent of Denbighshire County Council. The North HoyleCommunity Fund is now being managed in its entirety by the CommunityPartnerships.

The Fund continues to support a wide range of community projects, benefiting manydifferent sectors of the community. From the report submitted by the Rhyl andPrestatyn & Meliden Community Partnerships, the successful applicants in 2006 areshown in the following table.

Distributed byRhyl Area Partnership

Distributed byPrestatyn & Meliden Area Partnership

Alzheimers Society Bodnant Infant SchoolBedford Street Community Association Upper Prestatyn Residents AssociationBenefit Advice Shop Denbighshire Citizens Advice BureauClwyd Coast Credit Union EyesightDenbighshire Citizens Advice Bureau Air Training CoreJohn Davies Community Facility Prestatyn & Meliden Neighbourhood WatchMarsh Community Association Stars North Wales LtdPark View Neighbourhood Watch Clwyd Credit Union LtdPrestatyn & Rhyl Lions Club Prestatyn Local History ClubRhyl & Dist Amateur Operatic Society Prestatyn Girls Football ClubRhyl & District Hockey Club 6th Prestatyn Scouts GroupRhyl Community Furniture Recycling Ltd Hakuda Galt Melyd School of JujitsuRhyl Environmental Association Plas Gorffwysfa Residents AssociationRhyl Week Association Prestatyn & Rhyl Lions ClubRhyl Young Women’s ProjectRhylcreateSouth West Rhyl Parent & Toddler GroupSPAN

North Hoyle–3rd BERR Operating Report Page 16 of 16

6. Review and Future prospects

Generated output at North Hoyle was higher than last year, predominantly reflectingan improved wind resource, although this was still slightly lower than budgeted.Operationally the wind farm continued to perform well despite the extended outageson three turbines which had a significant impact on the availability of the wind farm.Over the three years of operation at North Hoyle continual improvements have beenmade in the servicing and maintenance of the wind farm, especially in the planningand logistics management. In addition Health & Safety at the wind farm hasimproved as all parties involved in operations at North Hoyle have become moreexperienced.

As offshore wind grows within the UK the combined experience between owners andoperators will also grow and it is expected that operations and maintenance willbecome more efficient, therefore improving both availability and output.

This year North Hoyle safely provided enough electricity to meet the needs of over39,000 average homes in the UK.

This report was prepared by npower Renewables Limited.

For further information on the Capital Grant Scheme contact Nick Beale atNick.Beale@aeat.co.uk or on Tel 0870 190 6158.