Consultation Report · 4.2.3 The relevant responses to the SoCC consultation are provided in Appendix F3, and a table explaining the regard that Forewind had to both these responses,

August 2013

Consultation Report Doc.No. F-STC-RP-004

Pursuant to Section 37(3)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 Application reference: 5.1

DOGGER BANK CREYKE BECK

F-STC-RP-004 Issue 3 © 2013 Forewind Consultation Report Page ii


F-STC-RP-004 Issue 3 © 2013 Forewind Consultation Report Page iii

Document Title Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

Consultation Report

Forewind Document Reference F-STC-RP-004 Issue 3

Date August 2013

Drafted by Nikki Young

Checked by Melissa Read / Andrew Riley

Date / initials check 19-Jul-2013 MR/AR

Approved by

Date / initials approval

Forewind Approval Mark Thomas

Date / Reference approval 21-Aug-2013 MT


F-STC-RP-004 Issue 3 © 2013 Forewind Consultation Report Page iv

Title: Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Consultation Report

Contract No. (if applicable) Onshore / Offshore

Document Number: F-STC-RP-004

Issue No: 3

Issue Date: 19-Jul-13

Status: Issued for 1st. Technical Review Issued for 2nd. Technical Review

Issued for PEI3 Issued for Application Submission

Prepared by: (Forewind)

Nikki Young

Checked by: (Forewind) Melissa Read / Andrew Riley

Approved by: Mark Thomas

Signature / Approval meeting

Mark Thomas

Approval Date: 21-Aug-2013

Revision History

Date Issue No. Remarks / Reason for Issue Author Checked Approved

22-Oct-12 1 Issue for 1st.Technical Review NS NS -

4-Apr-13 2 Issued for Approval NY MR/AR MT

19-Jul-13 3 Issued for technical review post PEI3 NY MR/AR MT


F-STC-RP-004 Issue 3 Consultation Report Page 5 © 2013 Forewind

Contents

1 Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 15

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 17

2.1 Policy Context ................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Structure of this consultation report .................................................................. 18

2.3 Forewind ........................................................................................................... 19

2.4 Dogger Bank Zone ............................................................................................ 19

2.5 Project background ........................................................................................... 20

2.6 Overview of the consultation process ............................................................... 20

3 Section 42 consultation process ................................................................................. 25

3.1 Section 42 consultees ....................................................................................... 25

3.2 Identification of the prescribed consultees ........................................................ 25

3.3 Identification of the relevant local authorities .................................................... 26

3.4 Identification of landowners and others with an interest in the land .................. 29

3.5 Two stages of statutory consultation ................................................................. 30

3.6 First stage of statutory consultation .................................................................. 31

3.7 Second stage of statutory consultation ............................................................. 32

4 Section 47 consultation process ................................................................................. 34

4.1 Summary of the SoCC rationale ....................................................................... 34

4.2 Consultation on the content of the draft SoCC .................................................. 35

4.3 Publication of the SoCC .................................................................................... 35

4.4 First stage of statutory community consultation ................................................ 37

4.5 Second stage of statutory community consultation ........................................... 38

4.6 Compliance with the SoCC commitments ......................................................... 39

4.7 Additional community consultation activities undertaken .................................. 41

5 Section 48 publicity ..................................................................................................... 43

5.1 Legislative context ............................................................................................ 43

5.2 Publications and timing ..................................................................................... 43

5.3 Content of the notice ......................................................................................... 44

5.4 Relevant responses to Section 48 publicity ...................................................... 44

6 Non-statutory consultation .......................................................................................... 45



6.1 Non-statutory consultees .................................................................................. 45

6.2 Non-statutory consultation process ................................................................... 45

6.3 Fisheries liaison ................................................................................................ 47

7 Consultation under the EIA and Habitats Regulations ................................................ 49

7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 49

7.2 Scoping ............................................................................................................. 49

7.3 Transboundary consultation .............................................................................. 50

7.4 Habitats Regulations Assessment .................................................................... 51

8 Summary of relevant responses ................................................................................. 53

8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 53

8.2 General comments ............................................................................................ 53

8.3 Health and Safety ............................................................................................. 54

8.4 EIA Process (ES Chapter 4) ............................................................................. 55

8.5 Project description (ES Chapter 5) .................................................................... 56

8.6 Site selection and alternatives (ES Chapter 6).................................................. 58

8.7 Consultation (ES Chapter 7) ............................................................................. 60

8.8 Designated sites (ES Chapter 8) ....................................................................... 62

8.9 Marine physical processes (ES Chapter 9) ....................................................... 63

8.10 Marine Water and Sediment Quality (ES Chapter 10) ...................................... 65

8.11 Marine and Coastal Ornithology (ES Chapter 11) ............................................. 65

8.12 Marine and Intertidal Ecology (ES Chapter 12) ................................................. 67

8.13 Fish and shellfish ecology (ES Chapter 13) ...................................................... 69

8.14 Marine Mammals (ES Chapter 14) .................................................................... 70

8.15 Commercial fisheries (ES Chapter 15) .............................................................. 72

8.16 Shipping and Navigation (ES Chapter 16) ........................................................ 74

8.17 Other Marine Users (ES Chapter 17) ................................................................ 75

8.18 Marine and Coastal Archaeology (ES Chapter 18) ........................................... 77

8.19 Military Activities and Civil Aviation (ES Chapter 19) ........................................ 79

8.20 Seascape and Visual Character (ES Chapter 20) ............................................. 80

8.21 Landscape and Visual (ES Chapter 21) ............................................................ 81

8.22 Socio-economics (ES Chapter 22) .................................................................... 82

8.23 Tourism and recreation (ES Chapter 23) .......................................................... 83

8.24 Geology, Water Resources & Land Quality (ES Chapter 24) ............................ 84



8.25 Terrestrial Ecology (ES Chapter 25) ................................................................. 85

8.26 Land Use and Agriculture (ES Chapter 26) ....................................................... 86

8.27 Onshore cultural heritage (ES Chapter 27) ....................................................... 87

8.28 Traffic and Access (ES Chapter 28) .................................................................. 88

8.29 Noise and Vibration (ES Chapter 29) ................................................................ 90

8.30 Air Quality (ES Chapter 30)............................................................................... 91

9 Statements of common ground ................................................................................... 92

10 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 94

Annex 1 – Compliance checklist ........................................................................................ 95

Table of Tables

Table 2.1 Overview of consultation activities .......................................................... 23

Table 3.1 Local authorities identified in accordance with section 43 ....................... 26

Table 4.2 Publications in which Forewind published the SoCC .............................. 36

Table 4.3 Compliance with SoCC commitments ..................................................... 39

Table 4.4 Elected representative engagement activities ......................................... 42

Table 5.1 Section 48 notices – publication details................................................... 43

Table 6.1 Examples of conferences at which Forewind presented ......................... 46

Table 9.1 Statements of common ground currently in progress .............................. 92

Table of Figures

Figure 2.1 Zone development process .................................................................... 21

Figure 2.2 Multi stage project consultation process ................................................ 22

Figure 3.1 Section 43 - Local Authority Map ........................................................... 28

Table of Appendices

Appendix A Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Appendix B Fisheries Liaison Plan

B1 Fisheries Liaison Plan (2011)



B2 Fisheries Liaison Plan (2013)

Appendix C Consultees

C1 EIA Regulation 9 list of consultees

C2 List of prescribed consultees (Sections 42(1) (a), (aa) and (b)

C3 Ofgem lists of electricity and gas licence holders

C4 First landowner questionnaire

C5 Second landowner questionnaire

C6 Unregistered land site notices and location map

C7 List of non-statutory consultees

Appendix D Section 42 cover letters (stage 1 consultation)

D1 15.11.2011 S42 and non-stat pre-notice of exhibitions

D2 31.11.2011 S42 and non-stat notice of start of consultation

D3 06.12.2011 S42 and non-stat confirmation that stakeholder can access documents online

D4 15.11.2011 Landowner pre-notice of exhibitions

D5 07.12.2011 Landowner notice of start of consultation

Appendix E Section 42 cover letters (stage 2 consultation)

E1 06.12.2012 Hard copy request letter

E2 14.03.2013 S42 and non-stat advance notice letter

E3 16.04.2013 Cover letter to Planning Inspectorate

E4 16.04.2013 Cover letter to S42 and non-stat

E5 03.04.2013 Pre-notice letter to S42(1)(d)

E6 16.04.2013 Cover letter to S42(1)(d)

E7 Additional S42d consultation cover letter

E8 Landowner factsheet

Appendix F Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)

F1 SoCC Consultation cover letters

F2 SoCC Consultation Document

F3 Relevant responses to the SoCC Consultation

F4 The published SoCC

F5 Copies of the SoCC newspaper notices



F6 List of libraries where the SoCC was made available

F7 12.12.2012 Letter about one DCO application

F8 Letters to consultees regarding final SoCC

Appendix G Section 47 stage 1 consultation materials

G1 14.11.2011 Elected representative invitation

G2 15.11.2011 Community consultee invitation

G3 17.11.2011 Press release about forthcoming exhibitions

G4 Press coverage of public exhibitions

G5 Poster

G6 Library list

G7 Exhibition panels

G8 Community consultation summary leaflet

G9 Questionnaire

G10 Freepost response card

Appendix H Section 47 stage 2 consultation materials

H1 19.04.2013 Elected representative invitation

H2 22.04.2013 Community consultee invitation

H3 Press releases

H4 Press coverage

H5 Poster

H6 Library list

H7 Exhibition panels

H8 Community consultation summary leaflet

H9 Questionnaire

H10 Electric and Magnetic Fields Factsheet

Appendix I Newsletters

I1 Dogger Bank News

I2 Fishing News

Appendix J Converter Station Community Working Group

J1 15.02.2012 ERYC email regarding the SoCC



J2 Terms of reference

J3 List of members

J4 Press releases

J5 08.03.2012 Meeting One materials

J6 03.05.2012 Meeting Two materials

J7 25.10.2012 Meeting Three materials

J8 25.04.2013 Meeting Four materials

J9 Agreement to close group

Appendix K Section 48 notices

K1 Section 48 Notice

K2 Copies of the Section 48 newspaper notices

Appendix L EIA Regulation 24 notice

L1 EIA Regulation 24 notice

L2 EIA Regulation 24 letter from the Planning Inspectorate

L3 15.11.2012 Minutes of meeting with the Planning Inspectorate

L4 EEA States‘ responses to Regulation 24 notice

Appendix M Relevant response tables

M1 Responses to consultation on the content of the SoCC

M2 Landowner route alignment requests

M3 Responses relating to health and safety

M4 ES Chapter 4 – EIA process

M5 ES Chapter 5 – project description

M6 ES Chapter 6 – site selection and alternatives

M7 ES Chapter 7 - consultation

M8 ES Chapter 8 – designated sites

M9 ES Chapter 9 – marine physical processes

M10 ES Chapter 10 – marine water and sediment quality

M11 ES Chapter 11 – marine and coastal ornithology

M12 ES Chapter 12 – marine and inter-tidal ecology

M13 ES Chapter 13 – fish and shellfish

M14 ES Chapter 14 – marine mammals



M15 ES Chapter 15 – commercial fisheries

M16 ES Chapter 16 – shipping and navigation

M17 ES Chapter 17 – other marine users

M18 ES Chapter 18 – marine and coastal archaeology

M19 ES Chapter 19 – military activities and civil aviation

M20 ES Chapter 20 – seascape visual character

M21 ES Chapter 21 – landscape and visual

M22 ES Chapter 22 – socio-economics

M23 ES Chapter 23 – tourism and recreation

M24 ES Chapter 24 – geology, water resources and land quality

M25 ES Chapter 25 – terrestrial ecology

M26 ES Chapter 26 – land use and agriculture

M27 ES Chapter 27 – terrestrial archaeology

M28 ES Chapter 28 – traffic and access

M29 ES Chapter 29 – noise

M30 ES Chapter 30 - air quality

Appendix N Other communication records

N1 April 2010 ZAP Workshops - facilitator‘s report

N2 List of commercial communications with landowners

N3 18.05.2011 Ornithology meeting

N4 07.09.2011 IPC Meeting regarding need to repeat Scoping

N5 22.09.2011 ERYC approval of community consultation area

N6 26.01.2012 Workshop on selection of converter stations site

N7 14.02.2012 JNCC and Natural England meeting

N8 01.03.2012 JNCC Meeting regarding need to repeat Scoping

N9 April 2012 Offshore EIA Workshop

N10 19.04.2012 Shipping and Navigation Hazard Workshop

N11 August 2012 Parish Council Workshops

N12 Example letter to EEA state on trans boundary effects and HRA

N13 09.09.2012 Archaeology Workshop

N14 11.03.2013 HRA Screening meeting

N15 24.04.2013 Round table meeting with ERYC

N16 June 2013 Offshore EIA Workshop



N17 21.08.2013 Point by point response to JNCC and Natural England

N18 21.08.2013 Point by point response to MMO and Cefas

Appendix O Examples of general press coverage



Glossary of abbreviations

AEZ Archaeological Exclusion Zones

AIL Abnormal Indivisible Loads

APFP Regulations Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Form and Procedures) Regulations 2009

CD Compact Disk

Cefas Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CNPMEM Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marines

DCO Development Consent Order

DECC Department for Energy and Climate Change

DEFRA Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs

DFA Danish Fisherman‘s Association

DVD Digital Versatile Disk

EEA European Economic Areas

EH English Heritage

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMF Electric and Magnetic Field

EPS European Protected Species

ERYC East Riding of Yorkshire Council

ES Environmental Statement

EU European Union

FLC Fisheries Liaison Co-ordinators

GW Gigawatts

HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling

HETA Humberside Engineering Training Association

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

HIA Health Impact Assessment

HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment

HSC Historic Seascape Characterisation

IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare

IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Km Kilometres



LWS Local Wildlife Sites

MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency

MMMP Marine Mammal Mitigation Protocol

MMO Marine Management Organisation

MP Member of Parliament

NEIFCA North Eastern Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority

NFFO National Federation of Fishermen‘s Organisations

NGET National Grid Electricity Transmission

NIFCA Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

NPS National Policy Statements

NSIP Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project

NSRAC North Sea Regional Advisory Council

NTS Non-Technical Summary

PEI Preliminary Environmental Information

Ramsar The Ramsar Convention (1971) The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

RWE RWE npower renewables (subsidiary of RWG Innogy)

SoCC Statement of Community Consultation

SPZ Source Protection Zone

SSE SSE plc

SVIA Seascape and Visual Character Impact Assessment

UK United Kingdom

WDCS Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

WFD Water Framework Directive

WSI Written Scheme of Investigation

ZAP Zone Appraisal and Planning



1 Executive summary

1.1.1 This Consultation Report has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in

support of the application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck.

1.1.2 The purpose of this Consultation Report is to fulfil Forewind‘s obligation under

section 37(3)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 as amended (the Planning Act), which

states that an application for a DCO must be accompanied by a consultation report

(as defined in section 37 (7) of the Planning Act).

1.1.3 The Consultation Report demonstrates that Forewind has complied with sections

42, 47, 48 and 49 of the Planning Act, and has had due regard to relevant guidance

published under section 50 of the Planning Act. A compliance statement is included

in Annex 1.

1.1.4 Forewind has gone above and beyond the minimum requirements for pre-

application consultation to ensure that stakeholders are fully informed about Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck and have had several opportunities to provide feedback that

could influence the proposals. Consultation has been carefully co-ordinated to

ensure that stakeholders are kept informed and engaged throughout the pre-

application period, without imposing excessive consultation burdens.

1.1.5 Forewind began engaging with stakeholders at a very early stage, as part of the

Zone Appraisal and Planning process. Once Dogger Bank Creyke Beck had been

identified as the first stage of development of the Dogger Bank Zone, there were

two phases of statutory consultation under sections 42 and 47 of the Planning Act.

The proposed application was publicised once in accordance with section 48, to

coincide with the final stage of consultation carried out in accordance with section

42 and section 47.

1.1.6 In accordance with section 47 of the Planning Act, Forewind consulted the relevant

local authorities and Marine Management Organisation (MMO) on the content of the

Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC).

1.1.7 As the first stage of statutory consultation was carried out before the enactment of

the Localism Act 2011, the SoCC was published in full in a number of local

newspapers, in accordance with the original wording of section 47 of the Planning

Act. Publishing the SoCC in full was above and beyond the current (post Localism

Act 2011) requirements of section 47, which states that the applicant must publish a

notice stating where and when the SoCC can be inspected in full. Therefore,

Forewind considers that it has met the current requirements of section 47 of the

Planning Act in this regard.

1.1.8 Forewind consulted stakeholders outside of the statutory consultation periods as

part of the iterative design process and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

This ―non-statutory‖ consultation has also had a clear influence on the proposals

and, as such, is discussed in this report. Consultation on the EIA included

consultation on the Habitats Regulations Assessment and consultation with trans-



boundary stakeholders.

1.1.9 Forewind has compiled an extensive database of stakeholders which includes those

prescribed by the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and

Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations), local authorities, landowners

and others with an interest in the land, the near shore and offshore fishing industry,

the local onshore community and a number of other organisations with a special or

technical interest in the proposals. Given that there was a wide range of differing

interests and technical knowledge across the stakeholders, the methods of

consultation were carefully considered to ensure that information was accessible

and that stakeholders had several different ways to provide their feedback.

1.1.10 Forewind has consulted the Planning Inspectorate, the MMO and East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC) on drafts of a number of other application documents,

including the draft DCO.

1.1.11 Forewind has responded to stakeholder feedback in several ways; altering the

design of the proposals (for example reducing the height of the onshore converter

stations), changing the approach to environmental surveys (for example adding an

additional season of fish surveys) and changing the way Forewind consulted (for

example setting up a community working group to consult on the onshore converter

stations).

1.1.12 The key issues raised during consultation, and the account Forewind has taken of

relevant responses, are summarised in Chapter 8 of this report, according to their

relevance to each chapter of the Environmental Statement or other application

document. Tables summarising all relevant responses received during the statutory

consultation periods are included in Appendix M. In accordance with the

Department for Communities and Local Government‘s Guidance on the Pre-

Application Process, (DCLG, 2013), Forewind has not included a full list of all

responses received outside of the statutory consultation periods, however these

records are available on request.

1.1.13 Throughout the pre-application process, Forewind has endeavoured to be

transparent in its stakeholder communications and has sought to achieve

agreement on as many issues as possible before the application is submitted.

Statements of Common Ground have been initiated pre-application and are draft

documents at the application stage which will be updated during the examination

stage, to reflect on-going consultation.

1.1.14 This Consultation Report complies with the Data Protection Act 1998 and is fit for

public consumption in that regard.



2 Introduction

2.1 Policy Context

2.1.1 This document has been produced to fulfil Forewind Limited‘s (Forewind) obligation

under section 37(3)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 as amended (the Planning Act),

which states that an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) must be

accompanied by a consultation report (as defined in section 37 (7) of the Planning

Act).

2.1.2 The Consultation Report demonstrates compliance with sections 42, 47, 48 (and

additionally section 49) of the Planning Act in relation to the Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck application, in that Forewind has:

Under section 42, consulted with all those required to be consulted under that

section, namely: the consultees prescribed by Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure

Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

(the APFP Regulations), the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), the

relevant local authorities, and landowners or others with an interest in the land;

Under section 47, consulted the local authority on the content of the Statement

of Community Consultation (SoCC), published a notice in a local newspaper

stating where and when the SoCC can be inspected, made the SoCC available

to the public, and consulted the local community in accordance with the

published SoCC;

Under section 48, publicised the proposed application in the manner prescribed

by Regulation 4 of the APFP Regulations; and

Under section 49, taken account of relevant responses to the consultation and

publicity.

2.1.3 During the pre-application period for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, there have been

legislative changes that have affected the consultation process, particularly the

enactment of the Localism Act 2011 (the Localism Act) and The Infrastructure

Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc.) (Amendment)

Regulations 2013. Forewind has taken care to ensure that it has complied with any

changes brought about by this legislation.

2.1.4 In designing the consultation process and preparing this report, Forewind has had

regard to guidance published by the Department for Communities and Local

Government (DCLG), in accordance with section 50 of the Planning Act. Namely:

DCLG (2009) Planning Act 2008 Guidance on pre-application consultation; and

DCLG (2013) Planning Act 2008 Guidance on the pre-application process.

2.1.5 Forewind has also taken into account relevant advice notes, in particular:

The Planning Inspectorate (2012) Advice note three: EIA consultation and

notification;

The Planning Inspectorate (2012) Advice note twelve: Development with

significant transboundary impacts consultation;



The Planning Inspectorate (2012) Advice note fourteen: Compiling the

consultation report; and

The Planning Inspectorate (2012) Advice note sixteen: The developer‘s pre-

application consultation, publicity and notification duties.

2.1.6 Forewind has also taken into consideration the National Policy Statements (NPS) –

specifically the Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1), the NPS for Renewable Energy

Infrastructure (EN-3) and the NPS for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5).

2.1.7 A brief summary of consultation undertaken in accordance with the Infrastructure

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA

Regulations) is included in this report, but the focus is consultation undertaken in

accordance with sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act.

2.1.8 A compliance statement setting out how Forewind has complied with the relevant

provisions of the Planning Act, APFP Regulations, EIA Regulations and DCLG

Guidance is included in Annex 1.

2.1.9 This Consultation Report complies with the Data Protection Act 1998 and is fit for

public consumption in that regard.

2.2 Structure of this consultation report

2.2.1 Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of this report set out the statutory consultation processes that

Forewind has followed to meet the requirements of section 42, section 47 and

section 48 of the Planning Act.

2.2.2 Chapter 6 explains the non-statutory consultation process that was followed and

how additional non-statutory consultees were identified and consulted both during

statutory and non-statutory consultation periods. This includes a specific section

on fisheries liaison.

2.2.3 Chapter 7 explains how Forewind has met the consultation requirements of the

EIA Regulations, including consultation with trans-boundary consultees.

2.2.4 Chapter 8 summarises the key issues that were raised during consultation

throughout the pre-application stage, and the regard that Forewind had to these

responses, thus demonstrating compliance with section 49 of the Planning Act.

This Chapter is structured in sections relating to ES topics or other application

documents.

2.2.5 Chapter 9 explains Forewind‘s proactive approach to preparing Statements of

Common Ground.

2.2.6 Additional information and evidence is provided in the appendices which are

referenced throughout the report. Of particular note is Appendix M which contains

tables of all relevant responses received during Scoping and the two stages of

statutory consultation. There is one table per ES topic and within each table,

responses are split into the three stages – Scoping, first stage of statutory

consultation (containing responses received under sections 42 and 47 of the

Planning Act) and second stage of statutory consultation (containing responses

received under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act).



2.3 Forewind

2.3.1 Forewind is a consortium comprising four leading international energy companies;

RWE npower renewables Limited, SSE Renewables Developments (UK) Limited,

Statoil Wind Limited and Statkraft UK LImited. Together, these companies combine

extensive experience of international offshore project delivery and renewable

energy development, construction, asset management and operations. Through

the combined strength of its owner companies, Forewind has the ability to both

make a significant contribution to the future of wind energy in the UK and

demonstrate commitment to the continuing development of offshore wind.

2.3.2 A summary of each of the Forewind partner companies is provided below:

RWE npower renewables Limited is the UK subsidiary of RWE Innogy. RWE Innogy is one of Europe‘s and the UK‘s leading renewable energy developers and operators. It is committed to developing and operating renewable energy projects to produce sustainable electricity across Europe and pools the expertise of its parent RWE Group.

SSE Renewables Developments (UK) Limited is part of the SSE group. SSE has over 3,000MW of renewables generation in its portfolio making it the largest generator of electricity from renewable sources across the UK and Ireland. Statoil Wind Limited is part of Statoil, an international energy company headquartered in Norway that has operations in 36 countries. Statoil is committed to accommodating the world's energy needs responsibly. In undertaking this challenge Statoil draws upon 40 years of experience from oil and gas production in harsh environments such as the North Sea..

Statkraft UK Limited manages Statkraft‘s interests in the UK. Statkraft is Europe‘s largest generator of renewable energy and is the leading power company in Norway. Statkraft owns, produces and develops hydropower, wind power, gas power and district heating. Statkraft is also a major player in European power trading.

2.4 Dogger Bank Zone

2.4.1 In January 2010, following a competitive tender process, The Crown Estate

awarded Forewind the exclusive development rights for ‗Zone 3, Dogger Bank‘; the

largest of the Round 3 offshore wind farm zones. The Dogger Bank Zone

comprises an area of 8660km2, which is approximately the same size as North

Yorkshire, and is located in the North Sea, between 125km and 290km off the coast

of Yorkshire.

2.4.2 Forewind has a target to achieve consent for 9 gigawatts (GW) of projects in the

Dogger Bank Zone. This capacity will be achieved by a series of individual wind

farm arrays, being developed in phases and Forewind‘s priority is to secure the first

six, each up to 1.2GW, or a total installed capacity of 7.2GW. Dogger Bank Creyke



Beck is the first stage of development of the Dogger Bank Zone.

2.5 Project background

2.5.1 In 2010, Forewind identified ―Dogger Bank Project One‖, a single offshore wind farm

array with a maximum installed capacity of 1.4 GW, and associated infrastructure

connecting to the Creyke Beck Substation, near Cottingham in the East Riding of

Yorkshire. This proposal was presented at the earliest stages of non-statutory

consultation and was the subject of a formal Scoping request (Forewind, 2010), to

the then Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), now the Planning Inspectorate,

in October 2010.

2.5.2 During 2011, it became clear to Forewind that a second grid connection may

become available at Creyke Beck, facilitating connection of a second wind farm at

this location. This additional grid connection increased the scale of the

development to a maximum installed capacity of 2.8GW (two wind farm arrays,

each up to 1.4GW). The amended proposal was renamed ―Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck‖ and all subsequent consultation was carried out on the basis of this larger

development.

2.5.3 By the second stage of statutory consultation, Forewind had refined its proposals

and identified that the maximum installed capacity per wind farm array in Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck was 1.2GW, rather than 1.4GW. Therefore the maximum

installed capacity for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck was refined to 2.4GW at the

second stage of statutory consultation.

2.5.4 Forewind has prepared an application for a single Development Consent Order

(DCO) for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, which is supported by a single Environmental

Statement (ES) and Consultation Report. Forewind considers that all consultation

undertaken on Dogger Bank Project One is relevant to Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

2.6 Overview of the consultation process

2.6.1 This section provides an overview and narrative of the whole pre-application stage.

It includes a quick reference guide summarising all consultation activities in

chronological order, as recommended by Advice Note Fourteen (The Planning

Inspectorate, 2012).

2.6.2 The consultation process for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck is iterative and started with

Forewind informing the stakeholder community of its intention to seek open and

transparent consultation, on the day that it was awarded the development rights for

the Dogger Bank Zone.

2.6.3 In line with The Crown Estate‘s guidance on the Zone Appraisal and Planning (ZAP)

process, Forewind consulted stakeholders about the Dogger Bank Zone, to inform

the identification of the locations of the first projects. The ZAP process is

summarised in Figure 2.1.



Figure 2.1 Zone development process

2.6.4 This ZAP consultation included three stakeholder workshops, which were held in

April 2010. Over 88 stakeholder organisations attended these workshops, including

statutory bodies, UK and international fishing organisations, environmental non-

governmental organisations and developers of other offshore infrastructure projects.

The workshops were a success in that they ensured that stakeholders were

engaged in the Dogger Bank Development from an extremely early stage, and their

feedback at the event influenced the content of the Zonal Characterisation Report

and Forewind‘s approach to consultation. The facilitator‘s report summarising the

workshops is provided in Appendix N1.

2.6.5 Forewind‘s overall approach to consultation was set out in the Stakeholder

Engagement Plan (Forewind, 2011), which was published on Forewind‘s website

and is provided in Appendix A. This was supported by the Fisheries Liaison Plan

(Forewind, 2011), which set out Forewind‘s approach to consulting fishing industry

stakeholders. This was also published on Forewind‘s website and updated and

republished in 2013. Both versions of the Fisheries Liaison Plan are provided in

Appendix B.

2.6.6 Once the location of the first grid connection (at the Creyke Beck Substation) was

agreed with National Grid, Forewind commenced the project development and

consenting process. Forewind adopted a multi-stage statutory consultation

process, as recommended by DCLG Guidance (DCLG, 2013). This is illustrated in

Figure 2.2. The ZAP process continued in parallel to enable further stages of the

Dogger Bank Zone to be progressed.

Up to 9.6GW capacity achieved by a series of individual wind

farm projects

Non - statutory

consultation

Zone Appraisal and Planning

Fisheries liaison

Transboundary consultation

Non-statutory consultation on site selection, EIA survey and assessment methodologies

Parish Council workshops, community working group meetings

Statutory

consultation

S47 PEI1 Scoping

S42 PEI1

S47 Consultation on content of the

SoCC

S46

Notification

SoCC published

S47 Draft ES

S42 Draft ES

S48 Draft ES

S48 Notices

published

20

10

2

01

1

20

12

20

13

Figure 2.2 Multi-stage consultation process



2.6.7 In order to demonstrate Forewind‘s commitment to transparency and a clear

objective of achieving agreement with stakeholders, Forewind decided to progress

Statements of Common Ground before submitting the application for a DCO. This

is detailed further in Chapter 9 of this report.

2.6.8 A summary of consultation activities is outlined in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Overview of consultation activities

Date Stage Activity Consultees

Quarter 1 to quarter 2 2010

Non-statutory Consultation as part of the ZAP Process, which included the ZAP workshops.

Fisheries Liaison Co-ordinators appointed and began fisheries engagement.

Statutory authorities

Selected non-prescribed technical consultees (such as RSPB)

Local authorities

International fishing and shipping organisations

Quarter 3 2010

Non-statutory Pre-scoping meetings with selected consultees on Dogger Bank Project One.

As above

13 Oct to 18 Nov 2010

Scoping Scoping for Dogger Bank Project One

Deemed notification under Regulation 6(b) of the EIA Regulations that Forewind will provide an Environmental Statement (ES)

All those prescribed by Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations (prescribed bodies)

2011 Non-statutory Consultation on emerging project design and assessment

EIA methodologies and baseline surveys agreed with appropriate consultees

The project doubled in size to two wind farms, and was re-named Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

Land agent began contacting landowners and occupiers

Prescribed bodies

Non-statutory consultees

Local authorities

International fishing and shipping organisations,

Near shore fishermen

Offshore and onshore landowners and occupiers

2011 Section 47 – SoCC preparation and publication

Statutory consultation with the Local Authorities and the MMO on the SoCC

Publication of the SoCC

Local authorities

MMO

3 Dec 2011

Section 46 Notification of proposed application

Provided IPC with Preliminary Environmental Information 1 (PEI1)

IPC

5 Dec 2011 to 20 Jan 2012

Sections 42 and 47 – First stage of consultation

PEI1 was published which included the “Approach to the EIA” document - an update to the Scoping Report.

Wrote to all consultees to notify them of the deadline for responses

Public exhibitions

Prescribed bodies


Local authorities


Offshore and near shore fishermen and fishing organisations

Offshore and onshore



Date Stage Activity Consultees

landowners and occupiers

The local community through public exhibitions

2012 Non-statutory Non-statutory consultation on site selection and EIA

Community Working Group established to discuss micro-siting and layout of the onshore converter stations

Initial consultation on transboundary impacts with Nature Conservation Authorities, Fishing Authorities and other contacts (provided by the Planning Inspectorate) in other European Economic Area (EEA) Member States

Briefings for Members of Parliament (MP) and Councillors

Two editions of Forewind‘s newsletter produced

Prescribed bodies


Local authorities




The local community through the Community Working Group and Parish Council meetings

Elected representatives

Nature Conservation Agencies for other EU Member States

19 April to 11 June 2013

Sections 42, 47 & 48 Publication and second stage of consultation

Draft ES, Draft Non-Technical Summary (NTS) and a variety of other draft application documents published on the Forewind website and sent to consultees

Section 48 notice sent to section 42 consultees and advertised as prescribed by the APFP Regulations

Wrote to section 42 consultees to advise them of the deadline for responses

Public exhibitions

Prescribed bodies


Local authorities

International fishing and shipping organisations



The local community and their elected representatives

Nature Conservation Agencies for other EU Member States



3 Section 42 consultation process

3.1 Section 42 consultees

3.1.1 Section 42 of the Planning Act specifies who the applicant must consult about the

proposed application. Those relevant to the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

development are:

Section 42 (1) (a) – such persons as may be prescribed,

Section 42 (1) (aa) - the Marine Management Organisation (MMO),

Section 42 (1) (b) – each local authority that is within section 43, and

Section 42 (1) (d) – each person who is within one or more of the categories set

out in section 44.

3.1.2 A full list of consultees identified in accordance with Section 42 (1) (a), (aa) and (b)

is included in Appendix C2.

3.1.3 All consultees identified in accordance with Section 42(1)(d) are included in the

Book of Reference (Planning Inspectorate document reference number 4.3).

3.1.4 Details of how these consultees were identified are provided below.

3.2 Identification of the prescribed consultees

3.2.1 The section 42(1)(a) prescribed consultees were identified by careful attendance to

Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Form and

Procedures) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations).

3.2.2 Forewind incorporated into its list of prescribed consultees, any bodies consulted by

the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) during Scoping. This information was

provided to Forewind in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(b) of the Infrastructure

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulation 2009 (the EIA

Regulations). Neither the IPC, nor its successor, the Planning Inspectorate, made

Forewind aware of any persons identified in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(c)1.

The Regulation 9 list is included in Appendix C1.

3.2.3 Over the course of the pre-application stage, the list of prescribed consultees

changed due to updates to legislation, most notably the Localism Act and The

Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc.)

(Amendment) Regulations 2013, the Government‘s abolishment of various public

bodies, normal changes in Ofgem gas and electricity licenses and refinement of the

geographical location of the project. Forewind made best endeavours to keep the

list of prescribed consultees up to date and has had regard to Advice Note Three

(The Planning Inspectorate, 2012), which provides further advice on the

identification of consultees.

1 Persons whom the Secretary of State considers likely to be affected by, or may have an interest in, a

proposed NSIP and who are unlikely to become aware of the proposed NSIP through the pre- application consultation and publicity process set out in the 2008 Act.



3.2.4 In line with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

Guidance (DCLG, 2013), Forewind requested and received advice from the

Planning Inspectorate on certain bodies which ceased to exist during the pre-

application stages.

3.2.5 The list of prescribed consultees in Appendix C2 explains the reasons for any

variances between Forewind‘s list of Section 42(1)(a) consultees and the list of

prescribed consultees set out in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations,

demonstrating where Forewind has not been able to comply with the statutory

requirements (e.g. where a body has been abolished) and where the named body

has changed between the first and second stage of statutory consultation. The lists

of electricity and gas licence holders downloaded from the Office of Gas and

Electricity Markets (Ofgem) website to inform the selection of relevant consultees at

the second stage of statutory consultation, are included in Appendix C3.

3.2.6 The list of prescribed consultees in Appendix C2 highlights any prescribed

consultees also included in the Book of Reference (Planning Inspectorate

document reference number 4.3) at the time of submitting an application for a

DCO. This includes but is not limited to Beverley and North Holderness Internal

Drainage Board, National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc, Network Rail

Infrastructure Ltd, Northern Powergrid Ltd, The Environment Agency and Yorkshire

Water Services Ltd.

3.2.7 Forewind consulted more bodies than those prescribed by the Planning Act. This is

explained further in Chapter 6 of this report.

3.3 Identification of the relevant local authorities

3.3.1 Forewind applied section 43 of the Planning Act as follows:

Table 3.1 Local authorities identified in accordance with section 43

Name of Authority Category2 Description

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC)

B Unitary council within whose area the land lies

Hull City Council A Unitary council which shares a boundary with ERYC

City of York Council A Unitary authority which shares a boundary with ERYC

North Yorkshire County Council

A Upper-tier county council which shares a boundary with ERYC

North Lincolnshire Council A Unitary authority which shares a boundary with ERYC

Scarborough Borough Council A Lower tier district council which shares a boundary with ERYC

Ryedale District Council A Lower tier district council which shares a boundary with ERYC

Selby District Council A Lower tier district council which shares a boundary with

2 See Chapter 2 Section 43 (2) of The Planning Act 2008 for a description of these categories



ERYC

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

A Unitary council which shares a boundary with ERYC

3.3.2 The relevant local authority boundaries are shown in Figure 3.1.

3.3.3 In the Regulation 9 list compiled by the IPC for the purposes of Environmental

Impact Assessment scoping, Hull City Council was classified as a ‗B‘ authority. This

was because, at that time, it was possible that Hull City Council‘s area could have

been directly affected by the proposals. Since then, the proposals have been

refined and none of the infrastructure will be located in Hull City Council‘s area.

Hence it is now classified as an ‗A‘ Authority.

3.3.4 Advice Note Three (The Planning Inspectorate, 2012) recommends that developers

of offshore schemes also consult local authorities that may be visually impacted by

the offshore elements of the proposals, even if they are not captured within the

categories of A, B, C or D local authorities.

3.3.5 The 35km Zone of Visual Influence for the offshore infrastructure of Dogger Bank

Creyke Beck does not cover any other local authorities. The landfall and near shore

works will be temporary and will only be visible from the East Riding of Yorkshire.

Therefore, no additional authorities have been consulted on this basis.

#

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

North Yorkshire County Council (A)

East Riding of Yorkshire (B)

York City Council (A)

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (A)

North Lincolnshire Council (A)

HullCity

Council (A)

Ryedale DistrictCouncil (A)

Scarborough BoroughCouncil (A)

Selby DistrictCouncil (A)

HARROGATE

RIPON

RICHMOND

Bainbridge

SKIPTON

MALTON

WHITBY

SCARBOROUGH

DRIFFIELD

BRIDLINGTON

HEDON

HORNSEA

BEVERLEY

SCUNTHORPE

DONCASTER

SELBYHyndburn

District

Blackburn with Darwen

District

ManchesterDistrict

TamesideDistrict

GOOLE

Eden District

County Durham

Craven District

East Lindsey District

Hambleton District

Harrogate District

Richmondshire District

West Lindsey District

Northumberland

Cheshire East (B)

South Lakeland District

Bassetlaw Dis trict

Leeds District

Lancaster Distr ict

High Peak District

Ribble Valley District

Carlisle Distric t (B)

Cheshire West and Chester (B)

Kirklees District

Derbyshire Dales District

Sheffield District

Bradford District

Calderdale District

Barnsley District

Wakefield District

Darlington

Wyre Distr ict

RotherhamDistrict

Warrington

Wigan District

Chorley District

Redcar and Clevela nd

Stockton-on-Tees

Pendle District

Halton

Bolton Distr ict

Rochdale District

Oldham District

Hartlepool (B)

Gateshead District (B)

Rossendale District

Stockport District

Burnley District

Bolsover Distr ict

North East Lincolnshire

Preston District

St. Helens District

BuryDistrict

Sunderland District (B)

Trafford District

Salford District

South Ribble District

Mansfield District

Liverpool District

Middles-brough

Lincoln District (B)

Sefton District

Wirral District (B)

North Tyneside Distric t (B)

400000

400000

450000

450000

500000

500000

4000

00

4000

00

4500

00

4500

00

5000

00

5000

00

¯&

&

&

&

&

MIDDLESBROUGHWHITBY

SCARBOROUGH

KINGSTON UPON HULL

GRIMSBY

0 10 20

KilometresThe concepts and information contained in this documentare the copyright of Forewind. Use or copying of thedocument in whole or in part without the written permissionof Forewind constitutes an infringement of copyright. Forewind does not warrant that this document is definitivenor free of error and does not accept liabil ity for any losscaused or arising from reliance upon information provided herein.


T-D ES-0 12 0-0 1

Section 43 - Local Authority Map

DRAWING NUMBER:

VER DATE1 17/09/2012

REMARKS CheckedFirst Issue

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT TITLE

LEGEND (Inset map)

Data Source:Round 3 © TCE, 2010Substations © National Grid, 2011.International boundary © UKDeal,2010.Background bathymetry image derived in part from TCarta data © 2009 Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right, 2012Contains UKHO Law of the Sea data © Crown copyright and database right.

BNGOSGB36A41:1,000,000 DATUM PROJECTIONSCALE PLOT SIZE

DrawnAJ NS

LEGEND (Main map)

Creyke Beck A

Creyke Beck B

# Creyke Beck, National Grid SubstationCreyke Beck onshore cable corridorLocal authority boundaryDistrict council boundaryDirectly affected authority (B)Neighbouring local authorities (A)

12nm territorial boundaryOther local authorities - not consulted

Tranche boundaryDogger Bank Round 3 ZoneInternational boundary

Lower tier authorities - not consulted

Creyke Beck ACreyke Beck BCreyke Beck offshore cable corridor



3.4 Identification of landowners and others with an interest in the land

3.4.1 Section 42(1)(d) of the Planning Act states that the applicant must consult each

person who is within one or more of the categories set out in section 44. This

includes any owner, lessee, tenant or occupier, any person interested in the land or

has power to sell and convey the land and any person entitled to make a relevant

claim.

3.4.2 All persons consulted under section 42(1)(d) are included in the Book of Reference

(Planning Inspectorate document reference number 4.3), and this list is up to

date at the time of submitting the application for a DCO. It is important to note that

the list of section 42(1)(d) consultees is subject to change over time, as a result of

normal changes in land ownership.

3.4.3 Forewind sought to identify the section 42(1)(d) consultees by diligent inquiry before

each stage of statutory section 42 consultation. This is explained further below.

3.4.4 At the very early stages of the project, Forewind‘s land agent, Dalcour Maclaren,

carried out Land Registry Polygon Searches over the area affected by the preferred

cable route corridors (Mappleton to Creyke Beck and Fraisthorpe to Creyke Beck)

and a 4km radius around the converter station study area, to identify individual land

parcels.

3.4.5 Dalcour Maclaren then sent a land questionnaire (Appendix C4) to all the

addresses identified by this polygon search, seeking information about the land. In

addition, contact referencing was also carried out whereby Dalcour Maclaren

carried out site visits to collect and record landowner information through

discussions with local people. All information gathered by these land referencing

techniques was collated and used to populate the consultation database.

3.4.6 Having gathered this information, Dalcour Maclaren then began contacting all

identified landowners within the 1km survey corridor to seek permission for non-

intrusive survey access via formal access licences.

3.4.7 During the process of agreeing access licences, and latterly negotiating Heads of

Terms for private treaty agreements, Dalcour Maclaren helped to keep landowners

up-to-date on Forewind‘s development activities, both directly and via the

landowners‘ agents. In addition, Dalcour Maclaren also gathered information

regarding land interests and relayed landowners‘ feedback to Forewind. This

included opinions on the red line boundary as well as requests and suggestions for

changes. A list of generic landowner communications relating to commercial

discussions is provided in Appendix N2.

3.4.8 The list of section 42(1)(d) consultees changed over the course of the pre-

application period in line with refinements and changes to the proposals, several of

which were as a result of landowner consultation. There were also normal changes

in landownership or land interests which affected the list, such as changes of

ownership and new tenants.

3.4.9 During the first stage of statutory consultation, Forewind consulted all identified

parties within the preferred 1km wide cable corridor from Barmston and Ulrome to

Creyke Beck and the converter stations search area. Forewind consulted all



identified parties with an interest in the preferred study area. Following the public

exhibitions, Dalcour Maclaren met landowners and their agents, where appointed,

to seek their opinions regarding narrowing of the 1km corridor.

3.4.10 Ahead of the second stage of statutory section 42 consultation, Forewind checked

and refreshed the information previously gathered by contracting a specialist land

referencing firm to carry out an independent referencing exercise. The referencing

firm sent a further questionnaire (Appendix C5) to all known landowners and

occupiers, requesting further information about land interests (including information

regarding third party interests, utilities and mortgagees).

3.4.11 In addition, site notices were placed on 11 parcels of unregistered land (Appendix

C6). As a result, a number of calls were received but unfortunately they did not lead

to confirmation of ownership or other interest in the specific land parcels, nor did

they lead to identification of anyone falling within section 52(3) of the Planning Act.

3.4.12 In addition to questionnaires and site notices, the referencing firm sought further

information about land parcels through the electoral roll, 192.com and the Royal

Mail website. Any additional landowners or interests identified were then checked

via Land Registry, if registered, and where necessary, title documents were

requested and reviewed. Questionnaires were then issued to any new interests

identified.

3.4.13 It has not been possible for Forewind to seek formal rights from the Planning

Inspectorate to serve Land Interests Notices, under section 52 of the Planning Act,

because enquiries have not identified anyone on whom such notices could, with

authorisation, be served.

3.4.14 Forewind also classified those with an interest in the seabed affected by the

offshore works, such as pipeline operators, as section 42(1)(d) consultees. These

were identified through interrogation of The Crown Estate‘s Marine Resource

System3 and inspection of charts such as those sourced from the Department of

Energy and Climate Change‘s (DECC) Oil and Gas Licensing website4.

3.5 Two stages of statutory consultation

3.5.1 Forewind carried out a two stage statutory consultation under section 42 of the

Planning Act. This approach was taken to ensure that the prescribed consultees

were engaged from an early stage in the development of the project and had

multiple opportunities to comment.

3.5.2 It also ensured that Forewind satisfied the requirement5 to have complied with

section 42 of the Planning Act before applying to the IPC (now Planning

Inspectorate) for rights of entry under section 53 of the Planning Act, allowing

environmental surveys to be undertaken in a timely manner.

3.5.3 Forewind wrote to all section 42 consultees in advance of each stage of statutory

consultation to notify them of a deadline for receipt of consultation responses and

that this deadline was more than 28 days starting from the day after receipt of the

consultation documents.

3 http://www.marsmapping.co.uk/

4 https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-offshore-maps-and-gis-shapefiles

5 This requirement was subsequently repealed by the Localism Act 2011

http://www.marsmapping.co.uk/

https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-offshore-maps-and-gis-shapefiles



3.5.4 Before, between and after the two stages of statutory consultation, Forewind

continued to consult the section 42 consultees on an ad hoc basis. Forewind

referred to this as ―non-statutory‖ consultation.

3.6 First stage of statutory consultation

3.6.1 The first stage of statutory consultation was intended to introduce Forewind and

Dogger Bank Creyke Beck to stakeholders, as well as to present options for the

landfall location and onshore converter stations sites and to request further

information that might influence the development process.

3.6.2 Consultation documents were available online and in libraries by the 5 December

2011 and the deadline for responses was the 20 January 2012. Therefore, the total

duration of this consultation was at least 46 days, which was more than the

statutory minimum of 28 days, to allow for the Christmas period.

3.6.3 In order to reduce confusion, the deadline for responses was deliberately co-

ordinated to be the same as that of the first stage of section 47 consultation.

3.6.4 In compliance with section 46 of the Planning Act, Forewind provided the IPC with

the section 42 consultation documents on 3 December 2011 (i.e. before they were

sent to the section 42 consultees and before commencing section 42 consultation)

at a meeting at the IPC‘s offices in Bristol.

3.6.5 Consultation documents entitled ―Preliminary Environmental Information 1‖ (PEI1)

were published on Forewind‘s website. PEI1 consisted of:

Preliminary Environmental Information 1 – the overarching consultation

document;

Appendix A - Project Description;

Appendix B – Approach to Environmental Impact Assessment;

Appendix C – Landfall Selection Report;

Appendix D – Onshore Converter Station Selection Report;

Appendix E – Onshore Cable Corridor Selection Report; and

Appendix F – Offshore Cable Corridor Selection Report.

3.6.6 Forewind initially wrote to the section 42 (1)(a), (aa) and (b) consultees (plus

additional non-statutory consultees) on 15 November 2011 (Appendix D1) to

provide advanced notice of the forthcoming consultation and the fact that

consultation documents would be available from 5 December 2011 on Forewind‘s

website. Forewind wrote to these stakeholders again on 31 November 2011

(Appendix D2) to confirm that the consultation documents were already available

online (they were made available early), the deadline for responses and details of

the public exhibitions in the East Riding of Yorkshire, should they wish to attend.

On 6 December 2011, Forewind wrote to these consultees to request that they

confirm they are able to access the documents online, or else to request the

documents in some other format (Appendix D3).

3.6.7 Forewind wrote to all the Section 42 (1)(d) consultees (that had been identified at

that time) on 15 November 2011 (Appendix D4) to provide advanced notice of the

consultation and in particular, the details of public exhibitions that were to be held in



accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act (see Section 4.4). On 7

December, Forewind wrote to all the Section 42 (1)(d) consultees again and

provided a compact disk (CD) copy of the PEI1 documents (Appendix D5).

3.6.8 Following the PEI1 consultation, Forewind reviewed all relevant responses and any

late responses. All responses were recorded and considered in the further

development of the project. Relevant responses are summarised in the tables in

Appendix M.

3.7 Second stage of statutory consultation

3.7.1 The second stage of statutory consultation started on 19 April 2013 and the

deadline for responses was 11 June 2013. Therefore, the total duration of this

consultation period was 54 days, which is longer than the statutory minimum of 28

days, to reflect the volume and detail of consultation materials. In order to reduce

confusion, Forewind deliberately co-ordinated the deadline for responses to the

section 42, section 47 and section 48 consultations.

3.7.2 Forewind provided the Planning Inspectorate with the consultation documents in

advance of the section 42 consultation period, on 16 April 2013 (Appendix E3).

3.7.3 Forewind endeavoured to give stakeholders sufficient notice of the final

consultation. In December 2012, Forewind wrote to the Section 42 (1)(a), (aa) and

(b) prescribed consultees plus additional non-statutory consultees to confirm

whether they would require hard copies of any of the consultation documents, and

to outline the consultation process (Appendix E1). In March 2013, Forewind wrote

to the same consultees to provide an update on the forthcoming consultation and to

explain the reason for a short delay (Appendix E2). On 16 April 2013, Forewind

wrote to all these consultees again to inform them that the consultation documents

were available, to confirm the deadline for responses and to outline the key

elements of the proposals. This letter included a DVD copy of the consultation

documents and hard copies of any document, if previously requested (Appendix

E4).

3.7.4 Forewind wrote to all Section 42(1)(d) consultees that had been identified on 3 April

2013 to provide advance warning of the consultation (Appendix E5), and then on

17 April 2013 to notify them that the consultation period had begun (Appendix E6).

This second letter included a DVD copy of the consultation documents and, for

onshore stakeholders, a factsheet designed to highlight landowner and occupier

specific issues (Appendix E8).

3.7.5 At this stage, the main consultation documents comprised a draft ES and draft Non-

Technical Summary (NTS). The draft ES was informed by both responses to the

first stage of statutory consultation and a significant amount of non-statutory

consultation that was carried out between these statutory periods. The draft ES and

NTS were available to download from the Forewind website.

3.7.6 A number of other draft application documents, including the draft DCO and draft

Works Plans, were sent to both the MMO and ERYC for comment. Forewind held

meetings with both the MMO and ERYC to discuss and take on board their

comments, and to inform the final drafts of the application documents.

3.7.7 Draft application documents were made available to all other statutory consultees



on request. Forewind chose not to circulate all these draft documents as a matter

of course, to ensure that the consultation was focussed on the draft ES and to avoid

overwhelming consultees with information. The cover letter sent to each section 42

consultee (and additional non-statutory consultees) explained which additional draft

application documents were available.

3.7.8 Forewind offered meetings to all section 42 consultees during the consultation

period to answer questions and aid understanding of the consultation documents.

Meetings were held with both onshore and offshore consultees. An example of

such a meeting is the round table discussion that was held with various officers at

East Riding of Yorkshire Council on 24 April 2013 (Appendix N15).

3.7.9 During the second stage of statutory section 42 consultation, a number of additional

land interests were identified. Forewind sent all those identified, an amended

section 42 cover letter (Appendix E7) and consultation documents, and extended

the deadline to allow 28 days for those persons to respond. Comments were

received from two of the additional land interests identified.

3.7.10 Following the consultation deadlines, Forewind recorded and considered all

relevant responses in finalising the application. These are summarised in

Appendix M.

3.7.11 More information on how responses were taken into account can be found in

Chapter 8 of this report, and in the relevant chapters of the ES (Planning

Inspectorate document reference number 6).



4 Section 47 consultation process

4.1 Summary of the SoCC rationale

4.1.1 Throughout the development process, Forewind consulted the local community on

the two wind farm projects that comprise Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, as one

development. Forewind chose to do this, despite the initial uncertainty about

whether one or two Development Consent Order (DCO) applications would be

submitted, to ensure that it was clear to the local community what the maximum

possible scale of the proposal was.

4.1.2 Forewind published its Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) in November

2011, at an early stage in the development process (Appendix F4). Consultation

was carried out in accordance with the commitments made within the SoCC and

this included two stages of statutory community consultation on preliminary

environmental information (PEI).

4.1.3 Over the course of the pre-application period, Forewind refined its approach to

community consultation and carried out additional consultation, above and beyond

the commitments made in the SoCC. These additional activities are outlined in

Section 4.7.

4.1.4 The SoCC explained that the project could be the subject of one or more

applications for a DCO. The decision to submit a single DCO application was taken

in 2012 and Dogger Bank News newsletters (Appendix I1) made it clear that a

single application would be submitted. Forewind also wrote to the statutory and

non-statutory consultees to inform them of this decision in December 2012

(Appendix F7) and the Forewind website was updated in January 2013.

4.1.5 In accordance with Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental

Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations), the SoCC set out that

the development is EIA development and how Forewind intended to publicise and

consult on the PEI.

4.1.6 The two stages of community consultation on PEI were carried out in parallel with

the two statutory consultations carried out in accordance with section 42. This was

done to ensure that the published section 42 and section 47 consultation

documents were consistent, and that all of Forewind‘s stakeholders were given an

opportunity to comment on the proposals at least twice before the application was

submitted.

4.1.7 Forewind adopted a tiered approach to community consultation. Those likely to be

most impacted by the scheme (i.e. those with postal address up to 1km from the

converter stations study area and/or 500m either side of the onshore cable route)

were sent a letter inviting them to the public exhibitions and copies of each edition

of the Dogger Bank News newsletter.

4.1.8 Other members of the local community, likely to be less impacted than those

described in paragraph 4.1.7, but nevertheless still interested in the scheme, were

targeted through the general media, posters and word of mouth, such as via the

community organisations that Forewind included in its database of non-statutory

consultees. Forewind also took into account whether the impacts of the scheme on



a particular community were temporary or permanent. As a result, focussed

community consultation, particularly via the converter station community working

group, was carried out with the communities in the vicinity of the onshore converter

stations.

4.1.9 A number of free-of-charge channels were available for consultees to access

information and provide comments and feedback on the proposals. These

included:

lodging hard copies of the consultation documents at local libraries during the

consultation periods,

making consultation documents available to download from the Forewind

website,

CDs or DVDs containing the consultation documents were available on request

and at the public exhibitions,

questionnaires available at the public exhibitions,

a Freephone telephone number (available at any time),

Freepost address (available at any time),

e-mail address (available at any time), and

website enquiry form (available at any time).

4.1.10 The public exhibition questionnaires proved to be the main channel for the local

community to provide feedback.

4.2 Consultation on the content of the draft SoCC

4.2.1 East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) (being the relevant B Authority), Hull City

Council and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) were consulted on the

content of the draft SoCC. The Infrastructure Planning Commission (now the

Planning Inspectorate) was also asked to comment. These consultees were

consulted a number of times, due to the change in the scale of the scheme, and

therefore change in consultation strategy.

4.2.2 The final statutory consultation on the content of the SoCC was carried out from 3

October 2011 to 1 November 2011, which allowed consultees at least 28 days to

provide comments. The cover letters to each of the consultees and the SoCC

Consultation Document are included in Appendices F1 and F2.

4.2.3 The relevant responses to the SoCC consultation are provided in Appendix F3,

and a table explaining the regard that Forewind had to both these responses, and

non-statutory responses on the content of the SoCC, is included in Appendix M1.

ERYC approved the proposed Community Consultation Area in a meeting on 22

September 2011 (Appendix N5).

4.2.4 Forewind provided ERYC, Hull City Council and the MMO with a final version of the

SoCC and confirmed how it would be published in November 2011 (Appendix F8).

4.3 Publication of the SoCC

4.3.1 Forewind published the SoCC in November 2011, before the Localism Act was



enacted, and therefore it was published in full in a number of local newspapers.

Forewind considers that this goes above and beyond the current requirement of

section 47 and therefore that it has satisfied the requirements of this section. Table

4.2 details the newspapers that were used to publicise the SoCC and copies of the

SoCC, as it appeared in each of these publications, are included in Appendix F5.

Table 4.2 Publications in which Forewind published the SoCC

4.3.2 The SoCC was made available for inspection on the Forewind website, in hard copy

at the local libraries listed in Appendix F6, and was referenced in the Kingfisher

Bulletin on 24 November 2011.

4.3.3 Forewind also posted a hard copy of the SoCC to all addresses within the

Consultation Area and posted or emailed a copy of the SoCC to all elected

representatives and community groups on Forewind‘s database, as part of the

invitation to the December 2011 exhibitions (Appendices G1 and G2).

4.3.4 The SoCC Consultation Document, which was originally provided to the local

authorities and MMO during the statutory SoCC consultation period, was updated to

reflect the consultation responses and a query from the MP for Hull North regarding

Publication Date

Published

Distribution Purpose

Advertiser

Series

17

November

2011

Holderness, East Hull, Beverley,

West Hull, West Hull villages

Free weekly newspaper delivered

across the East Riding and Hull

reaching people who do not buy a

newspaper

Bridlington

Free Press

17

November

2011

Bridlington and neighbouring

villages in the Bridlington Bay

and Flamborough Head area,

online

Weekly tabloid newspaper. The

biggest selling newspaper in the

Bridlington area. To capture people in

the landfall area and northern stretch

of the cable route corridor

Fishing

News

18

November

2011

Commercial fishing industry,

online

To capture offshore users notable

those commercial fishing interests that

may use the Dogger Bank Zone

Holderness

Gazette

17

November

2011

Holderness and East Coast from

Hornsea down to Spurn Point,

online

To capture the eastern area of the

East Riding including Holderness and

the East Coast

Hull Daily

Mail

17

November

2011

Barton-upon-Humber, Beverley,

Bridlington, Driffield, Filey,

Flamborough, Goole, Hornsea,

Howden, Hull, Market Weighton,

Pocklington, Scarborough,

Withernsea, York, online

To capture the southern extent of the

East Riding of Yorkshire (Holderness)

coast



the reference to illiteracy. It was then published on the Forewind website to provide

further information about how the content of the SoCC was determined.

4.4 First stage of statutory community consultation

4.4.1 The purpose of the first stage of statutory consultation was to raise the profile of the

scheme and to gather early feedback from the local community on the broad

proposals, as well as to gather information about the local community to help refine

the consultation process.

4.4.2 Public exhibitions were held in the five locations set out in the SoCC between 5 and

10 December 2011, namely Barmston, Bridlington, Brandesburton, Cottingham and

Beverley.

4.4.3 All addresses in the Community Consultation Area (as defined by the SoCC) were

sent a letter (Appendix G2) approximately two weeks in advance of the events,

inviting them to the exhibitions, along with a hard copy of the SoCC. Elected

representatives such as councillors and MPs were also sent a copy of the SoCC

and invited (Appendix G1) to attend one of four special briefings.

4.4.4 A press release (Appendix G3) was put on the Forewind website and circulated to

local newspapers to publicise the events. Posters (Appendix G5) advertising the

exhibitions were put up in the vicinity of each exhibition venue a few days before the

events.

4.4.5 In addition to the newspapers that Forewind used to publish the SoCC (Table 4.2),

a number of other local newspapers ran a story on the exhibitions which increased

publicity. This included the Scarborough News and Yorkshire Post (Appendix G4).

4.4.6 Over 281 people6 attended these exhibitions, including members of the public, ward

and parish councillors and representatives of various interest groups.

4.4.7 The exhibition consisted of 12 information panels (Appendix G7), with further

detailed information available in hard copies of the PEI1 documents. A non-

technical community consultation summary leaflet (Appendix G8) was handed out

along with CD copies of the PEI1 documents. A number of Forewind staff were on

hand to answer questions and visitors were asked to complete a questionnaire

(Appendix G9) or Freepost response card (Appendix G10) with their comments.

4.4.8 Hard copies of the PEI1 documents were also lodged at a number of local libraries

(Appendix G6) for the duration of the consultation period.

4.4.9 Forewind received 50 completed exhibition questionnaires and six Freepost

response cards before the consultation deadline, which was over 28 days after the

last exhibition date.

4.4.10 Summaries of the relevant responses, including questionnaire responses are

provided in Chapter 8 and Appendix M.

4.4.11 The information and feedback gathered at this stage influenced Forewind‘s

approach to consultation throughout the EIA phase. The early engagement ensured

that the local community had already influenced the proposals presented at the

second stage of statutory consultation.

6 Number of people who signed in at the exhibitions in December 2011



4.4.12 Forewind published the first edition of Dogger Bank News (Appendix I1) in Spring

2012. This included a brief summary of the first stage of statutory community

consultation, including the key issues that were raised and how Forewind took them

into account, particularly the establishment of the Community Working Group. The

newsletter was distributed in hard copy to all addressed in the Consultation Area

and to all other stakeholders on Forewind‘s database by email or hard copy as

appropriate.

4.5 Second stage of statutory community consultation

4.5.1 At the second stage of consultation on the draft ES, the refined details of the

proposals were presented. This included the final proposed locations of the

onshore and offshore infrastructure and the results of the EIA and proposed

mitigation.

4.5.2 Two options were presented for the onshore high voltage direct current cable route

through the Woodmansey area. It was not possible to rule out either cable option

before the consultation and therefore Forewind sought stakeholders‘ feedback at

this stage before finalising the selection.

4.5.3 Public exhibitions were held in six locations - Ulrome, Beeford, Bridlington,

Cottingham, Beverley and Hull on successive days from Tuesday 7 May to Sunday

12 May 2013. It was decided to add an extra venue (Hull) at this stage to publicise

the development to the wider community who may be particularly interested in the

socio-economic benefits of the development. The landfall public exhibition venue

was changed from Barmston to Ulrome to reflect the fact that the final landfall

location is closer to Ulrome.

4.5.4 All addresses in the Consultation Area were sent an invitation (Appendix H2) to

public exhibitions with a CD copy of the draft ES, draft NTS and Community

Consultation Summary.

4.5.5 Local fishermen were sent the first edition of Forewind‘s Fishing Newsletter

(Appendix I2), in addition to an invitation to the public exhibitions, with a CD copy

of the draft ES, draft NTS and Community Consultation Summary.

4.5.6 Elected representatives were also sent an invitation (Appendix H1) to the

exhibitions with an additional note inviting them to a special briefing an hour before

the publicised opening time of the first exhibition.

4.5.7 In addition to the Section 48 Notice placed in local and national newspapers (see

Chapter 5), the exhibitions were advertised by press releases (Appendix H3)

published on the Forewind website on 17 April 2013 and 30 April 2013 and picked

up in a number of local newspapers (Appendix H4).

4.5.8 Edition 4 of Dogger Bank News (Appendix I1), was distributed around 11 April

2013 to all addresses in the Consultation Area and Forewind‘s database of

consultees. Posters (Appendix H5) advertising the exhibitions were put up in the

vicinity of each exhibition venue a few days before the events.

4.5.9 The exhibitions consisted of 15 exhibition panels (Appendix H7) summarising the

proposals, with further detail available in hard copy of the draft ES, draft NTS and

large scale maps. A Community Consultation Summary booklet (Appendix H8)

was offered to all visitors, which provided a take-away summary of the proposals



and specific consultation questions. CDs containing the draft ES, draft NTS and

Community Consultation Summary were also available to take away.

4.5.10 Forewind staff with a range of expertise (including its Land Agent), were on hand to

answer questions and encourage visitors to complete questionnaires (Appendix

H9) and/or the Freepost response cards.

4.5.11 Hard copies of the consultation documents were also lodged at a number of local

libraries (Appendix H6) for the duration of the consultation period.

4.5.12 Over 2817 people attended the exhibitions and 77 questionnaires were returned.

4.5.13 Summaries of the consultation responses received, including questionnaire

responses, are provided in Chapter 8 and Appendix M.

4.5.14 In line with DCLG Guidance (DCLG, 2013), following the end of the consultation

period, Forewind published an extended edition of Dogger Bank News (Appendix

I1) summarising the key points raised by the local community and how Forewind

took them into account. This was circulated by email or post to all of Forewind‘s

stakeholders.

4.6 Compliance with the SoCC commitments

4.6.1 Table 4.3 sets out how Forewind met the commitments made in the SoCC.

Table 4.3 Compliance with SoCC commitments

7 Number of people who signed in at the exhibitions in May 2013

Category Commitment made in the SoCC Compliance

Phase One –

what will be

consulted on

Forewind will clearly explain the site

selection work done to date… Forewind

will set out why the proposed location

has been selected and what further

refinement is required.

Forewind will ask the local community to

provide any comments or information on

the site selection work…

This information was included in PEI 1 and a

summary was provided in the community

consultation summary leaflet and exhibition

panels.

A questionnaire and postage paid response

cards were provided for any comments. See

Appendix G9.

Phase One

public

exhibitions

Public exhibitions would be held at the

places and times set out in the SoCC

Exhibitions were held at the places and times

set out in the SoCC (Paragraph 4.4.2)

Availability of

Phase One

consultation

documents

Consultation documents will be

available at local libraries and to

download from the Forewind website

from 5 December.

Consultation documents were delivered to

libraries on 4 December 2011 and uploaded

to the website on 28 November 2011



Phase Two –

what will be

consulted on

Forewind will ask the local community

for comments on the detailed proposals

for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

Forewind will be able to explain the

potential impacts of the development

and any proposed mitigation

measures…

Questionnaires and postage paid response

cards were provided. See Appendix H9

The detailed proposals and mitigation were

set out in the draft ES. A draft NTS was

available as well as a community consultation

summary.

Consent

strategy

decision

The decision about whether to submit a

single DCO application or two separate

applications will be presented to

stakeholders prior to the Phase Two

consultation

Website updated January 2013

Dogger Bank News (Appendix I1)

Section 48 Notice published April 2013

(Appendix K)

Publication

of Phase

Two events

The dates and locations of the Phase

Two consultation events will be

published in the local press and marine

journals and on the Forewind website at

least two weeks beforehand. The

period of the consultation and the

deadline for responses will be publicised

when known.

The dates and locations of the Phase Two

consultation events, plus the deadline for

responses, were publicised in the Section 48

notice in local newspapers and marine

journals from 22 April 2013 (Appendix K),

via press releases on 17 April and 30 April

(Appendix H3) and in Dogger Bank News

Edition 4, published on 11 April (Appendix

I1).

PEI PEI will be available during both stages

of consultation

PEI1 was made available during Phase One.

The draft ES and draft NTS were available

during Phase Two.

Local

Community

Consultees

Forewind will send direct invitations to

the consultation events to the following

people, hereafter referred to as the

―Local Community Consultees‖…

At Phase One, over 1300 invitations were

sent to the Local Community Consultees.

At Phase Two, over 1500 invitations were

sent.

Fisheries

Liaison Plan

Details of the fisheries consultation

process will be published separately in

Forewind‘s Fisheries Liaison Plan.

The Fisheries Liaison Plan was published in

November 2011. It was updated and

republished in April 2013. See Appendix B.

International

consultees

Forewind will work with the Examining

Body and the relevant UK and EU

governments to ensure that appropriate

international stakeholders are consulted.

Forewind consulted international shipping and

fishing companies and relevant departments

of EU and European Economic Area (EEA)

Member States. See Appendix C7.



4.7 Additional community consultation activities undertaken

4.7.1 Over and above the commitments made in the SoCC, Forewind informed and

consulted the local community by means of the Community Working Group and

elected representative briefings.

Community Working Group

4.7.2 Following the first stage of statutory community consultation, Forewind set up a

community working group to discuss the micro-siting, design and landscaping of the

converter stations.

4.7.3 This was a direct response to a request from members of the local community and,

therefore, was not included in the original SoCC. ERYC confirmed (Appendix J1)

that it was not necessary for Forewind to amend and re-publish the SoCC to include

the community working group. Instead, Forewind committed to issuing a press

release before each meeting of the community working group and publishing

minutes of each meeting on the Forewind website.

Public

exhibitions

Information and printed materials to be

provided. Forewind staff will be at the

exhibitions to answer questions.

Visitors will be asked to submit feedback

and comments via questionnaires.

See Section 4.4 and Section 4.5.

Newsletters

and

Factsheets

Forewind will produce zone level

newsletters and subject-specific

factsheets at key stages of the project to

ensure that the local community is kept

up to date with the development.

Dogger Bank News (Appendix I1) has been

distributed by post or email to all those

registered in Forewind‘s stakeholder

database. A fisheries newsletter will also be

published about three times a year, starting

in Spring 2013. (Appendix I2) A landowner

factsheet was produced to support Phase

Two consultation (Appendix E8)

Lodging of

consultation

documents

in public

All PEI documents, questionnaires,

factsheets and newsletters will be

lodged at libraries, and wherever

possible at East Riding of Yorkshire

Council‘s and Hull City Council‘s

Customer Service Centres, within and

close to the Consultation Area. They will

also be available to download from the

Forewind website.

The list of libraries for stage one is provided

in Appendix G6 and for stage two in

Appendix H6.

ERYC subsequently informed Forewind that

their Customer Service Centres are

paperless and would not accept the

consultation documents.

All documents were available to download

from the Forewind website.

Overlapping

consultations

with other

developers

Where possible, Forewind will avoid

scheduling consultation events that

overlap with other companies‘

consultations.

None of the consultations overlapped.

Forewind actively engaged, in particular, with

National Grid Carbon to avoid overlapping

consultation at the landfall.



4.7.4 Membership of the community working group included representatives of the Parish

Councils, community and special interest groups directly affected by the converter

stations search area presented in the PEI1 documentation.

4.7.5 The community working group met four times before the application was submitted

and proved to be a very effective way of gaining local community input to the site

selection and design process. The group had a direct influence on the proposals; of

particular note is the fact that one of the group‘s suggested locations for the

converter stations was taken forward as the final site.

4.7.6 A list of the members of the group, the terms of reference, press releases,

presentations and minutes of each meeting are provided in Appendix J.

Elected representative briefings

4.7.7 Forewind endeavoured to keep elected representatives up to date throughout the

development process. Relevant activities, over and above the statutory

consultations are shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Elected representative engagement activities

Date Consultees Activity

1 Feb 2011 Skidby Parish Council Presentation and questions

12 July 2011,

18 April 2012

Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council Presentation and questions

28 March 2012 ERYC and Hull City Council Councillors Councillor Briefing

11 April 2012 Lissett & Ulrome Parish Council Presentation and questions

7 August 2012 Beeford Parish Council, Brandesburton Parish

Council, North Frodingham Parish Council

Workshop on proposed cable

route and construction access

8 August 2012 Barmston & Fraisthorpe Parish Council, Lissett

& Ulrome Parish Council, Skipsea Parish

Council, East Wolds & Coastal Ward Councillors



9 August 2012 Beverley Town Council, Woodmansey Parish

Council, Tickton and Routh Parish Council,

Minster and Woodmansey Ward Councillor



21 Nov 2012,

13 June 2013

Graham Stuart MP, Beverley and Holderness

Constituency

Update meetings

2 July 2013 Robert Goodwill MP, Scarborough and Whitby

Constituency

Update meeting



5 Section 48 publicity

5.1 Legislative context

5.1.1 Section 48(1) of the Planning Act states that the applicant must publicise the

proposed application in the ―prescribed manner‖, namely in accordance with

Regulation 4(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Form and

Procedures) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations).

5.1.2 Regulation 11 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations) states that where the proposed application

is for EIA development, the applicant must send a copy of the Section 48 Notice to

all the prescribed bodies at the same time as publishing the Section 48 Notice.

5.1.3 The proposed Dogger Bank Creyke Beck DCO application was prepared, published

and distributed in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act, the APFP

Regulations and the EIA Regulations. Further details are provided in this chapter.

5.1.4 Copies of the notice, as they appeared in the press are provided in Appendix K.

5.2 Publications and timing

5.2.1 DCLG Guidance (DCLG, 2013) notes that this publicity is ―an integral part of the

local community consultation process‖ and advises that,

―where possible, the first of the two required local newspaper advertisements

should coincide approximately with the beginning of the consultation with

communities‖.

5.2.2 Forewind chose to publicise (in accordance with section 48) the Dogger Bank

Creyke Beck application once, to coincide with the final stage of statutory Section

42 and Section 47 consultation. This reflected Forewind‘s stakeholder engagement

strategy to prioritise consultation with those most affected by the proposals.

5.2.3 The notices appeared in the press at the start of the Section 42 and Section 47

consultation period, two weeks before the start of public exhibitions, and so acted

as both publicity about the intended application as well as publicity about the

imminent public exhibitions and opportunity for the local community, and wider

general public to have their say on the proposals. Table 5.1 details the publications,

dates and distribution area of the section 48 notices against the requirement of

Regulation 4 of the APFP Regulations.

Table 5.1 Section 48 notices – publication details

APFP

Reference

Publication First

publication

Second

publication

Distribution

4(2)(a) Advertiser

Series

Wednesday

24 April 2013

Wednesday

01 May 2013

Holderness, East Hull, Beverley, West

Hull, West Hull villages

4(2)(a) Bridlington

Free Press

Thursday 25

April 2013

Thursday 02

May 2013

Bridlington and neighbouring villages in

the Bridlington Bay and Flamborough

Head area



5.2.4 In accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations, a hard copy of the

Section 48 Notice was sent to all the prescribed consultees listed in Appendix C2

on 17 April 2013, along with the Section 42 consultation materials and cover letter

(Appendix E4).

5.2.5 The Section 48 Notice was also made available on the Forewind website from 11

April 2013.

5.3 Content of the notice

5.3.1 The Section 48 Notice was prepared with reference to Regulation 4(3) of the APFP

Regulations and included all matters prescribed by it. The Compliance Checklist in

Annex 1 details where the prescribed matters can be found in the Section 48

notice.

5.3.2 A deadline was set for receipt of responses to the publicity. In the spirit of IPC

Guidance Note 1 on Pre-Application Stages, Forewind co-ordinated the final stage

of consultation so that the response deadline for the Section 48 Publicity was the

same date as for the Section 42 and Section 47 Consultation. The deadline was

Tuesday 11 June, which was 40 days after the date that the Section 48 Notice was

last published.

5.4 Relevant responses to Section 48 publicity

5.4.1 None of the responses received before the deadline explicitly referenced the

Section 48 Notice.

4(2)(a) Holderness

Gazette

Thursday 25

April 2013

Thursday 02

May 2013

Holderness and East Coast from Hornsea

down to Spurn Point

4(2)(a)

Hull Daily

Mail

Monday 22

April 2013

Monday 29

April 2013

Barton-upon-Humber, Beverley,

Bridlington, Driffield, Filey, Flamborough,

Goole, Hornsea, Howden, Hull, Market

Weighton, Pocklington, Scarborough,

Withernsea, York

4(2)(b) The

Independent

Monday 22

April 2013

N/A UK national

4(2)(c) London

Gazette

Monday 22

April 2013

N/A Official newspaper of record for the UK

4(2)(d)(i) Lloyd‘s List Monday 22

April 2013

N/A Leading maritime industry newspaper

4(2)(d)(ii) Fishing

News

Friday 26

April 2013

N/A Commercial fishing industry in UK and

Ireland



6 Non-statutory consultation

6.1 Non-statutory consultees

6.1.1 DCLG Guidance (DCLG, 2013) encourages applicants to consult widely on project

proposals. Forewind has an extensive list of consultees that goes beyond those

prescribed by section 42 and those captured as part of the community consultation

process under section 47.

6.1.2 Forewind has consulted these groups according to their level of interest and

technical expertise. For example, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

(RSPB) was treated as a section 42 consultee and invited to meetings alongside

the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Natural England, whereas

the local onshore archaeology group was invited to join the community working

group. Some non-statutory consultees were just added to Forewind‘s mailing list for

the Dogger Bank News newsletter and other project updates.

6.1.3 In addition to this, all those on Forewind‘s Dogger Bank Creyke Beck consultee

database (prescribed or non-statutory) were notified of the statutory consultation

periods and how to respond, by email wherever possible.

6.1.4 Contact methods (Freephone, Freepost, email and website) were available

throughout the pre-application period.

6.1.5 A full list of the non-statutory consultees is provided in Appendix C7.

6.2 Non-statutory consultation process

6.2.1 Whilst Forewind held two stages of statutory consultation, stakeholders were also

consulted before, between and after these statutory periods. Whilst this

consultation was not strictly carried out under a statutory section 42, 47 or 48

process, Forewind considered any feedback and it has helped to shape the

application. Such responses are classified by Forewind as ‗non-statutory

consultation‘.

6.2.2 This consultation took place by means of one-to-one meetings, workshops on

specific subjects to which several different stakeholders were invited, written

correspondence or telephone conversations. Wherever possible, Forewind

endeavoured to minimise the consultation burden on stakeholders by ensuring that,

where appropriate, multiple topics or Dogger Bank projects were covered in a

session, suitable pre-reading was sent in advance with plenty of notice, accurate

minutes of meetings were produced and an acceptable amount of time was allowed

for post meeting comments to be submitted.

6.2.3 The majority of this consultation concerned elements of the environmental impact

Assessment (EIA) process such as micro-siting, survey and assessment

methodologies and mitigation proposals. Forewind provided the Planning

Inspectorate, Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC) with draft versions of the Development Consent Order

(DCO) and Consultation Report for comment.

6.2.4 A notable example of such a non-statutory workshop was the offshore EIA



workshop held in April 2012 (Appendix N9). This was a two day workshop to

consult statutory consultees on the data collected so far, and impact assessment

methodologies. A number of subjects were covered including physical processes,

ornithology, marine mammals as well as Forewind‘s approach to cumulative impact

assessment and habitats regulations assessment.

6.2.5 Forewind hosted an archaeology workshop in September 2012 (Appendix N13).

English Heritage and the Council for British Archaeology attended along with

representatives of Birmingham University and the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy

Committee. Forewind presented an update on archaeology survey and

assessment.

6.2.6 In addition, Forewind sought to keep a broad range of stakeholders informed of its

progress through attending and presenting at a number of relevant conferences,

both in the UK and abroad. Examples of these are provided in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Examples of conferences at which Forewind presented

6.2.7 Numerous press stories about Dogger Bank Creyke Beck were published in the

Date Conference Location Summary of communication

4 May

2011

North Sea Regional

Advisory Council

(NSRAC)

London Presentation to the Spatial Planning

Working Group on Forewind‘s

development process and engagement

with European fishing community

11 May

2011

IAG Good Practice Hull An overview of the careers opportunities

and skills required in the offshore wind

industry

25 May

2011

Supply Chain Event

organised by

Scarborough Borough

Council

Whitby Supply chain introduction to Round 3

Offshore Wind with focus on Dogger Bank

3 Nov

2011

Preparing Young

People for Careers in

Offshore Wind

Whitby An overview of the careers opportunities

and skills required in the offshore wind

industry

5 Oct

2012

North Sea Days 2012

- Deltares, NIOZ &

WUR Imares

Egmond aan Zee,

Netherlands

Introduction of the Dogger Bank project to

a wide European audience consisting of

scientists and policy makers

30 Nov

2012

Renewable UK Annual

Conference

Glasgow Planning Act 2008 - Stakeholder

engagement and consultation

6 Mar

2013

SNS2013: The Sea of

Opportunity

Norwich Developing the world‘s largest offshore

wind project: Dogger Bank



national, industry and regional press, publicising the progress of the development

and the consultation activity. They appeared in both printed and online versions. On

the whole, press coverage was focussed on the opportunity to create jobs and

develop the offshore renewables supply chain both in the Yorkshire region and the

wider UK. A significant amount of local press coverage was generated by the

Champions for Wind careers education programme that Forewind launched in the

East Riding of Yorkshire in partnership with the Humberside Engineering Training

Association (HETA). Some examples of press coverage are included in Appendix

O.

6.3 Fisheries liaison

6.3.1 Forewind made it clear, from the start of the development process, that engaging

with the fishing industry is a fundamental element of its consultation strategy by

inviting representatives of both national and international fishing organisations to the

Zone Appraisal and Planning (ZAP) workshops (Appendix N1).

6.3.2 At this early stage in the development process, Forewind also appointed two

individuals with considerable experience of the fishing industry within the North Sea

to undertake the role of Fisheries Liaison Co-ordinators (FLC). The FLCs are

responsible for engagement and negotiations with key UK national and international

fishing organisations, such as the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC),

the National Federation of Fishermen‘s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen‘s

Federation, and other equivalent bodies in other relevant countries around the North

Sea whose fishing vessels operate or have operated in areas relevant to the

potential development zone. They also provide advice and support to Forewind on

fishing issues, managing any fishing related data and ensuring that Forewind

complies with relevant guidance and legislation.

6.3.3 Given the varying location of fishing activity on the Dogger Bank over the course of

the year, it was recognised that fisheries liaison would have to be on a zonal, near

shore and cable corridor basis, rather than on a project basis. This is in accordance

with section 2.6.128 of the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy

Infrastructure (EN-3), which states that:

Where a number of offshore wind farms have been proposed within an

identified zone, it may be beneficial to undertake such consultation at a zonal,

rather than a site-specific, level.

6.3.4 In November 2011, Forewind published its Fisheries Liaison Plan. This plan sets

out Forewind‘s objectives and approach to fisheries liaison, and is in line with the

Fisheries Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group

―Recommendations for Fisheries Liaison - Best Practice guidance for offshore

renewables developers‖ (The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory

Reform, 2008). The Fisheries Liaison Plan was updated and republished in April

2013. Both versions of the Fisheries Liaison Plan are provided in Appendix B.

6.3.5 The Fisheries Liaison Plan was referenced in the Statement of Community

Consultation (Appendix F4) to acknowledge that some near shore fishermen may

wish to engage in the community consultation process as well as, or instead of, the

fisheries liaison process. However, very few fishermen have engaged in the

community consultation process to date, instead choosing to attend the fishing-



specific meetings that Forewind held during the statutory consultation periods or

liaising on a one-to-one basis with Forewind‘s FLCs. In addition, Forewind met

several times with the Bridlington and Flamborough Fishermen‘s Society, Hornsea

Fishermen, Withernsea Fishermen and the Holderness Coast Fishing Industry

Group, as well as the principal of Normandale Trawlers Ltd, based in Scarborough.

6.3.6 Forewind consulted the international fishing community by attending and presenting

at several NSRAC meetings and organising one-to-one meetings with relevant

fishing industry bodies. These included national and regional fishermen‘s

representative organisations, as well as individual skippers and fishing vessel

owners from Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, France and

Germany. Consultation meetings were also held with national fisheries directorates,

national fisheries departments, data centres and fisheries research institutes.

6.3.7 At the second stage of statutory consultation, Forewind produced the first edition of

a fishing newsletter called Fishing News, which will be distributed approximately

three times a year going forwards. Fishing News is provided in Appendix I2.

6.3.8 Any consultation responses received from offshore fishing stakeholders are

recorded as being relevant to the whole Dogger Bank Zone and, therefore, may

have influenced the development of other stages of the Dogger Bank Zone. Any

consultation responses received from near shore fishermen are considered as

being only relevant to Dogger Bank Creyke Beck.

6.3.9 Many of the survey vessels undertaking work on behalf of Forewind have a

Fisheries Liaison Representative (FLR) on board, who liaises directly with any

fishing vessels encountered during the surveys. Contact details for these FLRs are

published in the Notice to Mariners issued before each survey begins.



7 Consultation under the EIA and Habitats Regulations

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Advice Note Fourteen (The Planning Inspectorate, 2012) states:

“Applicants may wish to draw attention to consultation responses received

under the EIA process, but any reference to this consultation should be kept

separate from the statutory consultation carried out under the Provisions of

the Planning Act 2008.‖

7.1.2 The pre-application publicity and consultation requirements of the Infrastructure

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA

Regulations) are consistent with those of the Planning Act 2008 (the Planning Act).

Consultation on preliminary environmental information (PEI) is an integral part of the

Planning Act consultation process and therefore, in the most part, it is difficult to

separate these two processes and the responses received. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of

this report explain what, when and how PEI was made available to consultees as

part of the Planning Act process.

7.1.3 Chapter 8 of this report summarises the key issues raised during consultation by

categorising them into chapters of the Environmental Statement (ES). Care has

been taken to ensure that the responses have been suitably categorised and that

points were not missed.

7.1.4 Evidence that Forewind has complied with EIA Regulation 10 (Consultation

statement requirements) is provided in Chapter 4. Evidence that Forewind has

complied with EIA Regulation 11 (Pre-application publicity under section 48) is

provided in Chapter 5.

7.1.5 The sections below summarise the consultation processes that specifically relate to

EIA Regulation 8 (Application for a scoping opinion) and EIA Regulation 24

(Development with significant trans-boundary effects).

7.1.6 A brief summary of the consultation process undertaken in accordance with the

Habitats Regulations is also provided below. A summary of issues raised during

this consultation is provided in Chapter 8.

7.2 Scoping

7.2.1 On the 13 October 2010 Forewind submitted a request to the Infrastructure

Planning Commission (IPC) for a Scoping Opinion on Dogger Bank Project One – a

single offshore wind farm with a 1GW grid connection at the Creyke Beck

Substation. Forewind provided the Dogger Bank Project One Scoping Report to

support this request. The IPC provided its Scoping Opinion on the 18 November

2010 (Planning Inspectorate document reference number 6.4.3).

7.2.2 In submitting the information in the Scoping Report, Forewind was deemed to have

notified the IPC under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations that it proposed to

provide an ES in respect of the proposed Dogger Bank Project One.



7.2.3 Following receipt of the Scoping Opinion, Forewind secured additional connection

capacity at the existing National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) Creyke Beck

Substation, increasing the total connection capacity to 2GW.

7.2.4 Forewind did not repeat the Scoping process as the location of the infrastructure

and approach to the environmental assessment for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck were

not materially different to that for Dogger Bank Project One. This approach was

discussed with the IPC in a meeting on the 7 September 2011 (Appendix N4),

where the IPC stated that Scoping is not a mandatory requirement under the EIA

Regulations, and that should a scheme change substantially during the EIA

process, it is for the developer to decide whether a new Scoping Opinion is

required. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) supported Forewind‘s

decision to not repeat the Scoping process in a meeting on the 1 March 2012

(Appendix N8).

7.2.5 In December 2011, Forewind carried out the first stage of consultation on PEI in

accordance with sections 42 and 47 of the Planning Act on Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck, a development comprising up to two wind farm arrays, both connecting to the

NGET Creyke Beck Substation. The consultation documents produced at this

stage, PEI1, explained the change in scale of the scheme and included an appendix

entitled ―Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment‖. This provided an

update on Forewind‘s approach to EIA but was not a formal request for a new

Scoping Opinion.

7.3 Transboundary consultation

7.3.1 In the Dogger Bank Project One Scoping Report, Forewind noted that, due to the

Dogger Bank Zone being located adjacent to the UK‘s international boundary,

consideration would be given to the effects on the environment of other European

Economic Area (EEA) member states, including cumulative impacts with other

projects, in accordance with Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations and the Espoo

Convention (1991).

7.3.2 The IPC acknowledged this requirement in its Scoping Opinion and stated that

Forewind should consult the consenting bodies in other European Union (EU)

states to assist in identifying any cumulative effects with other developments. No

responses from transboundary consultees were received during the first stage of

statutory consultation.

7.3.3 On the 7 August 2012, the Planning Inspectorate published a notice (Appendix L1)

in the London Gazette (in accordance with Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations),

stating that the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck development may have significant

effects on the environment in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands,

Norway and Sweden. It also wrote to these EEA States and set a deadline of the

18 September 2012 by which they should indicate their interest in participating in

the process to examine the application. Forewind was also notified by letter

(Appendix L2).

7.3.4 The description of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck development given in the

Regulation 24 notice was based on the description of the project given in the

Scoping Report and hence was out of date. This was discussed in a meeting

(Appendix L3) with the Planning Inspectorate on the 15 November 2012, at which



the Planning Inspectorate acknowledged that the description of the scheme was

incorrect but considered that it would not make a fundamental difference to whether

any of the EEA Member States would want to participate. Therefore, the Planning

Inspectorate stated that it would not republish the notice.

7.3.5 The Planning Inspectorate has a duty to consult any EEA State that registers a

relevant response to the Regulation 24 notice. To date, Forewind is aware that

Germany and the Netherlands have notified the Planning Inspectorate of their

interest in being consulted on Dogger Bank Creyke Beck (Appendix L4).

7.3.6 Between September and November 2012, Forewind wrote to the consenting bodies

in the seven EEA states in which there is potential for likely significant effects on the

environment (Appendix N12). The contacts used in this consultation were those

provided by the Planning Inspectorate and also wider contact was made with

government ministries with responsibility for nature conservation, where these could

be established. This letter was accompanied by a transboundary screening note

and a Habitats Regulations Assessment pre-screening report for transboundary

consultees on which comment was sought, and a meeting was requested to discuss

these documents in more detail.

7.3.7 Forewind subsequently met with the German Maritime and Hydrographic Agency

and the Dutch Ministry for Infrastructure and Environment (Rijkswaterstaat

Waterdienst). In addition, Forewind consulted various international fishing and

shipping organisations and government departments throughout the development

process, both during statutory consultation periods and on a non-statutory basis.

Full details of Forewind‘s consultation with fishing organisations are provided in

Section 6.3.

7.4 Habitats Regulations Assessment

7.4.1 In accordance with DCLG Guidance (DCLG, 2013), Forewind consulted UK

statutory bodies (Natural England, the JNCC, the MMO, the Centre for

Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas)) and non-statutory bodies

(RSPB and the Wildlife Trust) as well as trans-boundary consultees in order to gain

evidence for the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA).

7.4.2 In September 2012, Forewind produced a list of all sites protected under the

Habitats Directive, Birds Directive and any Ramsar sites that had the potential to be

affected by Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. This ―HRA Pre-Screening Matrix‖ was sent,

with a request for a meeting (Appendix N12), to contacts provided by the Planning

Inspectorate and relevant additional government ministries with responsibility for

nature conservation.

7.4.3 Forewind discussed the HRA Pre-Screening Matrix with the German Maritime and

Hydrographic Agency and the Dutch Ministry for Infrastructure and Environment

(Rijkswaterstaat Waterdienst) during the meetings detailed above in the

―transboundary consultation‖ section.

7.4.4 Subsequently, in November 2012, Forewind produced a HRA Screening Report

which identified the likely significant effects arising from Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

upon sites designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives. This was circulated

to JNCC, Natural England, the MMO and the RSPB in addition to the Planning

Inspectorate and the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).



A meeting was held on the 14 February 2013 (Appendix N7) with JNCC and

Natural England to discuss their views on this report to feed into the draft HRA

Report.

7.4.5 The draft HRA Report was finalised based upon comments from the statutory

nature conservation bodies and this document was available for consultation during

the second stage of statutory consultation. Written comments on this draft HRA

Report were received from JNCC and Natural England (jointly) and the RSPB and

subsequently a two day workshop was held in June 2013, at the end of the statutory

consultation period, during which further comments were made (Appendix N16).

Where appropriate, these have been incorporated into the final version of the HRA

Report which includes information to inform the appropriate assessment (Planning

Inspectorate document reference number 5.2).

7.4.6 A point by point response detailing how Forewind had regard to the points raised by

JNCC together with Natural England at the second stage of statutory consultation is

included in Appendix N17.

7.4.7 The production of Statements of Common Ground has been agreed in principle with

the relevant nature conservation bodies and the production of these documents will

continue to progress during and after the submission of the application for a DCO.



8 Summary of relevant responses

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 The following sections of the Consultation Report summarise the key issues that

were raised during consultation and how Forewind took account of relevant

responses. In some instances Forewind was not able to change the proposals in

accordance with consultation feedback. Where this applies, it is clearly explained.

8.1.2 In most cases, consultation was an iterative process taking place over several

months or years. To document all consultation in detail in this report would be

neither practicable nor helpful, so the intention of this chapter is to draw out the key

issues only, with a focus on the statutory consultation periods.

8.1.3 The responses are summarised below by their relevance to the chapters of the

Environmental Statement (ES) or other application document. No comments were

received that specifically related to Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Project Need,

Chapter 3 Legislation and Policy and Chapter 34 Conclusion of the ES. To avoid

un-necessary repetition, any comments relating to Chapter 31 Inter-relationships,

Chapter 32 Transboundary Effects, Chapter 33 Cumulative Impact Assessment and

Chapter 35 Summary of Monitoring and Mitigation are captured within the relevant

subject sections.

8.1.4 Care has been taken to ensure that the responses are categorised into subjects

appropriately. Where a response referred to multiple ES subjects or application

documents, that response is referenced in each subject table that it refers to.

8.1.5 References are made to the ES (Planning Inspectorate document reference

number 6).

8.1.6 Tables of all relevant responses to the statutory consultation periods, categorised

by ES subject or other application document, are provided in Appendix M.

8.2 General comments

8.2.1 The public exhibition questionnaires made available at both stages of statutory

community consultation included some generic questions, as well as specific

focussed questions relating to what Forewind was consulting on at that stage.

8.2.2 281 visitors signed in at the public exhibitions in December 2011, and of those, 56

people returned questionnaires. Of the 45 people who answered question seven:

―What are your impressions of the project?‖, 73% responded ―positive‖, ―18%

responded ―neutral‖ and 9% responded ―negative‖.

8.2.3 281 visitors also signed in at the public exhibitions in May 2013, and of those, 77

people returned questionnaires. Of the 62 people who responded to question three

―Do you support the concept of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck‖, 76% said ―yes‖,

15% said ―no‖ and 10% said ―unsure‖. This demonstrates a slight increase in

support for the project over the course of the pre-application stage.



8.3 Health and Safety

Main stakeholders and methods of consultation

8.3.1 Health and safety is considered within various human topic areas within the ES and

hence the relevant stakeholders for those topics have been consulted. These

include stakeholders involved in military activities, civil aviation, commercial fishing

and shipping.

8.3.2 The Health and Safety Executive, the Health Protection Agency and Public Health

England have an overarching responsibility to ensure that human health and health

and safety is taken into account throughout the project phases; these stakeholders

have also been included in formal consultation throughout pre-application.

8.3.3 For full details of consultation responses please see Appendix M3.

Key Issues raised

8.3.4 Only Health and Safety issues which have not been covered in topic specific

chapters are discussed here and include the following areas:

That pipeline operators should be consulted to ensure that activities associated

with the construction and operation of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck will not pose a

health and safety risk;

That a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) should be prepared;

That electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) associated with the operation of the

onshore high voltage cabling be provided and assessed against the

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)

guidelines; and

The importance of electrical safety and chemicals.

Stakeholder feedback and Forewind response

8.3.5 NHS Hull raised the potential health impact associated with the electric and

magnetic fields around substations and the connecting cables or lines as a concern.

The Health Protection Agency made recommendations on limiting public exposure

to EMFs and supports the view that precautionary measures should address solely

the possible association with childhood leukaemia, as opposed to other more

speculative health effects. These issues were considered within a Health Impact

Assessment (HIA) prepared by Forewind that is included as Appendix 5C to

Chapter 5 Project Description of the ES.

8.3.6 Public Health England expects that the operating voltages and worst case field

levels are clearly defined within a HIA. These were presented in the Health Impact

Assessment prepared by Forewind. Any EMFs produced by the onshore Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck assets are well below the accepted threshold levels, and reduce

to background levels within a few metres. No human health impacts have been

identified attributable to EMFs. Forewind also produced an EMF factsheet in

response to the concerns at stage two of the consultation process (Appendix H10).

8.3.7 In relation to electrical safety and chemicals, Forewind has developed a Health and

Safety Statement (Planning Inspectorate document reference number 8.4),

which details the response Forewind has had to these issues.



8.4 EIA Process (ES Chapter 4)


8.4.1 Comments received through the scoping process during 2010 were used to inform

the selection of survey methodologies for the Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA). At the first stage of statutory consultation in December 2011, a consultation

document called ―Approach to the EIA‖ was provided to stakeholders as part of

Preliminary Environmental Information 1. This gave an update on the approach to

the EIA and took into account any changes following receipt of the scoping opinion.

8.4.1 During 2012, a series of non-statutory consultation workshops and meetings were

held, at which Forewind presented EIA methodologies to key stakeholders. These

culminated in a two day offshore workshop in April 2012 (Appendix N9) which was

attended by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

(Cefas), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), the Marine

Management Organisation (MMO), Natural England, the Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds (RSPB), and the Wildlife Trusts. This meeting was used as a

forum to present the finalised survey methodologies and to discuss the next steps in

taking data through the EIA process. Several survey methodologies (for example

on fish ecology and marine physical processes) were signed off at this meeting as

the information presented enabled the stakeholders to agree that the methodologies

were sound. In addition, comments and feedback from this non-statutory

consultation was used to further progress the EIA methodologies for some topics

such as marine and coastal ornithology.

8.4.2 For summaries of all relevant responses please see Appendix M4.

Key issues raised

8.4.3 In addition to comments on the overarching EIA methodology which apply

throughout the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES, various comments have been

received relating to specific elements of the methodology applied for specific

receptors. As these are receptor specific, these comments have been considered

in the individual topic chapters and further information on these responses can be

found below, in the relevant sections of Chapter 8 of this consultation report.

8.4.4 Comments relating to the EIA process for the offshore environment included:

The scale of the proposals and how this would be accounted for in the EIA

methodology;

Transboundary impacts and how this might influence the methodology adopted;

Cumulative impacts with other developments in the area;

Adequate consideration should be given to certain ecological impacts such as

marine and coastal ornithology;

8.4.5 For the onshore environment, it was noted that appropriate attention should be paid

to the following topics:

Coastal erosion at the landfall, given the dynamic nature of landform changes in

the area;

Flooding, as the land tends to be low-lying and prone to flooding;



Ecological impacts – loss of and disturbance to habitats, with consequent

impacts on protected species;

Landscape impacts – from the construction of the proposed converter stations;

Noise impacts – from construction, including traffic; and

Archaeology – disturbance to known and unknown archaeological sites.


8.4.6 The Planning Inspectorate has produced an advice note on the use of the Rochdale

Envelope. This outlines the level of detail required and degree of flexibility in the

design as well as the need for inter-relationships to be assessed, so that the

impacts of the proposal as a whole are addressed.

8.4.7 Consultation with transboundary and UK shipping and navigation stakeholders

identified a desire for a report identifying and considering the cumulative effects of

the Dogger Bank, Hornsea and East Anglia Offshore Wind Farm Zones. As a

result, Forewind, alongside SmartWind and East Anglia Offshore Wind

commissioned a study under the Southern North Sea Offshore Wind Forum to

analyse the cumulative impacts of the development plans of the three zones. This

study considers the transboundary shipping routes passing through the Southern

North Sea and has been used in the assessment presented in ES Chapter 16,

Shipping and Navigation.

8.4.8 Forewind developed a cumulative impact assessment strategy (ES Appendix 4A

Forewind CIA Strategy – Offshore).

8.4.9 Forewind has given careful consideration to all potential impacts that may result

from Dogger Bank Creyke Beck, for each parameter, and ensured that the

assessment made for each potential impact is reflective of the realistic worst case

scenario for the specific parameter under investigation. In relation to determining

the ‗worst case scenario‘ Forewind has ensured that only realistic development

scenarios are considered.

8.4.10 The EIA process has been developed to provide an assessment of the impacts of

the development on sensitive receptors. This systematic and auditable approach is

encompassed by Forewind‘s EIA framework which is based on the Source-

Pathway-Receptor model. Appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed in

conjunction with the Regulatory Authorities and relevant stakeholders.

8.5 Project description (ES Chapter 5)


8.5.1 A number of stakeholders commented on elements of the project description as part

of their feedback on receptor specific assessments presented in the preliminary

environmental information. Key issues that were raised and that have impacted the

project description are highlighted in this section and may also be referred to in the

receptor specific sections below.

8.5.2 Stakeholders that commented on the project description included:

JNCC, Natural England and RSPB (ornithology);

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), Trinity House Lighthouse



Services (THLS), the Chamber of Shipping and various vessel operators

(navigational safety);

A Grimsby based fishing vessel owner (seine fishing);

The Environment Agency (impact of culverts on water flow); and

The local community (onshore converter station site design).


8.5.4 Additional feedback was received relating to site selection, which is covered in

Section 8.4 and Appendix M6.

Key Issues raised

The ornithology collision risk associated with the number of turbines and the

lower blade tip height;

The navigational safety risks associated with vessels transiting through the

zone;

The impact of curved layouts on navigational safety;

Turbine spacing and the impact on seine net fishing;

The impact of introducing new culverts on the flow of water; and

Preference for a shorter converter station building height and larger footprint

rather than a taller building with a smaller footprint.


8.5.5 Preliminary assessment work suggested potentially significant impacts on

ornithology. In order to mitigate the impact associated with collision risk, the design

envelope was refined to include:

A maximum number of 200 turbines per project (i.e. reduced by 33% from 300);

and

An associated increase in the minimum lower blade tip height (from 22m to

26m) above highest astronomical tide.

8.5.6 Early consultation with a wide range of navigation stakeholders indicated that, due

to the very small deviation distances required to bypass the Zone, and potential

navigation safety concerns associated with vessels passing between Dogger Bank

projects, it was seen as undesirable for transiting vessels to pass through the Zone.

8.5.7 The Zone design was therefore progressed without including corridors for the

navigation of transiting vessels, and project boundaries were not developed to

enable easy access for transiting vessels to pass through the zone.

8.5.8 In response to consultation with the MCA and THLS, Forewind introduced site

layout rules that restrict the potential turbine array patterns employed, in an effort to

provide clarity on what would and would not be considered during the detailed

project design phase. In response to comments on the site layout rules at the

second stage of statutory consultation, the rules were modified to state that only

straight rows would be permitted for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck (although retaining

the option for curved perimeters). The final site layout rules will be subject to



approval by the MMO.

8.5.9 The commercial fisheries assessment acknowledged that the seine fishery could

not necessarily continue within the project boundaries should the minimum turbine

spacing be taken forward, but that it could continue between Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck A, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck B and Dogger Bank Teesside B (see Section

8.4).

8.5.10 The necessity for using temporary or permanent culverts for access across ditches

was queried by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency highlighted that

their own culverting policy is for the removal of culverts and that a justification will be

required wherever culverts are requested. Given the number of ditch crossings and

the potential for sensitive species, such as water voles, the use of culverts

(temporary and permanent) was removed from the project description and the DCO.

A temporary vehicle bridge solution will be used to cross ditches.

8.5.11 Questionnaire responses, provided at the public exhibitions in December 2011,

identified a preference for lower converter station buildings with a larger footprint,

with the converter roof height to be kept in line with existing woodland. Forewind

has observed these preferences in the final proposals and has included a

landscaping strategy in the proposals as mitigation.

8.6 Site selection and alternatives (ES Chapter 6)


8.6.1 Site selection and the consideration of alternatives are relevant to all technical

topics assessed within the ES and hence the relevant stakeholders for those topics

have been consulted. Onshore, the Parish Councils, landowners and members of

the local community played a significant role in selection of the final onshore cable

route and converter stations sites.

8.6.2 At the first stage of statutory consultation in December 2011 to January 2012, all

stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on the proposed location of the

development, within a study area that had been significantly narrowed down since

Scoping. A reasonably broad area was identified offshore (namely Tranche A of the

Dogger Bank Zone) within which the wind farm infrastructure itself would be sited,

and a 2km wide offshore cable corridor was proposed. There were two options for

the landfall location, a 1km wide onshore cable corridor and an onshore converter

station ―study area‖.

8.6.3 A workshop was held with officers from East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC)

and the Environment Agency on 26 January 2012 (Appendix N6) to consider the

preferred sector (within the wider study area proposed during the first stage of

statutory consultation) for locating the converter stations site.

8.6.4 The local community was consulted both through public exhibitions and a converter

station community working group (Appendix J), established by Forewind following

a request raised during the first stage of statutory consultation. This group was

closely involved in the site selection and micro-siting of the converter stations as

well as the siting of the onshore high voltage alternating current (HVAC) cable route

and construction access.

8.6.5 At the second stage of statutory consultation, the location of the proposals both



onshore and offshore had been refined. All stakeholders were, however, asked to

comment on two alternative options for the onshore cable route through

Woodmansey.


Key Issues raised

8.6.7 Offshore, the key issues raised were:

The location of the sandeel fishery on the western margins of the Dogger Bank

Zone;

The location of the seine fishing areas within the Dogger Bank Zone;

Pipelines and cables running through, or close to the Dogger Bank Zone;

The need for a buffer to aggregate application area 466/1; and

Known wrecks at the point at which the export cable exits Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck A.

8.6.8 Onshore, the key issues raised were:

Minimising cumulative impacts at the landfall by avoiding the location selected

for the National Grid Carbon Pipeline landfall;

Minimising impacts of the cable route on land use;

At Woodmansey, a preference for the northern cable route option through

Figham Common rather than the southern cable route through private land

A preference to co-locate converter stations;

Preference for a converter stations site that could be accessed from the A1079

rather than Park Lane, that avoided areas of flood risk and that offered greater

potential for landscape screening;

A preference for the Eastern option for the HVAC cable route.


8.6.9 The IPC (now the Planning Inspectorate) and the JNCC recommended in their

Scoping Opinions that the ES must outline the main alternatives and provide an

indication of the main reason for the applicant‘s choice, taking account of the

environmental effects. The reasons for the preferred choice should be made clear

and the comparative environmental effects identified. Forewind has presented this

in ES Chapter 6 - Site Selection and Assessment of Alternatives and in the

Planning and Design Statement (Planning Inspectorate document reference

number 8.1).

Offshore

8.6.10 Offshore project boundaries were selected to avoid the high density sandeel areas

towards the western boundary of the Dogger Bank Zone. Specifically, the Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck B project boundary was moved to the east of the Shearwater

Elgin Area Line (SEAL) pipeline. This measure will benefit commercial fisheries

targeting sandeel, as well as fish and bird species for which the sandeel forms a

major part of the diet and plays an important part of the North Sea ecosystem.



8.6.11 The project boundaries of the first four projects (Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and

Dogger Bank Teesside) left the seine net area between Creyke Beck A, Creyke

Beck B and Teesside B open for this fishery.

8.6.12 The design of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck B boundary also took into account the

request for a 2km buffer between the project boundary and the aggregate

application area 466/1.

8.6.13 The location of the export cable corridor was selected in order to avoid the locations

of known wrecks at the point at which it exits Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A.

Onshore

8.6.14 Two options for a possible cable landfall location were presented at the first stage of

statutory consultation. Whilst not many responses were received on this point,

feedback generally indicated that the preferred cable route should be the shorter of

the two options. Therefore, the landfall located to the north of Ulrome and south of

Barmston, was taken forward as the preferred option.

8.6.15 Forewind had regular update calls with National Grid regarding the location of their

pipeline landfall with the aim of minimising cumulative impacts caused by landfall

works. At the point of writing (August 2013), National Grid and Forewind have

selected different landfall locations for their respective projects.

8.6.16 During the site selection process, Forewind regularly met with individual landowners

to discuss the micro-siting of the onshore cable route across their land.

Approximately 35 requests for minor alignment adjustments were received from

landowners during this process to reduce land wastage and minimise disruption to

the existing land uses. Examples of cable route realignment requests are provided

in Appendix M2. Approximately 30 of these requests resulted in the suggested

adjustment being adopted within the preferred alignment. The remaining proposed

changes were identified as resulting in an unacceptable engineering or

environmental concern and were not taken forward.

8.6.17 At the second stage of statutory consultation, several landowners and members of

the local community objected to the southern option for the cable route through

Woodmansey. Therefore, the northern option, through Figham Common was

selected as the final proposed route.

8.6.18 The converter station sites were co-located as per stakeholder feedback. The

preferred sector of the study area (Sector A) was agreed with ERYC and the

Environment Agency at the workshop in January 2012. The proposed converter

stations site itself was originally identified by members of the Community Working

Group during the first meeting in March 2012 (Appendix J5).

8.6.19 The final design of the converter stations site will be decided post consent and will

be subject to approval by ERYC.

8.6.20 In line with community feedback (Appendices J6 and J7), the Eastern option for

the HVAC cable route was taken forward.

8.7 Consultation (ES Chapter 7)


8.7.1 Forewind sought feedback on its approach to consultation in the public exhibition



questionnaires at both stages of statutory consultation. In addition, Forewind

received relevant responses from a number of consultees including ERYC, RSPB,

MMO, JNCC and the Environment Agency that referenced Forewind‘s approach to

consultation.


8.7.3 Relevant responses to the consultation on the content of the Statement of

Community Consultation, is detailed in Chapter 4 and Appendix M1 of this report

and, as such, is not repeated here.

Key Issues raised

8.7.4 In summary, the key issues relating to Forewind‘s approach to consultation were:

Length of the consultation period and requests to extend response deadlines;

Support for Forewind‘s approach to consultation;

Invitations to the public exhibitions were the most successful method of

publicising the events to local community consultees;

The majority of those who returned a questionnaire considered that the public

exhibitions provided enough information;

Need to continue consulting local communities through the construction phase;

and

Concerns about the adequacy of consultation on the alternative cable route in

the Woodmansey area.


8.7.5 Forewind received requests to extend the deadline for responses at the first stage

of consultation from the JNCC and Natural England, and at the second stage of

consultation from the MMO and the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and

Conservation Authority. The deadline for responses at both stages of consultation

was longer than the statutory minimum of 28 days and therefore Forewind was not

able to officially extend the deadlines any further without unacceptable delay to the

development programme. Forewind was, however, able to take into account all late

responses received.

8.7.6 General comments of support for Forewind‘s approach to consultation were

received from ERYC, the Environment Agency, RSPB and Yorkshire Water

Services.

8.7.7 At the both stages of statutory consultation, the public exhibition questionnaire

asked consultees how they heard about the exhibitions, whether they thought the

exhibitions provided enough information, and how Forewind could improve its

communications with the local community.

8.7.8 At both stages, the most popular answer to the question about how the consultee

heard about the exhibitions was ―Forewind invitation‖ (38% and 37% respectively),

followed by ―newspaper advert‖ (16% and 24% respectively). This demonstrated

that direct distribution of invitations was the most effective way of reaching the local

community, and that other methods, including posters, radio and the Forewind

website were less effective. At the second stage of consultation, Forewind put up



more posters and as a result, this became the third most common answer to the

question (15%).

8.7.9 At the second stage of consultation, 90% of people who responded to question 16

―Could we improve our communication with you?‖, said ―no‖, indicating that the

contact methods used were, on the whole, appropriate for this community.

8.7.10 The majority of questionnaires indicated that the exhibitions provided visitors with

enough information (98% and 89% respectively).

8.7.11 Suggestions about how to improve communications after both stages of

consultation included keeping the Parish Councils up to date, newsletters and more

coverage in local newspapers and on the radio. Following the stage one

consultation, Forewind continued to respond to Parish Council requests for a

Forewind representative to attend meetings, and invited all directly affected Parish

Councils to attend the cable route workshops in August 2012. Forewind began

publishing the Dogger Bank News newsletter in Spring 2012, and this will continue

to be distributed to all stakeholders directly by post or email. In addition, Forewind

continues to make regular press releases which are picked up by local newspapers

and radio.

8.7.12 A very specific request to improve local community involvement in the converter

station site selection and design was received from Cottingham Parish Council at

the first stage of statutory consultation. This led to the establishment of the

Converter Station Community Working Group (Appendix J). At the final meeting,

the Chair of the group stated that she felt that Forewind‘s approach in this regard

was ―refreshing and an example for other organisations to follow”.

8.7.13 Forewind has taken note of the request to continue to keep the local community,

and specifically the Parish Councils, informed and this is reflected in the Outline

Code of Construction Practice which has been submitted with the application for a

DCO (Planning Inspectorate document reference number 8.2).

8.7.14 At the second stage of consultation, Forewind received a number of letters from

three landowners and two occupiers of properties in the Woodmansey area stating

that they were dissatisfied with Forewind‘s consultation process. The MP for

Beverley and Holderness also contacted Forewind in relation to their concerns,

which particularly related to the alternative cable route as it affected land in which

they had an interest. They felt that they had not been adequately consulted on this

alternative route and that, despite attending the public exhibitions, had not had their

questions answered.

8.7.15 Forewind responded in writing to each of the letters and offered meetings to discuss

the proposals in more detail, however only the MP agreed to meet. Following the

consultation period, Forewind removed the alternative route from the proposals and

wrote to all affected persons to explain the decision. No further correspondence on

this matter was received from these consultees.

8.8 Designated sites (ES Chapter 8)


8.8.1 Comments relating to designated sites were received from JNCC, Natural England,

English Heritage and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. Other stakeholders made



comments on designated sites in relation to specific topics of assessment and these

are considered in the relevant sections.


Key issues raised

8.8.3 Very few comments were made specifically in relation to designated sites as this

chapter is intended to be a summary of other assessments, but key items included:

How assessments have been made and how species of conservation interest

have been considered; and

The approach to the consideration of future designations.


8.8.4 Forewind agreed with the comments received from the JNCC and Natural England

on this chapter at the second stage of statutory consultation, and appropriate

amendments were made as a result.

8.8.5 In relation to how assessments have been made, Forewind explained that this

chapter is a signposting chapter and presents the conclusions from a number of

other chapters within the ES.

8.8.6 Regarding the consideration of future designations such as Marine Conservation

Zones (MCZ), Forewind chose to screen in the Holderness Offshore and

Holderness Onshore recommended MCZs but not the Swallow Sands

recommended MCZ. This is justified in Chapter 12 Marine and Intertidal Ecology

of the ES, where the assessment of impacts on these MCZs is presented.

8.9 Marine physical processes (ES Chapter 9)


8.9.1 Stakeholders consulted on marine physical processes include Cefas, ERYC, JNCC,

Natural England, the MMO, the Environment Agency (EA), Wildlife Trusts (WT) and

the local community.


Key Issues raised

8.9.3 The key issues that were raised during consultation were:

Coastal erosion, particularly at the landfall location;

Effects on sediment transport of seabed cable protection and other construction

near-shore;

Hydrodynamic and sedimentary processes, particularly the possibility of

increased suspended sediment concentrations and deposition on the seabed

due to construction and operational activities; and

Scour and scour protection, including direct loss of habitat through side casting

and scour protection itself and the timescales over which scour will affect

processes.




8.9.4 Potential impacts of the landfall works on coastal erosion, such as increasing the

already fast rate of natural erosion, and future exposure of buried landfall cables

were raised by several members of the local community and the coastal Parish

Councils, particularly Barmston & Fraisthorpe, and Lissett & Ulrome.

8.9.5 In the Dogger Bank Project One Scoping Opinion, ERYC advised Forewind to

consider the emerging Shoreline Management Plan 2 and this was later supported

by the Environment Agency. This plan states that a policy of ‗No Active

Intervention‘ is in place in the location of the landfall, in other words nature will be

allowed to take its course. Forewind was therefore obliged to demonstrate that the

landfall works would have a negligible effect, neither reducing nor increasing the

natural rate of coastal erosion.

8.9.6 Various members of the local coastal community, in particular Lissett & Ulrome

Parish Council, suggested that Forewind should install coastal defences as part of

the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck works. As this would be a clear contravention of the

No Active Intervention policy, it was not possible to incorporate this feedback into

the proposals. Forewind explained this to the Parish Council and contacted ERYC

to make them aware of the local community‘s concerns about coastal erosion.

8.9.7 Forewind agreed a method statement with the JNCC and the MMO which set out

how marine physical processes (including coastal erosion, sedimentary processes,

hydrodynamic processes and cumulative impacts) would be assessed. For the

landfall, a conceptual model was developed which, combined with expert

geomorphological assessment, was used to assess the effects of the landfall works,

scour protection or rock armouring on the existing processes and future evolution of

the shore (including the long shore sediment transport system).

8.9.8 For the marine areas, the conceptual understanding of marine physical processes

was supported by numerical modelling of waves, tidal currents and sediment plume

dispersion. A similar approach was adopted for assessing the physical and

sedimentary process effects in the project areas and associated export cable

corridor, including increase in suspended sediment concentration and deposition on

the seabed. Direct loss of habitat was addressed using plan area estimates of

scour and side cast materials.

8.9.9 Coastal erosion rates advised by ERYC were used to calculate a ‗worst case‘ for

the distance cliffs might erode over the lifetime of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. This

then informed the decision about where to site the horizontal directional drilling

compounds to ensure that the landfall cables would remain buried for the lifetime of

the project.

8.9.10 The results of these assessments are presented in Chapter 9 Marine Physical

Processes of the ES.

8.9.11 Following discussion on the comments received from the MMO and JNCC and

Natural England on the draft ES at the second stage of statutory consultation, only

minor amendments were made to Chapter 9. On discussion with the stakeholders,

it became apparent that most comments required clarification of the existing

approach rather than additional work. This additional clarification is provided within

Chapter 9.



8.10 Marine Water and Sediment Quality (ES Chapter 10)


8.10.1 Statutory consultees included the MMO, the Environment Agency, the Health

Protection Agency and the JNCC.


Key issues raised

8.10.3 Stakeholder consultation highlighted concerns regarding the impact on water quality

especially in relation to bathing water due to the following:

Potential spillage;

Leaks; and

Re-suspension or transport of contaminants.

Forewind response

8.10.4 Forewind modelled sediment plumes for the worst case scenario conditions and

concluded that deterioration of water quality due to re-suspension of sediments

and/or contaminants would be minimal during all stages of development. The

modelling results show that any suspended sediments would be quickly dispersed

after activities cease.

8.10.5 Bathing water areas are found within 1km of the landfall works, however any

material excavated as part of this development would be stored on a barge for

replacement after the works are completed and would not have an effect on the

quality of bathing water.

8.10.6 In addition to ensuring that all working practices and vessels adhere to the

requirements of the MARPOL (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Convention

Regulations, control measures will be included in a Project Environmental

Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) in order to minimise the risk of a spill as

far as possible. This is a commitment of the deemed Marine Licence which forms

part of the Development Consent Order (Planning Inspectorate document

reference number 3.1). For further details see Chapter 10 Marine Water and

Sediment Quality of the ES.

8.10.7 The designated bathing waters within the water bodies which are protected under

the ‗protected areas‘ element of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are located

several kilometres from the export cable corridor and both passed the more

stringent Bathing Waters Directive guideline standards in 2011. In its comments on

the draft ES at the second stage of statutory consultation, the Environment Agency

requested that Forewind undertook a WFD assessment. This has been completed

and is incorporated in the ES (ES Appendix 10A Water Framework Directive

Compliance Assessment).

8.11 Marine and Coastal Ornithology (ES Chapter 11)


8.11.1 Ornithology is a key topic of interest for all offshore wind farm developments and

this has been reflected in the extensive consultation carried out for Dogger Bank



Creyke Beck at statutory and non-statutory levels, with national and international

stakeholders. Chapter 11 Marine and Coastal Ornithology of the ES (and

associated appendices) presents a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the

impacts of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck on birds and clearly demonstrates how

stakeholder concerns and recommendations have been central to the development

and execution of the EIA.

8.11.2 In the UK, the main statutory consultees on this topic included the JNCC, Natural

England, the IPC (now the Planning Inspectorate) and ERYC. Non-statutory

consultees included the RSPB, North Yorkshire Moors National Park, North

Yorkshire County Council, the Bridlington and District Civic Society, the Wildfowl

and Wetlands Trust (WWT), Wildlife Trusts and members of the local community.

Consultation at a transboundary level was undertaken with the Danish Ministry of

the Environment, Dutch Ministry for Infrastructure and Environment (Rijkswaterstaat

Waterdienst), the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, German Federal

Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (Bundesamt fuer Seeschifffahrt und

Hydrographie) and the Norwegian Coastal Administration and Ministry of the

Environment.


Key issues raised

8.11.4 The key concerns and summary of the comments received throughout the

consultation are:

Collisions of birds with rotating blades;

Direct habitat loss;

Disturbance from construction activities such as the movement of

construction/decommissioning vessels and piling;

Displacement during the operational phase, resulting in loss of foraging/roosting

areas and potential resultant mortality; and

Impacts on bird flight lines (i.e. barrier effect) and associated increased energy

use by birds for commuting flights between roosting and foraging areas and on

migration.


8.11.5 A meeting to discuss the combined boat and aerial survey methodology was held

between Forewind, the surveyors (Gardline Ltd and Hi-Def Surveying Ltd) and the

JNCC in April 2010. As a result of this, a review of the methodology was instigated,

led by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) (Forewind‘s specialist ornithological

consultant).

8.11.6 A follow-up meeting was held in November 2010 with representatives from JNCC

and the RSPB to report initial results from this, covering:

A review of survey data collection protocols;

A review of the survey approach and whether this was sufficient to provide a

robust characterisation of the populations of seabirds present in the Zone and

tranche areas within this;



Identification of the key species for assessment and the likely effects for these

species; and

A review of potential methodologies for assessing effects on migratory species.

8.11.7 More detailed discussion of the assessment methodology was initiated in a meeting

held on 18 May 2011(Appendix N3) in London between representatives of

Forewind, BTO, RSPB and JNCC. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and

review the outcome of the survey trial and the proposed approach for future

surveys, and to discuss the approach for the EIA and HRA. Details of how these

initial meetings fed into the development of the EIA for ornithology can be found in

Appendix 3 of Appendix 11A of the ES.

8.11.8 Building on this, a workshop was held on 11 April 2012 (Appendix N9) in

Peterborough, to discuss the approach to the EIA and HRA in greater detail.

Representatives from JNCC, Natural England, RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts

attended. As a result of this workshop, two documents were produced for

stakeholder review:

A document detailing assumptions and methodology regarding the geographical

scope of the assessment; and

A document providing details of the ecological assumptions used in the

assessment methodology. Stakeholder comments on these documents and

details of how these comments have been addressed are outlined in Appendix

3 of Appendix 11A of the ES.

8.11.9 A further meeting was held on 11 March 2013 (Appendix N14), with

representatives from the JNCC, Natural England and RSPB, to discuss the HRA

screening report for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and the related assumptions in the

ornithological technical report methodology. Discussions, related to advice notes

produced by Natural England/JNCC (2012, 2013a, 2013b) happened prior to the

meeting. Subsequent comments from Natural England were also taken into

account in producing the final EIA and consequently the HRA (e.g. the use of a 2km

buffer for displacement of all species, except divers).

8.11.10 A final workshop was held in June 2013, following the second statutory

consultation period on the draft ES. This was attended by the JNCC, Natural

England, the RSPB and the MMO and provided an opportunity for further comment

on the assessment prior to its finalisation. Forewind‘s responses to the issues

raised by JNCC and Natural England in the consultation on the draft ES are

included in the point by point response (Appendix N15). The response explains

where Forewind has amended the ES to take account of stakeholder comments,

and also highlights those areas where Forewind does not agree with the comments

raised.

8.12 Marine and Intertidal Ecology (ES Chapter 12)


8.12.1 The prescribed consultees that responded on this topic included the JNCC, Natural

England and the MMO (together with the Cefas as the MMO‘s science advisor).

The main non-statutory stakeholders included The Wildlife Trusts, in addition to the

relevant transboundary consultees in other European Economic Areas (EEA).



8.12.2 Two non-statutory consultation workshops were held in April 2012 and June 2013,

which the JNCC, Natural England, the MMO, Wildlife Trust and Cefas all attended

(see Appendix N9 and N16). The purpose of the April 2012 workshop was to

provide stakeholders with an update on the survey and assessment work conducted

to date and to seek views on the final form of the assessment. The June 2013

workshop followed the statutory consultation period on the draft ES and provided an

opportunity for further comment on the assessment prior to its finalisation.


Key issues raised

8.12.4 Early stage consultation (throughout 2010 and 2011) focussed on the nature of the

survey campaigns (geophysical and benthic sampling) and helped to ensure that an

adequate characterisation of the site was achieved. The conservation status of the

Dogger Bank as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) was noted from

an early stage. This influenced the survey design and the type of assessment that

was required.

8.12.5 The focus of later consultation shifted to communication of the preliminary findings

of the survey work and the form of the assessment. A particular issue raised in

consultation on the draft ES was the use of Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) as

a framework for the impact assessment. This is discussed in further detail below.


Colonisation of new hard substrates

8.12.6 The MMO noted during the statutory consultation on the draft ES that introduced

substrates are colonised by species not naturally present in surrounding

sedimentary habitats, and that those species persist for decades until after the

habitat returns to its natural state following decommissioning. It queried the

conclusion of a negligible impact presented in the draft ES and suggested that

monitoring should be undertaken throughout the operational stage to ascertain how

the long-term presence of introduced substrate and its colonisers influences the

surrounding sedimentary habitats.

8.12.7 In response to these comments, Forewind added further information to its impact

assessment to link the potential impact with the relevant Marine Life Information

Network factor8. It was noted that the benthic receptors present in the study area

are judged to be either not sensitive to this effect/factor or that there is insufficient

evidence on which to base any sensitivity assessment. Forewind has also included

a commitment to monitoring during operation, and the exact detail of suitable

monitoring programmes will be agreed with stakeholders prior to construction.

Monitoring

8.12.8 The MMO noted that under (deemed) Marine Licences it is possible to conduct

monitoring over the lifetime of the project and advised that monitoring should be

conducted at more infrequent, regular intervals throughout the lifetime of the

development. This was noted in the assessment.

8 MarLIN 2013. Marine Life Information Network. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United

Kingdom. Available from: www.marlin.ac.uk



Mytilus reef habitat in the export cable corridor

8.12.9 JNCC and Natural England noted the presence of Mytilus reef habitat in one

nearshore section of the export cable corridor and questioned whether this

constitutes Annex I habitat (EU Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural

Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the ‗Habitats Directive‘).

8.12.10 Although it is not possible to provide further information describing this area at

the present time, Forewind has updated Chapter 12 Marine and Intertidal

Ecology of the ES to make it clear that the pre-construction survey (to be carried

out no more than 12 months prior to the start of offshore construction) will be used

to confirm the nature of the Mytilus based biotope complex (SS.SBR.SMus) that

has been identified and specifically, whether it constitutes Annex I reef habitat.

Use of VERs in the impact assessment

8.12.11 JNCC and Natural England requested clarification as to how the biotopes

identified in the Emu report (ES Appendix 12D) related to those in the Envision

report, (ES Appendix 12G) and the suitability of using VERs as a basis for the

impact assessment.

8.12.12 Forewind made several additions to Chapter 12 of the ES in order to clarify

the habitat classifications that have been used, and how the VERs are applied to

the impact assessment and the Habitats Regulations Assessment. This included

the provision of an entirely new Appendix to Chapter 12 which clearly sets out in

table form, for each impact, the relevant MarLIN factors, the VERs, the

representative biotopes corresponding to each VER and the ecological sensitivity

(as defined by MarLIN) of the most sensitive biotope within the VER to each effect

or factor.

8.12.13 In addition to updating this information in Chapter 12 of the final ES, Forewind

also provided additional information on these amendments. No further comment

has been received on this.

8.13 Fish and shellfish ecology (ES Chapter 13)


8.13.1 Prescribed consultees on this topic included the Bridlington Harbour

Commissioners, JNCC, the MMO and Natural England. Other stakeholders

included the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, Cefas, Shell fishermen‘s Cooperatives and

fishing industry groups.

8.13.2 A workshop (Appendix N9) was held on 10 April 2012 with Cefas in order to

discuss fish and shellfish ecology, particularly sandeel and spawning herring, as

well as to provide the preliminary results of the sandeel survey. The workshop was

also a platform for the presentation of the current state of knowledge in relation to

former spawning grounds in the Dogger Bank Area and results of preliminary noise

assessments.


Key issues raised

8.13.4 Main issues raised included:



The potential impact of the development on sandeel habitat and herring

spawning grounds; and

The impact of underwater noise as a result of construction activities on sensitive

species such as herring was highlighted especially in relation to spawning

behaviour;

The effects of the development on species of conservation importance which

are known to be in the area i.e. European eel and smelt; and

The effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) associated with the export

cable on fish, elasmobranchs and shellfish.


8.13.5 Forewind has responded to concerns about the loss or disturbance to sandeel

habitats through design changes which have excluded the development of the

western edge of Tranche A due to high sandeel density and associated commercial

fishing in this area (see ES Chapter 15 Commercial Fisheries section 8.10.5).

8.13.6 Consultation responses were received on the draft ES from JNCC, Natural England

and MMO with input from their scientific advisors, Cefas. These were somewhat

contradictory in their nature so were discussed at a meeting with all four

stakeholders on 18 June 2012. Many of the queries raised were resolved at the

meeting and a way forward was agreed.

8.13.7 There was agreement in taking forward the MMO/Cefas advice in preference to the

JNCC/NE advice, for example on the adequacy of fish ecology surveys and the

impact on sandeel. The exception to this was MMO/Cefas‘ suggestion to apply a

seasonal restriction for cable installation for spawning herring, which Forewind

considers to be inappropriate given the predicted level of impact and would result in

a significant adverse commercial impact. A point by point response was sent to all

four stakeholders to clearly set out how Forewind has had regard to each point

made in their consultation responses (Appendix N17 and N18).

8.13.8 In addition, one comment was raised by The Wildlife Trust in relation to impacts on

sandeel. Forewind consider no further mitigation is considered to be necessary.

8.13.9 In response to concerns about the effects of EMF, Forewind has introduced

mitigation methods including burying cables where reasonably practicable,

armouring and the potential to bundle the HVDC export cables which considerably

reduces the electromagnetic output. Noise modelling studies undertaken by

Forewind have shown that the effect of noise is unlikely to have either lethal or

behavioural impacts on fish or shellfish (see ES Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish

Ecology).

8.14 Marine Mammals (ES Chapter 14)

Main stakeholders and method of consultation

8.14.1 Statutory consultees on this topic included the JNCC, Natural England, the MMO

and The Crown Estate. Non-statutory stakeholders included the Whale and Dolphin

Conservation Society (WDCS), International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW),

Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Maritime and Hydrographic

Agency of Germany, and The Wildlife Trust.




Key Issues raised

8.14.3 The key issues raised included:

The potential effect of construction noise on marine mammals, both at a project

level and cumulatively with other developments. JNCC and Natural England

requested that the ES should set out the approach to the noise assessment

including thresholds, units and presentation of data, as well as the full range of

physical impacts including Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent

Threshold Shift (PTS) (total loss of hearing), and the zone and duration of

marine mammal avoidance/displacement; and

The effect of electro-magnetic field (EMF) effects should be assessed for

pinnipeds and cetaceans.


8.14.4 Following receipt of the consultation response from JNCC and Natural England on

the draft ES, a number of amendments and clarifications were added to the marine

mammal assessment. Forewind agreed with the comments made where it was

possible to accommodate these (i.e. where data was available and a response

possible). In addition to comments from the statutory consultees, a number of non-

governmental organisations provided comments relating to the assessment of

impacts on marine mammals.

8.14.5 Consultation on the baseline data used for the assessment of impacts on marine

mammals included consideration of the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which is intended

to provide population estimates for marine mammals. However, in the consultation

responses received from JNCC and Natural England on the draft ES, it was

confirmed that this protocol would not be available in time to feed into the final ES.

JNCC and Natural England also confirmed that they were, therefore, satisfied with

the use of the other sources of population information utilised for the assessment.

This was with the exception of one comment raised by Natural England, requesting

inclusion of further January 2012 harbour seal telemetry data. Following

investigation, Forewind confirmed that this data was not yet available for use and

hence this was not included in the final ES.

8.14.6 Following statutory consultation on the draft ES, a small number of additional

concerns were raised by JNCC and Natural England on the impact assessment.

JNCC requested that further mitigation for permanent impacts in harbour porpoise

caused by noise from pile driving activity should be considered, and disagreed with

the conclusion of no impact on harbour porpoise for the individual assessment of

each project. JNCC also requested further clarification as to the assignment of

sensitivity to different levels of behavioural disturbance in the ES.

8.14.7 Additionally, JNCC noted than a European Protected Species (EPS) licence is likely

to be needed for additional species and not just harbour porpoise, as suggested by

Forewind. They also requested clarification on how Forewind is considering the

application for the EPS licence.

8.14.8 However, following discussion with JNCC on these concerns, it was concluded that

additional clarification within the ES would resolve the issues and that no significant



rework would be required. This clarification has been included in the final ES.

8.14.9 The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment requested that the

cumulative effects in Germany and Denmark must also be taken into account,

specifically raising concerns for harbour porpoise. The Maritime and Hydrographic

Agency of Germany is mainly concerned about noise impacts on marine mammals

and how Forewind intends to mitigate this. Forewind has provided as much

information as possible at this stage to help quantify the potential cumulative

impacts, particularly on harbour porpoise. Forewind is not able to commit to further

mitigation, above those measures already outlined in the ES, for impacts on harbour

porpoise at this time.

8.14.10 During consultation on the draft ES, WDCS and IFAW raised a number of

concerns relating to the impacts from underwater noise and potential mitigation

measures that should be applied. While it is recognised that a significant impact

could arise at the cumulative scale, this is not influenced by the construction or

operation of projects within the Dogger Bank Zone. No mitigation that could be

applied within the Dogger Bank Zone would prevent potentially significant impacts

from occurring elsewhere and, as such, no project specific mitigation is proposed.

In addition, details of mitigation which Forewind is committing to, including

embedded soft start (a process to reduce the likelihood of injury to marine mammals

from noise), as well as commitment to an Environmental Management Plan and

Marine Mammal Mitigation Protocol (MMMP) are included in ES Chapter 14 –

Marine Mammals.

8.14.11 Following the second stage of statutory consultation, Forewind has addressed

all of the issues and concerns raised by JNCC and Natural England, through

additions, amendments or clarifications to ES Chapter 14.

8.14.12 Forewind has addressed comments from WDCS and IFAW where possible,

and despite being unable to commit to any unproven noise mitigation measure at

this development site, re-affirmed its commitment to the development of a MMMP in

consultation with appropriate stakeholders.

8.15 Commercial fisheries (ES Chapter 15)


8.15.1 Statutory consultees included the Bridlington Harbour Commissioners, JNCC,

Natural England and Watton Parish Council. Other consultees included

representatives of national and international fisheries bodies such as the National

Federation of Fishermen‘s Organisations (NFFO), North Eastern Inshore Fisheries

Conservation Authority (NEIFCA), North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and the Royal

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and

Coastal Affairs, the Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

(NIFCA), and the Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marines

(CNPMEM).

8.15.2 Inshore and offshore independent fishermen were also consulted as part of the

process since commercial fisheries takes place throughout the North Sea and is

undertaken by fleets from several different countries. Consultation with

representatives of the fishing industry from other EEA states including Germany,

The Netherlands, Denmark, France, Sweden, Belgium and Norway were also



undertaken as part of Forewinds‘ responsibility to assess transboundary issues.

8.15.3 The main methods of consultation involved meetings with stakeholders as well as

through an initial Forewind stakeholder workshop (Appendix N1) held on 21 April

2010 with representatives of fishing organisations and independent fishermen.

Forewind developed a Fisheries Liaison Plan (Appendix B) which was a specific

approach to consultation with the fishing industry.


Key issues raised

8.15.5 The main issues raised during consultation included:

Loss or restricted access to fishing grounds;

Safety zones and the impact on shipping and fishing vessels;

Displacement of fishing activity and exclusion zones, both at a project level and

cumulatively with other developments;

Potential impact of construction activities on the population of commercially

exploited fish and shellfish;

Objects on the seabed post-construction causing snagging, damage or loss of

gear; and

Increased steaming times.


8.15.6 One of the main concerns raised during consultation was displacement of fishing

activity, or loss of grounds due to the wind farm development, which could result in

increased competition for grounds outside the site. This is related specifically to

plaice and sandeel fishing areas and fishing activity in the export cable corridor.

8.15.7 In response to the concerns about the sandeel fishery, especially the high density of

fishing for this species on the western boundary of the Dogger Bank Zone,

Forewind made the decision to locate the project boundary in an eastwards

direction. Loss of fishing ground within the export cable corridor will be temporary

and so will not pose a threat to the fishery. Overall, Forewind considers the area of

disturbance to be small in comparison to the area in which commercial fish and

shellfish are caught within the North Sea.

8.15.8 The potential impact on fish and shellfish ecology of commercial importance is

considered in ES Chapter 15 Commercial Fisheries.

8.15.9 Safety zones in relation to shipping and fishing vessels are covered in ES Chapter

16 Shipping and Navigation. During construction, 500m safety zones will be

implemented around installation features and a rolling safety zone will be employed

around the export cable corridor. This could result in a few temporary deviations in

traditional routes. However, Forewind recognises that in the normal course of

fishing, vessels will have to make frequent deviations to steaming routes to avoid

collision with other vessels, infrastructure or due to weather conditions. Therefore

Forewind considers that the development will not have any discernible impact on

steaming times.

8.15.10 Some stakeholders raised the concern that vessels used during construction



could interfere with fishing vessels with towed gear, and potentially result in a loss

of static gear. Forewind has indicated in the ES that construction vessels will

comply fully with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

(COLREGs) so fishing vessels will not have to alter course and there will be no risk

to towed fishing gear. Fishing vessels, as a matter of course, do not deploy gear

within known shipping routes. Construction vessels will also adhere to the

COLREGs to avoid conflict with static gear in the vicinity of transit routes.

8.16 Shipping and Navigation (ES Chapter 16)


8.16.1 In addition to the statutory bodies (the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and

Trinity House), the Chamber of Shipping, the Royal Yachting Association, the

Cruising Association and the owners and regular operators of commercial vessels

and fishermen have all been consulted on the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck proposals.

8.16.2 Of particular note is the Hazard Workshop (Appendix N10) that was held on 19

April 2012 and attended by a representative of Dutch Fisherman, DFDS Logistics,

CEMEX UK Marine, the Danish Fishermen‘s Association, the Cruising Association,

RWE Dea (UK), the National Federation of Fishermen‘s Organisations (NFFO),

Associated British Ports, the MCA and GDF Suez. The purpose of this workshop

was to identify any navigational hazards associated with the development.


Key issues raised

8.16.4 Through both statutory and non-statutory consultation, a number of issues have

been identified:

Navigation channels/corridors within projects;

Navigational safety;

Search and rescue; and

Standard approach to design across projects relating to curved turbine layouts,

dense perimeters and the accuracy of AIS data.


8.16.5 Forewind, together with other Round 3 Offshore Wind Zones, Hornsea and East

Anglia, have formed the Southern North Sea Offshore Wind Forum. The Forum has

undertaken work to assess the cumulative impact on shipping and navigation of all

three zones becoming operational, as well as consulting with shipping associations

and government bodies from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France and The

Netherlands.

8.16.6 On several occasions, the MCA and the Chamber of Shipping stated concerns

about narrow navigation corridors or channels between individual wind farms. The

MCA decided not to include charted channels within each wind farm, only wind

resource gaps. The MCA raised the issues of dense perimeter and curved layouts

in relation to vessels movement and SAR operations. Following other consultation

responses in relation to curved design Forewind has removed curved layouts from

the design and has re-run the collision modelling to take into account dense



perimeter layouts and updated results are provided in ES Appendix 16A. Forewind

has used both AIS data and site specific radar surveys have been used to define

the characteristics of shipping in the area.

8.16.7 Trinity House raised the potential navigational safety risk (under keel clearance) of

rock placement as a method of protecting cables. Forewind has however, included

this cable protection method in the proposals as there are areas where cable burial

will not be possible. The Dogger Bank Export Cables will be buried or protected

appropriately along their length. A detailed cable burial and protection risk

assessment will be carried out to identify the most suitable target burial depth and

level of protection in each area. The assessment will include consideration of

operating characteristics, sediment type, and risk of damage to the cable from

mobile sediments or external activities such as fishing or vessel anchors. Any rock

placement will be carried out to industry standards and will, as far as possible, avoid

impacts on navigational safety and allow fishing vessels to continue trawling.

8.16.8 An emergency response study was submitted as part of the consultation on the

draft ES, but following further discussion with the MCA and THLS, it was agreed

that this would be removed for the final submission. This document will be

maintained as a working document to aid future discussions on potential emergency

response capabilities. In addition, the DCO requires an Emergency Response and

Co-operation Plan to be provided before construction commences, in consultation

with the MCA.

8.16.9 Forewind has drawn up layout rules which will be secured through a requirement of

the DCO, and therefore these principles must be applied to the final layout design of

the consented projects.

8.16.10 The responses received from the MCA, THLS, The Chamber of Shipping,

Royal Yachting Association and the Cruising Association on the draft ES all noted

some concerns in relation to curved turbine arrays. As a result, Forewind decided

to remove the option to install curved arrays from the Rochdale Envelope.

8.16.11 In addition, a number of comments were made by MCA and THLS which

Forewind has committed to address as part of the detailed design of the project post

consent. There are a number of comments which Forewind has not been able to

agree with, such as the commitment to have just one marine coordination centre for

all projects on Dogger Bank (not just the project which is the subject of this

application). Forewind has, however, committed to use of a single Emergency

Response centre. Following further discussion with the MCA and THLS it was

agreed that many issues would be resolved during continued discussion over the

final project design, post consent.

8.17 Other Marine Users (ES Chapter 17)


8.17.1 During the statutory consultation period a large number of organisations with

interests in the seabed (Section 42d offshore landowners) were consulted including:

Oil and gas operators, The Parkmead Group and Bridge Energy, Centrica

Energy, Dana Petroleum, Europa Oil and Gas (Resources Limited), GDF Suez,

Premier Oil Ltd, ConocoPhillips, RD(UK) SNS Ltd, and CGG Veritas;



Gas pipeline operators; Gassco Ltd, Atlantic Petroleum, Shell UK Ltd;

Telecommunication cable operators: Tata Communications, BT subsea, Cable

and Wireless and Kingston Communications; and

Aggregate industry: CEMEX UK Marine Ltd, British Marine Aggregate

Producers Association (BMAPA).

8.17.2 Others consulted included the MCA, North Yorkshire County Council, the Health

and Safety Executive, Northumberland Yacht Group and Royal Yachting

Association, ABP Humber Estuary Services, E.ON Climates and Renewables UK,

EDF Energy Renewables, Egdon Resources UK Ltd (onshore), Cleveland Potash

(mining), and National Grid (Carbon Capture and Storage).

8.17.3 A Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Project Hazard Workshop was held in London on 19

April 2012. All presentations and a hazard log were sent to all attendees for

comment. A presentation was given by Forewind to the Subsea Cables UK

Renewables Sub Group. Discussions with the Department for Energy and Climate

Change (DECC) have taken place in relation to the guidance on the proposed oil

and gas clause relating to oil and gas activity within consented wind farm areas.


Key issues raised

8.17.5 The main issue raised during consultation related to disruption or damage to

activities or assets of other marine users including;

Renewable energy – pressure on port facilities;

Carbon capture and storage – distances between CO2 pipeline and Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck export cables;

Oil and gas – the effect of noise during construction and seismic survey work for

oil and gas exploration as well as the relationship between licence blocks which

overlap the project and the project itself. Another area for discussion is the

proximity to the development of helicopter access routes to oil rigs;

Aggregates – the effect on dredger routes;

Subsea cables – ability to maintain subsea assets; and

Subsea pipelines (Shell and Gassco).


8.17.6 An area of concern is the potential for ports to be affected through increased

demand from other renewable energy projects. In response to this Forewind will

select a port on its ability to adequately service the requirements of the project.

8.17.7 National Grid is responsible for the design, construction and operation of the CO2

transport system and the identification of the offshore storage sites for the Yorkshire

and Humber carbon capture, transportation and storage project. The landfall area

for the CO2 pipeline was initially proposed to be in close proximity to the Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck export cable landfall which caused confusion in the local

community and concern about cumulative impacts. Forewind made efforts to

respond to local concerns regarding the confusion over the landfall location for

Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and the CO2 pipeline project by attending and



presenting at a Barmston and Fraisthorpe Parish Council meeting with National

Grid, and ensured that consultation periods on these projects did not overlap. The

two projects have now identified separate landfall locations but Forewind is in

discussion with National Grid to resolve any ongoing concerns regarding the

distance between the export cables and the CO2 pipeline.

8.17.8 In relation to oil and gas activities Forewind has engaged with the relevant oil and

gas developers through a comprehensive programme of consultation and will

continue to do so throughout the life of the development where necessary. Meetings

have been held with oil and gas operators to inform and update them of Forewind‘s

plans and any potential interactions between licence blocks and the Dogger Bank

Creyke Beck development. Forewind has met with all operators at least once and

has provided an update every six months (excluding statutory consultation) to all

those with an interest in Forewind‘s developments. Some operators also attended

the Shipping and Navigation Hazard Workshop.

8.17.9 CEMEX UK Ltd (aggregate dredging) noted the close proximity of the turbines and

inter-array cables to a marine dredging licenced area under application and raised

the issue of the potential effect on dredger navigation routes. In relation to this

CEMEX requested a 2km separation distance between application areas and

offshore wind projects. Forewind has responded by taking this distance into

account in its project boundary selection process (although the site is 3km from the

boundary of Dogger Bank at its closest point), and will continue to engage with

CEMEX.

8.17.10 Forewind has consulted all operators with interests in or in proximity to Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck and is currently seeking Statements of Intent (see Chapter 9 of

this report). TATA communications raised concerns about the ability to maintain

cables during the construction and operational phases and requested that Forewind

demonstrated a commitment to Subsea Cables Guidance No 6. In response to this

Forewind has included a minimum proximity buffer between surface infrastructure

and any cable or pipeline and a buffer distance between active telecommunication

cables and inter-array cables in the design of the development.

8.17.11 The Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project boundaries have been designed with

the location of cables and pipelines in mind especially the western boundary of

Creyke Beck B and the northern boundary of Creyke Beck A.

8.18 Marine and Coastal Archaeology (ES Chapter 18)


8.18.1 Stakeholders consulted on Marine and Coastal Archaeology included, Humber

Archaeology Partnership (HAP), English Heritage (EH), Birmingham University and

the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee.

8.18.2 Of particular note is an archaeology workshop hosted by Forewind in in September

2012 (Appendix N13). English Heritage and the County Archaeologist attended

along with representatives of Birmingham University and the Joint Nautical

Archaeology Policy Committee. Forewind presented an update on archaeology

survey and assessment.




Key issues raised / Stakeholder feedback

8.18.4 Issues raised throughout the consultation process were as follows:

The IPC (Now Planning Inspectorate) stated that consultation should seek to

agree a programme of investigative works and appropriate mitigation, as

necessary.

EH noted that ―all development or related activities associated with the

construction, operation and decommissioning of the Creyke Beck wind farms

will be prohibited within the boundaries of AEZs (Archaeological Exclusion

Zones)‖ and encouraged Forewind to discuss with themselves and the MMO

how this provision will be included within any DCO (including Deemed Marine

Licence) granted for this proposed project.

EH also raised issues regarding securing mitigation in the DCO, providing

further information on surveys post-consent and further detail and clarification

on some of the worst case parameters.

EH requested the production of an archaeological Written Scheme of

Investigation (WSI), as necessary, to support delivery of this proposed

development and consideration of the extent to which access to palaeo-

environmental evidence will be affected by the development.

EH requested that geophysical survey operations extend further and a full suite

to be utilised across the marine study areas and also noted that ―it is apparent

that only backscatter data rather than sidescan sonar data was available in the

export cable corridor. Since backscatter data is generally of low resolution it is

not conducive to archaeological analysis‖. EH see this is an important detail

and will provide advice that the deemed marine licence and the WSI identifies

these data for acquisition in the corridor route pre construction.

EH requires further information to be supplied to them regarding the on-going

programme of geo-archaeological analysis.

Forewind response

8.18.5 Measures to deal with impacts to all potential sites and appropriate mitigation to

deal with unexpected discoveries, if they should occur, have been set out in the

project WSI, including the implementation of a reporting protocol, namely, Offshore

Renewables Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries and incorporating aspects of

the relevant model clauses for WSI, both developed for The Crown Estate.

8.18.6 It has been explained and accepted by EH that due to restrictions on towing survey

equipment within the nearshore section of the export cable corridor on account of

bad weather and static fishing gear, sidescan sonar and magnetometer data were

collected for the offshore section of the export cable corridor only.

8.18.7 All embedded and additional mitigation and the details of further work agreed

between Forewind and the curator (EH) will be set out in the high level project WSI,

which should be seen as a living document (see ES Appendix 18B). As noted, a

scheme specific WSI will be produced for each Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project

once the design has been finalised and the methodology and framework for

archaeological works has been agreed with English Heritage and the MMO.

8.18.8 Access to palaeo-environmental evidence (including publication) and the ongoing



programme of geo-archaeology is set out in the overriding WSI mentioned above.

8.18.9 Following consultation on the draft ES, Forewind will meet with EH to review

responses to the consultation, and to discuss statements of common ground and

the archaeological scope for the Forewind geotechnical campaigns.

8.19 Military Activities and Civil Aviation (ES Chapter 19)


8.19.1 Stakeholders consulted on this topic included the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the

National Air Traffic Service (NATS) (including their subsidiary-NATS en route Ltd

(NERL)), the Defence Estates department of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). Consultation has been undertaken in

accordance with both the Wind Energy and Aviation Interests Interim Guidelines

(Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), CAA, MoD and British Wind Energy

Association (BWEA) (now RenewableUK) 2002).

8.19.2 Consultation with the MoD has been undertaken through a standard proforma

(industry standard consultation document) and subsequent direct correspondence

at the CAA and NATS Round 3 developers workshop held at MCA headquarters,

Southampton, on 6 March 2013.


Key issues raised


Potential effects on communications, navigation and surveillance infrastructure;

Aviation lighting;

Turbine colour;

Updated marine charts showing the turbine locations; and

Cable protection.


8.19.5 Both the CAA and MoD have highlighted the requirements for wind turbines to be lit

to aid visibility in accordance with their individual criteria. The specific lighting

requirements will be the focus of ongoing consultation with appropriate stakeholders

as the design phase progresses.

8.19.6 The CAA highlighted the requirement for wind turbines to be painted white as well

as for the array of turbines to be charted during the wind farm zone development;

both of these requirements will be realised during the wind farm development.

8.19.7 As is required by the CAA, marine charts will be updated and turbine locations will

be marked on appropriate aeronautical charts for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A and

B. The Defence Geographic Centre will be kept informed of specific project details

including development location, the location, size and height of each wind turbines,

and construction schedules.



8.20 Seascape and Visual Character (ES Chapter 20)


8.20.1 Stakeholders that were consulted on the seascape and visual character include

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Natural England and English

Heritage. The Planning Inspectorate has also provided comments on this topic

area with respect to potential visual impact of the development on recreational

users. Comments raised by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Trinity House

included the need to consider navigation and aviation lights as well as the effect of

night time lighting.


Key issues raised

8.20.3 The key issues raised in the consultation were:

The need for the assessment of the visual impact of offshore components on

offshore recreational users (such as sailing boats, ferries etc.), including any

cumulative effects;

The Seascape and Visual Character Impact Assessment (SVIA) should be

expanded to include Historic Seascape Characterisation (HSC) work;

Consideration of whether other project components are visible from the shore,

such as the onshore transition pit;

Effect of any aviation and navigation warning lights at night time; and

Project locations based on viewpoint selection.


8.20.4 Natural England and JNCC broadly agreed with the proposed approach to the SVIA

and that the assessment should focus on the marine environment, as the

development will not be visible from land.

8.20.5 The SVIA includes a high level assessment of effects on surface historic seascape

character, with reference to the relevant studies as well as the Marine Archaeology

Technical Report (ES Appendix 18A).

8.20.6 Forewind has assessed the temporary effects of the scheme during construction on

seascape and visual receptors.

8.20.7 The need for warning and navigation lights identified by the CAA and Trinity House

has been considered in the assessment and the effects of lighting at night are

discussed in the SVIA. Forewind have considered this point and navigation lights

are likely to be mounted on the corner turbines, will have a nominal range

representing the minimum required visibility, but the upper limit of visibility depends

on a range of factors, and cannot be precisely determined. The approach taken to

assess the effects on land-based and marine-based receptors in relation to the

construction of the landfall and the export cable is provided in ES Chapter 20

Seascape and Visual Character Section 3 methodology. Further to this, policy

documents that are relevant to the assessment have also been considered in the

assessment.

8.20.8 The Planning Inspectorate recognised that although the development may not be



seen from the shore it could represent a visual impact to recreational users and the

cumulative impact should be considered. Forewind noted that the setting of the

wind farms will be open sea, with no potential interaction with the coast. Viewpoints

have been selected to represent the potential presence of visual receptors within

the marine environment surrounding the development area. No permanent features

will be visible from land during the operational phase. Viewpoints have, therefore,

not been selected in relation to the landfall and export cable corridor. The nature of

the temporary visual effects at the landfall and in relation to the export cable corridor

during the construction phase, are described in ES Chapter 20. Forewind

considered that the potential cumulative impact will be on commercial vessels

travelling across the North Sea, since no cruising routes which pass within 50km of

Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A or B will pass another wind farm i.e. Hornsea Project

One.

8.20.9 Forewind agreed with most comments made on the draft ES and has made relevant

updates on this basis. However, Forewind disagreed with the comments on the

scope of the cumulative assessment and believe the current assessment is

adequate. In order to support this position, further information has been added to

the chapter to explain the justification for the current methodology. Forewind‘s full

response to the comments received from JNCC and Natural England can be found

in the point by point response (Appendix N17).

8.21 Landscape and Visual (ES Chapter 21)


8.21.1 Stakeholders consulted on landscape and visual impacts include East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC), the Design Council (including the Commission for

Architecture and the Built Environment - CABE), English Heritage, Natural England,

Parish Councils and members of the local community.

8.21.2 Forewind established the converter station community working group (Appendix J)

in response to feedback during the first statutory consultation, and the group was

closely involved in the site selection and micro-siting of the converter stations site.

Landscape and visual impact was a key consideration at these meetings.


Key issues raised

8.21.4 A number of issues of particular importance have been identified:

The visual impact of the converter stations and the existing substation and its

associated infrastructure on cultural heritage assets such as Beverley Minster,

residential properties, public rights of way and the Wolds Area of High

Landscape Value;

Landscape and visual mitigation and enhancement measures at the converter

stations site; and

Temporary visual impacts of near shore and landfall works.


8.21.5 The IPC (now the Planning Inspectorate) recommended in its Scoping Opinion that

landscape and visual mitigation and enhancement measures should be considered



together with ecological mitigation, and that mitigation should be considered overall

(not just in relation to a single specialist topic). This recommendation is addressed

in the proposed landscaping and mitigation plans for converter station sites (see ES

Chapter 21 Landscape and Visual).

8.21.6 During the converter stations site selection process, consideration was given to

views from the A1079 to Beverley Minster as well as views from local residential

properties and public rights of way. The potential impacts on the Wolds Area of

Landscape Value were also assessed. These are covered in the landscape and

visual impact assessment (LVIA) in Chapter 21 of the ES.

8.21.7 Forewind‘s proposed site takes advantage of existing woodland as screening.

Furthermore, existing wooded areas are to be consolidated and increased to offer

additional screening. Detailed ecological mitigation and restoration measures are

described in Chapter 25 Terrestrial Ecology of the ES.

8.21.8 The final design for the converter stations site, combining the landscape, ecological

and drainage proposals is to be agreed with ERYC post consent and incorporated

into the Construction Method Statement, Ecological Mitigation and Management

Plan and contract documents, as appropriate.

8.21.9 Questionnaire responses provided at the public exhibitions in December 2011

identified a preference for lower converter station buildings with a larger footprint,

with the converter roof height to be kept in line with existing woodland. These

preferences have been observed in the final proposals.

8.21.10 It was also suggested at the converter station working group, that the

converter stations could be buried to reduce their visual impact. However, the flat

landscape of the surrounding area, the increased flood risk of lowering the finished

floor level, the volume of spoil that would be generated and the increase in traffic

movements for spoil removal, mean burying the converter stations is not a viable

option and so this has not been included in the proposals.

8.21.11 On request, Forewind also prepared and presented indicative visualisations of

the view of the converter stations from both Beverley Minster and St Mary‘s Church

to the Converter Station Working Group.

8.21.12 The temporary visual impacts of the coastal works were fully assessed in the

LVIA. Impacts of the converter stations on the settings of important local cultural

heritage assets have been assessed in Chapter 27 Onshore Cultural Heritage in

the ES. No significant adverse impacts were identified.

8.22 Socio-economics (ES Chapter 22)


8.22.1 Stakeholders consulted on socio-economic impacts include East Riding of

Yorkshire Council and Kingston-upon-Hull City Council, Parish Councils and

members of the local community.


Key issues raised

8.22.3 The key issue raised by the stakeholders was the desire for the proposed



development to generate jobs for local communities.



Forewind demonstrate the positive and negative impacts of the proposals. The

types and numbers of jobs generated should be considered in the context of the

available workforce in the area. Potential negative impacts on areas such as

tourism and fishing should be identified. The available workforce information is

provided in Chapter 22 Socio-Economics and was taken from the Office of

National Statistics website.

8.22.5 Impacts on fishing are considered within Chapter 15 Commercial Fisheries and

impacts on tourism are considered in Chapter 23 Tourism and Recreation.

8.22.6 Forewind is committed to investing within the Yorkshire and Humber region to

ensure that it is well positioned to tender for the greatest possible share of the work.

Forewind is actively supporting initiatives such as the Champions for Wind careers

education engagement programme. This scheme, in partnership with Humberside

Engineering Training Association (HETA), is designed to raise awareness and

provide inspiration to 13 to 14 year olds of the potential career opportunities in

offshore wind energy, giving students an understanding of the qualifications and

experience required to gain employment in the industry.

8.23 Tourism and recreation (ES Chapter 23)


8.23.1 Stakeholders consulted on tourism and recreation impacts include East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC), Natural England, Kingston-upon-Hull City Council,

Parish Councils and members of the local community and the converter station

community working group.


Key issues raised

8.23.3 The main issues identified through consultation included:

Minimising disruption to the 17 public rights of way identified along the onshore

footprint; and

Consideration of the recreational uses of the waters off the Holderness coast.



potential impacts on existing public rights of way are considered and consultation

with the public rights of way officers at the local authority is undertaken. Cross-

reference should be made to any visual impacts on public rights of way identified in

the landscape and visual assessment. The offshore areas are also well used and

the IPC recommended that an assessment of impacts during construction,

operation, maintenance and decommissioning be included in the ES.

8.23.5 The impact on recreational yachting and sailing is considered in Chapter 16

Shipping and Navigation of the ES although other offshore recreational activities

such as diving, surfing and angling are not expected to be impacted by the



proposals.

8.23.6 Potential impacts of construction on public rights of way and other recreational

access routes have been assessed by Forewind. Mitigation of impacts on public

rights of way is included in Chapter 23 Tourism and Recreation of the ES. In

addition, Forewind is drafting an outline Code of Construction Practice (Planning

Inspectorate document reference number 8.2) which sets out the responsibility

of the lead operator to communicate closures or diversions of any public rights of

way to the local community and this is included in the application documentation.

Temporary closures will be agreed in advance with ERYC‘s Public Rights of Way

Officer.

8.24 Geology, Water Resources & Land Quality (ES Chapter 24)


8.24.1 Stakeholders consulted on geology, water resources and land quality impacts

include East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC), the Environment Agency,

Yorkshire Water Services, Beverley and North Holderness Internal Drainage Board

and the Health Protection Agency.

8.24.2 Of particular note was a meeting held between Forewind, the Environment Agency

and Yorkshire Water Services in June 2013. The purpose of this meeting was to

discuss the draft ES and whether the Environment Agency and / or Yorkshire Water

would like to see any further clarifications to the assessment.


Key issues raised


The importance of the source protection zone 1 (SPZ1) at Cottingham;

Restrictions relating to piling and discharges within the SPZ1 and SPZ2;

The requirement for a Water Framework Directive (WFD) Preliminary

Assessment, design measures to meet WFD requirements and a detailed

assessment of WFD compliance;

Restrictions relating to the use of culverts in watercourses as a crossing method

during the construction;

The requirement for a robust conceptual site model and Preliminary Risk

Assessment to be undertaken in line with Model Procedures for the

Management of Land Contamination: Contaminated Land Report 11 (CLR11);

The requirement for a Flood Risk Assessment; and

The requirement for an outline Construction Environmental Management Plan,

detailing mitigation measures required in respect to the protection of surface

waters and underlying groundwater bodies.

Stakeholder feedback and Forewind response.

8.24.5 A preliminary risk assessment and conceptual site model undertaken in line with

CLR11 is included within Chapter 24 Geology Water resources and Land

Quality of the ES.



8.24.6 Both the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water Services are opposed to any

piling within the SPZ1. Forewind agreed that no piling activities would be

undertaken in the SPZ1 for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck proposals; however

Forewind cannot make any assurance on behalf of National Grid Electricity

Transmission (NGET). Works at Creyke Beck substation will be subject of a

separate application by NGET. The Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water

Services have outlined the requirement for a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) (see ES Appendix 24E) detailing mitigation measures

appropriate to all phases of the development. Forewind has agreed to draft an

outline CEMP setting out the potential impacts and mitigation measures which will

be implemented.

8.24.7 The Environment Agency outlined that current policy is that ‗no watercourses should

be culverted unless there is an overriding need to do so‘. In consideration of this

concern, Forewind has decided to remove the option of culverting watercourses to

facilitate haul road crossings during the construction phase, thus removing any

potential impacts that may have been caused. In addition no permanent culverts

will be included within the scheme. Forewind has undertaken a WFD assessment

which considers the potential for impacts to all water bodies and is included within

Chapter 24 of the ES.

8.24.8 The Environment Agency noted that they were pleased to see that sustainable

waste management had been considered in detail at this stage, that modelling work

had been undertaken with respect to flood risk, and that the proposed converter

stations will be located within Flood Zone 1 (an area with the lowest probability of

flooding). A flood risk assessment has been undertaken and is presented in ES

Appendix 24B.

8.25 Terrestrial Ecology (ES Chapter 25)

Main stakeholders and method of consultation

8.25.1 Stakeholders consulted on terrestrial ecology include East Riding of Yorkshire

Council (ERYC), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Natural

England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Yorkshire Wildlife

Trust, East Yorkshire Bat Group, the Hull Natural Society, Hull Biodiversity

Partnership and the Environment Agency.


Kay issues raised


Impacts on Local Wildlife Sites (LWS);

Impacts on water voles, in particular habitat fragmentation should culverts be

required;

Loss of roosting and feeding habitat for bat species; and

Potential for habitat enhancement.





ecological surveys for protected species and the methodologies should be agreed

by the relevant consultees. Also, that the ES should address fully the needs of

protecting and enhancing biodiversity. The Commission recommended that

appropriate cross reference is made to other specialist reports in the ES and that

mitigation and enhancement measures are considered overall and not just in

relation to a single specialist topic.

8.25.5 Ecological surveys and their methodologies were agreed through consultation with

Natural England and subsequent meetings were held to discuss the results of these

surveys. These surveys were then used to inform the ES chapter and reference to

the survey reports included where appropriate.

8.25.6 Impacts on LWS, water voles and bat species have been identified and considered

within Chapter 25 Terrestrial Ecology of the ES. The mitigation measures

recommended for managing impacts to water voles were discussed and approved

in subsequent consultation with Natural England in July 2012. Impacts to water

voles from the use of culverts were avoided due to the removal of these features

from the scope of works of the project.

8.25.7 Habitat enhancement measures have been outlined in Section 7 of Chapter 25 of

the ES.

8.26 Land Use and Agriculture (ES Chapter 26)


8.26.1 The main stakeholders consulted in relation to impacts on land use and agriculture

include East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC), Natural England, landowners and

the local community.


Key issues raised

8.26.3 The key issues raised were as follows:

Impacts on farm businesses and agriculture during construction including the

sterilisation of land;

The impact of the project on Environmental Stewardship Schemes;

Minimising the area of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land impacted;

Management of soils during construction;

Reinstatement of land drains; and

Awareness of Defra‘s Code of Practice for Sustainable Use of Soils on

Construction Sites.


8.26.4 The impact on land use and agriculture was assessed as per the scope agreed with

Natural England and focussed on the key impacts which included those proposed

by consultees. These included soils, Environmental Stewardship Schemes,

agricultural land and farm businesses. As a result Forewind has proposed a range

of standard mitigation measures to limit the impacts on land use and agriculture in

Chapter 26 Land Use and Agriculture of the ES. These measures include:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/27/construction-cop-soil-pb13298/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/27/construction-cop-soil-pb13298/



Where possible, reinstating land to its former condition and use;

Adherence to appropriate guidance for handling soils;

Full and continued consultation with landowners, and compensatory measures

where appropriate;

Adherence to appropriate guidance to minimise risk of spreading disease; and

Consultation with landowners on drainage systems and production of method

statements prior to construction in addition to adhering to set of construction

principles.

8.27 Onshore cultural heritage (ES Chapter 27)


8.27.1 Stakeholders consulted on onshore cultural heritage include East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC), English Heritage, Humber Archaeology Partnership

(HAP), East Riding Archaeological Society, Parish Councils and members of the

local community.

8.27.2 The potential for impacts to the setting of Beverley Minster and the impacts on

terrestrial archaeology were key topics of discussion at the converter station

community working group meetings (see Appendix J).


Key issues raised

8.27.4 A number of issues of particular importance have been identified:

Impacts of the converter stations on the settings of important local cultural

heritage assets such as Beverley Minster; and

The extent of intrusive survey work required to inform the baseline.

8.27.5 During the converter station site selection process, consideration was given to

views from the A1079 to Beverley Minster. These are covered in Chapter 21

Landscape and Visual and Chapter 27 Onshore Cultural Heritage of the ES.

8.27.6 On request, Forewind also prepared and presented indicative visualisations of the

view of the converter stations from both Beverley Minster and St Mary‘s Church to

the converter station working group.

8.27.7 Impacts of the converter stations on the settings of important local cultural heritage

assets have been assessed in Chapter 27 of the ES. No significant adverse

impacts were identified.



the onshore cultural heritage assessment considers effects upon designated and

non-designated assets including buried and built features.

8.27.9 HAP recommended staged works for onshore assessment comprising Desk-Based

Assessment (DBA), geophysical survey, field walking, trial trench evaluation,

excavation, and/or watching brief where appropriate. Additional trial trenching was

requested by HAP to inform the baseline. However, it was agreed with HAP that



the trial trenching should target anomalies identified during the geophysical survey.

This was the approach adopted by Forewind.

8.27.10 Each stage has been agreed with HAP, with draft findings provided for

comment throughout. A Written Scheme of Investigation will be developed in

agreement with HAP and English Heritage ahead of construction to ensure that

impacts to buried archaeology are minimised.

8.27.11 During the site selection and the assessment of alternatives process, known

sites of cultural heritage importance were included in the constraint mapping

exercise. Where possible these features have been avoided when identifying the

preferred location of the converter stations site and the preferred alignment of the

cable route.

8.27.12 In regard to impacts to the setting of Beverley Minster, the operational

converter stations will not be visible at ground level from the Minster, but the tops of

the operational converter stations will be visible from the Minster Tower. However,

due to the distances involved, the converter stations will not be a prominent feature

in the landscape and will represent a negligible change to views to the south of the

Minster.

8.28 Traffic and Access (ES Chapter 28)


8.28.1 Stakeholders consulted in relation to traffic and access include East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC), the Highways Agency, the Health and Safety Executive,

local Parish Councils and the local community.

8.28.2 Forewind has consulted extensively with the relevant highway authorities (ERYC

and the Highways Agency) through a series of meetings and technical

notes/drawings. These notes and meetings have sought to agree an appropriate

access strategy and ensure that all traffic impacts are fully considered and

appropriately mitigated.

8.28.3 A series of three Parish Council workshops were held in August 2012 to discuss the

onshore cable route and construction access routes (see Appendix N11).


Key issues raised

8.28.5 The main issues identified through consultation can be grouped as:

Temporary traffic borne environmental impacts upon local communities during

construction;

Permanent traffic borne environmental impacts upon local communities from

operational access to the converter station and substation;

Impacts of construction activities upon the highway structure;

The impact of transporting Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AIL); and

Impacts of additional vehicle movements on public rights of way.


8.28.6 Concerns about increases in construction related traffic passing through local



communities during cable installation were raised by Cottingham, Tickton and

Routh, Leven and Brandesburton Parish Councils.

8.28.7 Forewind, in consultation with the ERYC, has sought to ensure that the construction

accesses are located directly off ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ roads and remote from local

communities. The construction accesses will then be linked by temporary haul

roads and bailey bridges. This ‗embedded mitigation‘ strategy reduces the need for

construction traffic to pass through local communities and ensures traffic remains

on the most suitable roads.

8.28.8 ERYC expressed concerns regarding access to the converter stations and

construction traffic using Long Lane. Cottingham Parish Council and the converter

station community working group strongly objected to large volumes of construction

traffic passing through Cottingham and along Park Lane.

8.28.9 To reduce the impact of construction traffic upon Long Lane, Forewind has met with

appropriate officers at ERYC to determine suitable operational and construction

access to the converter station sites. Whilst ERYC agreed to a temporary access

off the A1079 during construction, the council ruled it out as an operational access

(except in emergency) at an early stage on safety grounds.

8.28.10 Operational access to the converter station for smaller vehicles (cars and

vans) is proposed to be via Long Lane and the lane to the west of the site. The

surface of the lane will be repaired and improved but not asphalted (in line with the

needs of equestrians) and there will also be localised widening (i.e. passing places).

Furthermore, the construction access from the A1079 will also be retained solely for

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV)s to access the converter stations during maintenance

periods as well as for emergency access for the emergency services.

8.28.11 To reduce the impact of construction traffic upon Cottingham, Forewind has

met with appropriate officers at ERYC to develop a mitigation strategy to ensure

that all of the converter stations construction traffic (including that associated with

the high voltage alternating current cable route from the converter stations to

substation) will be routed along and off the A1079, and then down the temporary

haul road, thus avoiding Cottingham and Park Lane. Upon completion of the

construction works this temporary haul route will be removed.

8.28.12 National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) expects to route the traffic

associated with the connection and on-going maintenance works through the main

entrance to the existing NGET Creyke Beck Substation (along Park Lane).

8.28.13 ERYC stated a preference for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at major

road crossings, to minimise disruption to other road users (including public

transport) and Brandesburton Parish Council also expressed concerns regarding

any potential closure of Mill Road/Rotsea Road to install the cables.

8.28.14 Forewind proposes to use HDD to cross a total of 11 roads or tracks, including

four A-roads, two B-roads, three unclassified roads and two private tracks including

Rotsea Road. The use of HDD will also be employed to install cables under the

railway line thereby reducing disruption to rail services, a concern raised by the

Planning Inspectorate.

8.28.15 ERYC requested an assessment of the impact of transporting AILs to the

converter station. To determine the most suitable route for AILs Forewind



commissioned ALE (a specialist AIL haulage company) to undertake an AIL routing

study. The study proposed accommodation measures and concluded that the AILs

would route from the A63 and then via A164 and then access directly from the

A1079.

8.28.16 In January 2012, the Health and Safety Executive advised that workplace

transport accidents, safe traffic/pedestrian segregation and safe traffic movement of

vehicles & plant should be considered.

8.28.17 In response to advice from the Health and Safety Executive, Forewind has

conducted a rigorous traffic and access impact assessment as part of Chapter 28

Traffic and Access of the ES.

8.28.18 Potential impacts of construction and operational vehicle movements on public

rights of way and other recreational access routes were raised by several

stakeholders during the first stage of statutory consultation and by the Converter

Station Working Group. Mitigation of impacts on public rights of way is included in

Chapter 23 Tourism and Recreation of the ES.

8.28.19 Following the submission of a scoping note the Highways Agency declined

further engagement due to the limited impact of the of the development on the

Strategic Road Network.

8.29 Noise and Vibration (ES Chapter 29)


8.29.1 Stakeholders consulted on noise and vibration impacts included East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC), Parish Councils and members of the local community.


Key issues raised

8.29.3 The main issues identified through consultation included:

Potential operational noise impacts associated with the converter stations on

residents of the dwellings close to Creyke Beck and Cottingham; and

Potential noise and vibration impacts to nearby properties, during the

construction of the cable route and converter stations. Of particular concern

was the proximity of the cable route to houses in the Woodmansey area.



noise impacts on people should be specifically addressed including noise

disturbance at night and other unsocial times such as weekends from the

operational converter stations. Construction noise levels off-site along roads and

public rights of way, and vibration caused by abnormal loads and Heavy Goods

Vehicles (HGVs) should also be assessed. The noise and vibration assessment

should also inform the ecological assessment and historic environment topics

where appropriate.

8.29.5 Potential onshore noise and vibration impacts upon ecological receptors are

considered in Chapter 25 Terrestrial Ecology of the ES; and potential noise and

vibration impacts upon the historic environment are considered in Chapter 27



Onshore Cultural Heritage of the ES.

8.29.6 Potential construction noise impacts arising from on-site works, within the working

areas of the landfall, cable route and converter stations were assessed, including

the potential for noise and vibration impacts off site from HGVs.

8.29.7 Operational noise, associated with the converter stations is also assessed in

Chapter 29 Noise and Vibration of the ES. Noise predictions were made at the

four closest residential receptors: Model Farm, Poplar Farm, Halfway House and

Wanlass Farm. Measures to reduce the operational noise to 35 decibels at these

properties are proposed within the chapter.

8.30 Air Quality (ES Chapter 30)


8.30.1 Stakeholders consulted on air quality impacts include East Riding of Yorkshire

Council (ERYC), Parish Councils and members of the local community.


Key issues raised

8.30.3 Beyond the scoping opinion very few air quality issues were raised during

consultation. Issues raised included:

Potential nuisance of dust generated during construction to nearby properties;

and

That the operational phase is unlikely to have any noticeable impact upon air

quality receptors.



the potential impacts associated with increased air emissions particularly particulate

matter (PM10) and NO2 should be addressed. The assessment should assess

implications on nearby sites designated for nature conservation. Impacts of dust

should be considered as the area is predominantly rural.

8.30.5 During the site selection and the assessment of alternatives process, the location of

the converter stations, and the alignment of the cable route, were identified to avoid

built up and residential areas as much as possible. This would also serve to

minimise the number of nearby receptors that could potentially experience air

quality impact.

8.30.6 Air quality receptors within 350m of the proposed converter stations site and cable

route were identified and potential air quality impacts associated with increased air

emissions particularly PM10 and NO2 were assessed. Residual impacts were all

identified as negligible. In addition, the potential air quality impacts upon ecological

receptors are also considered in Chapter 30 Air Quality of the ES and also

assessed as negligible. Best practice mitigation measures will be implemented by

the lead operator, including the development of a dust management plan.



9 Statements of common ground

9.1.1 Where possible, Forewind is endeavouring to agree Statements of Common

Ground with certain consultees to assist the Planning Inspectorate in understanding

which issues have been agreed and which remain unresolved.

9.1.2 Each Statement of Common Ground sets out a record of consultation undertaken to

date with that stakeholder, the key agreements reached and outstanding

unresolved issues.

9.1.3 The Statements of Common Ground are draft documents at the application stage

and so will be updated during the examination stage, to reflect on-going

consultation.

9.1.4 Forewind is in the process of agreeing Statements of Common Ground with the

consultees presented in Table 9.1. Additional Statements of Common Ground with

other consultees will be drafted as the need arises.

Table 9.1 Statements of common ground currently in progress

Consultee ES Subject

Onshore

Beverley and North Holderness Internal Drainage Board Project description (water crossings) Land use and agriculture

East Riding of Yorkshire Council Site selection Traffic and transport Noise Landscape and visual Terrestrial ecology Health impact assessment Development Consent Order Deemed Marine Licence

English Heritage – Yorkshire and Humber Terrestrial archaeology

Environment Agency Flood risk Geology and hydrogeology Project description (water crossings) Traffic and Access Air Quality Tourism and Recreation (PRoW)

Humber Archaeology Partnership Terrestrial archaeology

Natural England Terrestrial ecology Landscape and visual Ornithology Project description (water crossings)

Yorkshire Water Services Geology and hydrogeology

Offshore

Chamber of Shipping Navigation and shipping



Consultee ES Subject

English Heritage – Offshore development Marine archaeology

Joint Nature Conservation Committee Benthic ecology Fish ecology Marine mammals Ornithology

MMO and Cefas Fish ecology Benthic ecology Physical processes Development Consent Order Deemed Marine Licence

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Navigation and shipping

Natural England Physical Processes Intertidal ecology Ornithology Marine Mammals

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Ornithology

Trinity House Navigation and shipping

Fisheries

National Federation of Fishermen‘s Organisations (NFFO) Commercial fisheries

Hornsea Coastal Fishing Industry Group (HCFIG) Commercial fisheries

North Eastern Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority (NEIFCA) Commercial fisheries

Danish Fishermen‘s Association (DFA) Commercial fisheries

Swedish Fishermen‘s Federation, Sveriges Fiskares Riksfӧrbund (SFF)

Commercial fisheries

Norway - Fishing Vessel Owners Union/ South Norway Trawlers Association (Sør-Norges Trǻlerlag)

Commercial fisheries

France - Comité National des Pêches Maritimes (CRPM Nord) Commercial fisheries

Belgium - Department of Agriculture & Fisheries (Rederscentrale) Commercial fisheries

9.1.5 Statements of Common Ground or letters of intent are also being sought with other

marine users with whom crossing or proximity agreements may be required. These

are likely to include, but are not restricted to:

Cable & Wireless (on behalf of British Telecom for UK-Germany 6 and UK-

Denmark 4)

Tata Telecoms (Tata North Europe Cable)

Gassco (Langeled Pipeline)

Shell UK (Shearwater Elgin Area Line Pipeline)

Cemex (aggregates dredging Area 485)

9.1.6 In addition, Statements of Common Ground or letters of intent are being sought with

onshore utility companies with whom crossing or proximity agreements may be

required.



10 Conclusion

10.1.1 Forewind has carried out comprehensive pre-application consultation on Dogger

Bank Creyke Beck, with a wide range of stakeholders.

10.1.2 The consultation process has met and exceeded the requirements of the Planning

Act and has taken into account relevant advice and guidance published by the

Planning Inspectorate (formerly the IPC) and UK Government.

10.1.3 Stakeholders have been engaged in the development process from an early stage

and consultation responses have been carefully documented and considered in the

on-going development work. This has resulted in stakeholders having a clear

influence on the proposals.

10.1.4 Where Forewind has not taken forward a recommendation for a major change to

the application, this has been duly explained in the Consultation Report.

10.1.5 Statements of Common Ground have been initiated pre-application to demonstrate

a clear commitment to transparency and developing mutually acceptable solutions

to issues. These are draft documents at the point of application which point to the

need for further consultation as the application progresses through the acceptance

and examination stages of the planning process.

10.1.6 Forewind has generally received positive feedback on its approach to consultation,

from several stakeholders. Notably, the Chair of the community working group

stated in the final meeting that Forewind had adopted an:

“open, honest and inclusive approach […] from an engagement, education

and involvement perspective [and] that Forewind’s approach is refreshing

and an example for other organisations to follow”. (Cllr Ros Jump, 25 April

2013)

10.1.7 In its response to the second stage of statutory consultation, East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (ERYC) said:

“The Council welcomes the approach taken by Forewind on the project and

its engagement with the Council so far. The quality of consultation and

ongoing dialogue with relevant Officers has been consistently high.” (ERYC,

11 June 2013)



Annex 1 – Compliance checklist

Ref Requirement Compliance

Planning Act 2008 as amended by the Localism Act 2011

Section

42 (1)

Duty to consult: See Chapter 3

a) Such persons as may be prescribed, The Applicant consulted all persons

prescribed by the Infrastructure Planning

(Applications: Prescribed Forms and

Procedure) Regulations 2009. See

Appendix C2.

aa) The Marine Management

Organisation,

The Applicant consulted the MMO. See

Appendix C2

b) Each local authority that is within

section 43,

The Applicant consulted each local

authority that is within section 43. See

Appendix C2

c) The Greater London Authority if the

land is in Greater London, and

Not applicable

d) Each person who is within one or

more of the categories set out in

section 44

The Applicant consulted each person

who is within one or more of the

categories set out in section 44. See the

Book of Reference (Planning

Inspectorate document reference

number 4.3)

Section

45

Timetable for consultation under section 42 See Chapter 3

1) The applicant must, when consulting a

person under section 42, notify the

person of the deadline for the receipt

by the applicant of the person‘s

response to the consultation

The Applicant notified all those consulted

under section 42 of the deadline in

writing, either by post or email. See

Appendix D and E.

2) A deadline notified under subsection

(1) must not be earlier than the end of

the period of 28 days that begins with

the day after the day on which the

person receives the consultation

documents

The first stage of section 42 consultation

ran from 5 December 2011 to 20 January

2012 – a period of 47 days.

The second stage of section 42

consultation ran from 19 April to 11 June

2013 – a period of 54 days.



3) In subsection (2) ―the consultation

documents‖ means the documents

supplied to the person by the applicant

for the purpose of consulting the

person

At the first stage of section 42

consultation, the consultation documents

comprised a cover letter including a

website address from where the

preliminary environmental information

could be downloaded. Those consulted

under section 42 (1) d) were also sent a

CD copy of the PEI.

At the second stage of section 42

consultation, the consultation documents

comprised a DVD copy of the draft ES

and NTS (unless that consultee had

specifically requested a hard copy in

which case hard copies were sent in

addition to a DVD).

Section

46

Duty to notify Secretary of State of

proposed application

See Chapter 3

(1) The applicant must supply the

Secretary of State with such

information in relation to the proposed

application as the applicant would

supply to the Secretary of State for the

purpose of complying with section 42 if

the applicant were required by that

section to consult the Secretary of

State about the proposed application.

At both stages of section 42

consultations, the applicant supplied the

IPC or Planning Inspectorate (as

appropriate) with the same information as

other section 42 consultees.

(2) The applicant must comply with

subsection (1) on or before

commencing consultation under

section 42.

At the first stage, the Applicant delivered

the consultation documents to the IPC on

2 December 2011. The consultation

began on 5 December 2011.

At the second stage, the Applicant

delivered the consultation documents to

the Planning Inspectorate on 16 April

2013. The consultation began on 19 April

2013.

Section

47

Duty to consult the local community See Chapter 4

(1) The applicant must prepare a

statement setting out how the

applicant proposes to consult, about

the proposed application, people living

in the vicinity of the land.

The Applicant has prepared a Statement

of Community Consultation. See

Appendix F



(2) Before preparing the statement, the

applicant must consult each local

authority that is within section 43(1)

about what is to be in the statement.

Before preparing the statement, the

Applicant consulted each local authority

that is within section 43(1) on the content

of the statement. See Appendix F for

copies of the cover letters.

(3) The deadline for the receipt by the

applicant of a local authority‘s

response to consultation under

subsection (2) is the end of the period

of 28 days that begins with the day

after the day on which the local

authority receives the consultation

documents.

The Applicant allowed the local

authorities within section 43(1) from 3

October 2011 to 1 November 2011 to

respond to the consultation under

subsection (2). This is a period of 30

days.

(4) In subsection (3) ―the consultation

documents‖ means the documents

supplied to the local authority by the

applicant for the purpose of consulting

the local authority under subsection

(2).

The SoCC consultation document is

provided in Appendix F

(5) In preparing the statement, the

applicant must have regard to any

response to consultation under

subsection (2) that is received by the

applicant before the deadline imposed

by subsection (3).

The Applicant considered all relevant

comments received on the draft SoCC.

See Appendix M1 for a table of

responses.

(6) Once the applicant has prepared the

statement, the applicant must—

(za) make the statement available for

inspection by the public in a way that

is reasonably convenient for people

living in the vicinity of the land,

(a) publish in a newspaper circulating

in the vicinity of the land a notice

stating where and when the

statement can be inspected, and

(b) publish the statement in such

manner as may be prescribed.

The Applicant made the statement

available for inspection by the public in a

number of local libraries and sent a hard

copy to all those addresses within the

community consultation area. A notice

detailing where and when the SoCC (in

full) could be inspected was published in

November 2011. See Appendix F for

copies of the published SoCC.



(7) The applicant must carry out

consultation in accordance with the

proposals set out in the statement.

The Applicant has carried out the

consultation in accordance with the

SoCC. See Table 4.3.

Section

48

Duty to Publicise See Chapter 5

(1) The applicant must publicise the

proposed application in the prescribed

manner

The Applicant prepared and published a

Section 48 Notice in the manner

prescribed by the Infrastructure Planning

(Applications: Prescribed Forms and

Procedure) Regulations 2009. See

Appendix K for copies of the published

notice.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of

subsection (1) must, in particular,

make provision for publicity under

subsection (1) to include a deadline for

receipt by the applicant of responses

to the publicity.

The Section 48 Notice included a

deadline for receipt by the Applicant of

responses to the publicity.

The deadline was 11 June 2013.

Section

49

Duty to take account of responses to

consultation and publicity

See Chapter 8

(1) Subsection (2) applies where the

applicant—

(a) has complied with sections 42, 47

and 48, and

(b) proposes to go ahead with

making an application for an

order granting development

consent (whether or not in the

same terms as the proposed

application).

(2) The applicant must, when deciding

whether the application that the

applicant is actually to make should be

in the same terms as the proposed

application, have regard to any

relevant responses.

(3) In subsection (2) ‖relevant response‖

means—

(a) a response from a person

The Applicant has had regard to all

relevant responses to consultation in

accordance with section 42, 47 and 48.

See Appendix M for relevant response

tables which details The Applicant‘s

regard to responses.



consulted under section 42 that is

received by the applicant before

the deadline imposed by section

45 in that person‗s case,

(b) a response to consultation under

section 47(7) that is received by

the applicant before any

applicable deadline imposed in

accordance with the statement

prepared under section 47, or

(c) a response to publicity under

section 48 that is received by the

applicant before the deadline

imposed in accordance with

section 48(2) in relation to that

publicity.

Section

50

Guidance about pre-application procedure See Chapter 2

(1) Guidance may be issued about how to

comply with the requirements of this

Chapter.

The Applicant has had regard to the

Department for Communities and Local

Government (DCLG) Planning Act 2008

Guidance on the pre-application process

(2013). The Applicant also had regard to

previous versions of this guidance issued

by DCLG and the IPC.

(2) Guidance under this section may be

issued by the Commission or the

Secretary of State

(3) The applicant must have regard to any

guidance under this section

The Infrastructure Planning (Application: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009


Reg 3 The persons prescribed for the purposes of

section 42(a) (duty to consult) are those listed

in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 to these

Regulations, who must be consulted in the

circumstances specified in relation to each

such person in column 2 of that table.

The Applicant consulted all those persons

prescribed in column 1 of the table in

Schedule 1 who were deemed relevant to

this application by the descriptions set out

in column 2 of that table.

Regard was had to the Infrastructure

Planning (Prescribed Consultees and

Interested Parties etc.) (Amendment)

Regulations 2013, however noting that

under Regulation 7, the amendments do

not apply to the Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck Application, as the Secretary of

State had been notified in accordance



with both Section 46 of the Planning Act

2008 and Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA

Regulations before 6 April 2013.

A full list is provided in Appendix C2.

Reg 4 Publicising a proposed application See Chapter 5

(2) The applicant must publish a notice,

which must include the matters

prescribed by paragraph (3) of this

regulation, of the proposed

application-

(a) for at least two successive weeks

in one or more local newspapers

circulating in the vicinity in which

the proposed development would

be situated;

(b) once in a national newspaper;

(c) once in the London Gazette and, if

land in Scotland is affected, the

Edinburgh Gazette; and

(d) where the proposed application

relates to offshore development—

(i) once in Lloyd‗s List; and

(ii) once in an appropriate fishing

trade journal.

The Applicant published a notice which

included all the matters set out in

paragraph (3). Copies of the notice are

provided in Appendix K

(a) The notice was published for two

successive weeks in the

Advertiser Series (24 April and 1

May 2013), the Bridlington Free

Press (25 April and 2 May 2013),

the Holderness Gazette (25 April

and 2 May 2013) and the Hull

Daily Mail (22 and 29 April 2013)

(b) The notice was published in The

Independent on 22 April 2013

(c) The notice was published in the

London Gazette on 22 April 2013

(d)(i) The notice was published in the

Lloyds List on 22 April 2013

(d)(ii) The notice was published in the

Fishing News on 26 April 2013

(3) The matters which the notice must

include are:

(a) the name and address of the

applicant;

(b) a statement that the applicant

intends to make an application for

development consent to the

Secretary of State;

(c) a statement as to whether the

application is EIA development;

(d) a summary of the main proposals,

specifying the location or route of

the proposed development;

(e) a statement that the documents,

plans and maps showing the

nature and location of the

(3) The notice included all matters

required by this regulation.

References below refer to the specific

paragraph of the notice where the

information was provided. See

Appendix K for a copy of the notice.

(a) Paragraph 1

(b) Paragraph 1

(c) Paragraph 6

(d) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4

(e) Paragraphs 7 and 8

(f) Paragraph 7

(g) Paragraph 9

(h) Paragraph 10



proposed development are

available for inspection free of

charge at the places (including at

least one address in the vicinity of

the proposed development) and

times set out in the notice;

(f) the latest date on which those

documents, plans and maps will

be available for inspection (being

a date not earlier than the

deadline in subparagraph (i));

(g) whether a charge will be made for

copies of any of the documents,

plans or maps and the amount of

any charge;

(h) details of how to respond to the

publicity; and

(i) a deadline for receipt of those

responses by the applicant, being

not less than 28 days following

the date when the notice is last

published.

(i) Paragraph 10

The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009


Reg 6 Procedure for establishing whether

environmental impact assessment is

required

See Chapter 7



(1) A person who proposes to make an

application for an order granting

development consent must, before

carrying out consultation under section

42 (duty to consult) either—

(a) request the Secretary of State to adopt

a screening opinion in respect of the

development to which the application

relates; or

(b) notify the Secretary of State in writing

that the person proposes to provide an

environmental statement in respect of

that development.

The Applicant requested a Scoping

Opinion from the IPC (now Planning

Inspectorate) in October 2010. The IPC

responded in its Scoping Opinion that it

deemed Forewind to have notified the

Commission under Regulation 6(1)(b) of

the EIA Regulations (Planning

Inspectorate document reference

number 6.4.3)

(3) A request or notification under

paragraph (1) must be accompanied

by—

(a) a plan sufficient to identify the land;

(b) a brief description of the nature and

purpose of the development and of its

possible effects on the environment;

(c) such other information or

representations as the person making

the request may wish to provide or

make.

The Applicant supplied the IPC (now

Planning Inspectorate) with the Dogger

Bank Project One Scoping Report which

included all the information required by

sections (a), (b) and (c) of this regulation.

Reg 10 Consultation statement requirements See Chapter 4

The consultation statement prepared under

section 47 (duty to consult local community)

must set out —

(a) whether the development for which the

applicant proposes to make an

application for an order granting

development consent is EIA

development; and

(b) if that development is EIA development,

how the applicant intends to publicise

and consult on the preliminary

environmental information.

The Applicant included the following in

the Statement of Community

Consultation: ―Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

is an ―EIA Development‖ for the purposes

of Schedule 2 to the Infrastructure

Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2009 and

―Forewind will compile the Preliminary

Environmental Information (PEI) required

to assess the environmental impacts of

the project. PEI will be available during

both stages of consultation‖. See

Appendix F for a copy of the SoCC.

Reg 11 Pre-application publicity under section 48 See Chapter 5



(duty to publicise)

Where the proposed application for an

order granting development consent is an

application for EIA development, the

applicant must, at the same time as

publishing notice of the proposed

application under section 48(1), send a

copy of that notice to the consultation

bodies and to any person notified to the

applicant in accordance with regulation

9(1)(c).

The Applicant sent hard copies of the

section 48 notice (as described in

paragraph (3)) to the consultation bodies

specified in Appendix C2 at the time of

notifying them of the start of section 42

consultation (17 April 2013). The notice

was publicised between 22 April and 2

May 2013.

DCLG (2013) Planning Act 2008 Guidance on the Pre-Application Process


15 …Instead, applicants, who are best placed

to understand the detail of their specific

project, and the relevant local authorities,

who have a unique knowledge of their local

communities, should as far as possible

work together to develop plans for

consultation. The key aim should be to

ensure that the amount of consultation

undertaken, and who is consulted, should

be in proportionate to the size and scale of

project and where its impacts will be felt.

The Applicant and East Riding of

Yorkshire Council (the ―B‖ Authority) have

worked together closely on the approach

to consultation with the local community.

Hull City Council (an ―A‖ authority) has

also provided The Applicant with helpful

input, including statutory consultation in

accordance with Section 47 of the

Planning Act on the content of the

Statement of Community Consultation, as

well as agreement on additional

community consultation such as the

Community Working Group and Parish

Council Workshops. See Chapter 4.

17 Consultation should be thorough, effective

and proportionate. Applicants will have

their own approaches to consultation and

already have a wealth of good practice on

which to draw. For example, larger, more

complex applications will usually need to

go beyond the statutory minimum

timescales laid down in the Planning Act to

provide enough time for consultees to

understand project proposals and

formulate a response. Many proposals will

require detailed technical input, especially

regarding impacts, so sufficient time will

need to be allowed for this. Consultation

should also be sufficiently flexible to

respond to the needs and requirements of

The Applicant consulted thoroughly on

the application by means of a two stage

statutory process, with significant subject

specific, targeted, non-statutory

consultation between these stages. This

iterative process proved to be an effective

way to gather and incorporate

stakeholder feedback throughout the pre-

application stage. Given The Applicant‘s

development of multiple applications in

the Dogger Bank Zone, care was taken to

ensure that statutory consultations on

different Dogger Bank applications did

not overlap, thereby avoiding

overburdening stakeholders. Where

possible, The Applicant consulted



consultees, for example where a consultee

has indicated that they would prefer to be

consulted via email only, this should be

accommodated as far as possible.

stakeholders on a non-statutory basis on

a subject affecting all Dogger Bank

applications, thereby endeavouring to

avoid un-necessary repetition.

All statutory consultation periods under

sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning

Act allowed the consultees more than the

statutory minimum of 28 days to respond.

In addition, The Applicant made best

endeavours to give advance notice of

statutory consultation periods and provide

advanced sight of PEI where requested.

The Applicant accommodated all

stakeholder requests about

communication methods, sending out

information by post or electronically as

requested. See Chapters 3, 4 and 5.

18 In addition, applicants may also wish to

strengthen their case by seeking the views

of other people who are not statutory

consultees, but who may be significantly

affected by the project

The Applicant consulted a large number

of additional consultees.

See Chapter 6.

19 Applicants are therefore encouraged to

consult widely on project proposals.

20 Applicants should identify any successor

body and consult with them in the same

manner as they would have with the

original body. Where there is no obvious

successor, applicants should seek the

advice of the Inspectorate, who may be

able to identify an appropriate alternative

consultee. Whether or not an alternative is

identified, the consultation report should

briefly note any cases where compliance

with statutory requirements was impossible

and the reasons why.

The Applicant was able to comply with

statutory requirements, however the

particular bodies consulted changed over

the course of the pre-application process

and The Applicant sought and received

advice from the Planning Inspectorate on

this matter. A full list of Section 42(1)a

consultees is provided in Appendix C2.

See section 3.2.

21 Applicants will often need detailed

technical input from expert bodies to assist

with identifying and mitigating the social,

environmental, design and economic

impacts of projects, and other important

matters. Technical expert input will often be

needed in advance of formal compliance

The Applicant carried out significant non-

statutory consultation on the technical

elements of the applications. See

Section 6.2.

The Applicant discussed the consultation

programme with many of the technical

consultees, including East Riding of



with the pre-application requirements. Early

engagement with these bodies can help

avoid unnecessary delays and the costs of

having to make changes at later stages of

the process. It is equally important that

statutory consultees respond to request for

technical input in a timely manner.

Applicants are therefore advised to discuss

and agree a timetable with consultees for

the provision of such inputs

Yorkshire Council (with whom a Planning

Performance Agreement was signed),

MMO (formal charging regime for non-

statutory advice), Natural England and

JNCC. In addition, The Applicant made

best endeavours to give advance notice

of statutory consultation periods.

See Sections 3.5 and 3.6.

25 Where an applicant decides to consult

people living in a wider area who could be

affected by the project (e.g. through visual

or environmental impacts, or through

increased traffic flow), that intention should

be reflected in the Statement of Community

Consultation.

The Statement of Community

Consultation was published ahead of the

2013 Guidance but nonetheless stated

―Anyone outside of the Consultation Area

who may be interested in the project is

welcome to take part in the community

consultation process and should refer to

advertisements in the local newspapers,

marine journals and the Forewind website

for details of the consultation events and

deadlines for responses.‖ Refer to

Appendix F

26 …prior to submitting their draft Statement

of Community Consultation applicants may

wish to seek to resolve any disagreements

or clarifications about the public

consultation design. An applicant is

therefore likely to need to engage in

discussions with local authorities over a

longer period than the minimum

requirements set out in the Act.

The Applicant consulted the local

authorities on the content of the

Statement of Community Consultation

over an extensive period, namely

December 2010 to November 2011.

See Section 4.2.

30 Where a local authority raises an issue or

concern on the Statement of Community

Consultation which the applicant feels

unable to address, the applicant is advised

to explain in their consultation report their

course of action to the Secretary of State

when they submit their application.

All Local Authority comments on the

content of the Statement of Community

Consultation were addressed. Refer to

Appendix M1

31 Where a local authority decides that it does

not wish to respond to a consultation

request on the Statement of Community

Consultation, the applicant should make

reasonable efforts to ensure that all

All Local Authorities consulted on the


responded.



affected communities are consulted. If the

applicant is unsure how to proceed, they

are encouraged to seek advice from the

Inspectorate. However, it is for the

applicant to satisfy themselves that their

consultation plan allows for as full public

involvement as is appropriate for their

project and, once satisfied, to proceed with

the consultation. Provided that applicants

can satisfy themselves that they have

made reasonable endeavours to consult

with all those who might have a legitimate

interest or might be affected by a proposed

development, it would be unlikely that their

application would be rejected on grounds

of inadequate public consultation.

32 Local authorities are also themselves

statutory consultees for any proposed

major infrastructure project which is in or

adjacent to their area. Applicants should

engage with them as early as possible to

ensure that the impacts of the development

on the local area are understood and

considered prior to the application being

submitted to the Secretary of State.

The Applicant engaged with the Local

Authorities from an early stage in the

development process. ERYC and Hull

City Council attended the Zone Appraisal

and Planning Workshops in April 2010.

Refer to Appendix N1

33 Local authorities will be able to provide an

informed opinion on a wide number of

matters, including how the project relates

to local development plans. Local

authorities may also make suggestions for

requirements to be included in the draft

Development Consent Order. These may

include the later approval by the local

authority (after the granting of a

Development Consent Order) of detailed

project designs or schemes to mitigate

adverse impacts. It will be important that

any concerns local authorities have on the

practicality of enforcing a proposed

Development Consent Order are raised at

the earliest opportunity.

The Applicant consulted ERYC on the

draft Development Consent Order and

has had due regard to any comments

received. See the Explanatory

Memorandum (Planning Inspectorate

document reference number 3.2).

35 Applicants will also need to identify and

consult people who own, occupy or have

another interest in the land in question, or

The Applicant began the process of

identifying and consulting people who

own, occupy or have another interest in



who could be affected by a project in such

a way that they may be able to make a

claim for compensation. This will give such

parties early notice of projects, and an

opportunity to express their views

regarding them.

the land at an early stage.

See Section 3.4.

36 …People should have as much influence

as is realistic and possible over decisions

which shape their lives and communities. It

is therefore critical that they are engaged

with project proposals at an early stage.

Because they live, work and socialise in

the affected area, local people are

particularly well placed to comment on

what the impact of proposals on their local

community might be; or what mitigating

measures might be appropriate; or what

other opportunities might exist for meeting

the project‘s objectives.

The Local Community was consulted

through two stages of statutory

consultation, enabling them to have an

influence on the proposals from an early

stage. Additional non-statutory

community consultation was carried out

in order to maximise the opportunities for

involvement of the local community.

See Chapter 4.

37 …Applicants should use a range of

methods and techniques to ensure that

they access all sections of the community

in question. Local authorities will be able to

provide advice on what works best in terms

of consulting their local communities given

their experience of carrying out

consultations in their area.

The Applicant employed a range of

consultation methods and any hard to

reach groups were identified through

consultation with the Local Authorities.

See Chapter 4.

38 Applicants must set out clearly what is

being consulted on. They must be careful

to make it clear to local communities what

is settled and why, and what remains to be

decided, so that expectations of local

communities are properly managed. A

short document should be prepared by

applicants specifically for local

communities, summarising the project

proposals and outlining the matters on

which the view of the local community is

sought. It should also describe the key

elements of the project, and explain what

the potential benefits and impacts of the

projects might be. The document should be

written in clear, accessible, and non-

technical language. Applicants should be

At each stage of statutory community

consultation, key consultation questions

were set out on the exhibition panels, in

the questionnaires and in the community

consultation summary booklet. This short

booklet was written in non-technical

language and described the key elements

of the project and what the potential

benefits and impacts of the project might

be. The booklet was available in hard

copy, on DVD and to download from the

Forewind website.

See Section 4.4 and Section 4.5.



ready to make it available in formats

appropriate to the needs of people with

disabilities if requested. There may be

cases where documents may need to be

made bilingually (for example, Welsh, in

applications affecting Wales), but it is not

the policy of the Government to encourage

documents to be translated into non-native,

foreign languages.

39 Applicants are required to set out in their

Statement of Community Consultation how

they propose to consult those living in the

vicinity of the land, but they are

encouraged to consider consulting beyond

this where they think doing so may provide

more information on the impacts of their

proposals (e.g. through visual impacts or

increased traffic flow).

The Applicant advertised each stage of

statutory consultation more widely than

just in the Consultation Area to ensure

that others with an interest in the

proposals could take part. For this

reason, stakeholders from, for example,

Hull, Scarborough and Whitby took part in

the consultation.

40 The Statement of Community Consultation

should act as a framework for the

community consultation generally, stating

where and when events will be taking

place. The Statement of Community

Consultation should be made available

online, at any exhibitions or other events

held by the applicants and should also be

placed at appropriate local deposit points

(e.g. libraries, council offices) and sent to

local community groups as appropriate.

The Statement of Community

Consultation listed the details of the

Stage One consultation events and was

made available on the Forewind website,

at the public exhibitions and at local

libraries. It was sent in hard copy to all

addresses in the Consultation Area.

Refer to Section 4.4.

41 Applicants are required to publicise their

proposed application under section 48 of

the Planning Act. Regulation 4(2) of the

Infrastructure Planning (Applications:

Prescribed Forms & Procedure)

Regulations 2009 sets out the detail of

what this publicity must entail. This

publicity is an integral part of the local

community consultation process. Where

possible, the first of the two required local

newspaper advertisements should coincide

approximately with the beginning of the

consultation with communities. However,

given the detailed information required for

the publicity in secondary legislation,

The Section 48 Notice was published at

the start of the second stage of statutory

consultation. The first notice was

published two weeks before the start of

the stage two public exhibitions, thereby

also serving to provide due notice of the

forthcoming events.

See Chapter 5.



aligning publicity with consultation may not

always be possible, especially where a

multi-stage consultation is intended.

43 Applicants have a statutory duty to consult any

local authority in whose land a project is sited.

So, where an offshore project also features

land-based development, the applicant should

treat the local authority where the land-based

development is located as the main consultee

for the Statement of Community Consultation.

The applicant is also advised to consider

seeking views on the Statement of Community

Consultation from local authorities whose

communities may be affected by the project,

for example visually or through construction

traffic, even if the project is in fact some

distance from the area in question. In addition,

applicants may find it beneficial to discuss their

Statement of Community Consultation with any

local authorities in the vicinity where there

could be an effect on harbour facilities.

The Applicant treated ERYC (the ―B‖

authority) as the main consultee for the

SoCC. The 35km Zone of Visual

Influence (ZVI) for the offshore

infrastructure of Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck does not cover any other local

authorities. The landfall and near shore

works will be temporary and will only be

visible from the East Riding of Yorkshire.

Therefore, no additional authorities have

been consulted on the SoCC on this

basis. Given its original inclusion in the

Scoping Area, Hull City Council was also

consulted on the SoCC. No other Local

Authorities were consulted as ―port‖

authorities as the port, and therefore

likely concentration of construction

marine traffic, is not yet known.

45 Applicants should ensure they consider all

the potential impacts on communities

which are in the vicinity of the proposed

project. These are unlikely to affect all

communities to the same degree but might

include potential visual, environmental,

economic and social impacts.

The main impact extending more widely

than the Consultation Area is the

potential socio economic impact. The

Applicant engaged with several

constituency MPs and councils outside of

the Consultation Area on this topic and

has also funded an innovative careers

education programme ―Champions for

Wind‖ to increase awareness of the

career opportunities in offshore wind.

This programme is currently active in

schools across the East Riding of

Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and Teesside.

46 Where the location of a proposed offshore

project is such that the impacts on

communities are likely to be very small or

negligible, applicants are still expected to

inform relevant coastal authorities and

communities of the proposed project, and

give them a chance to take part in any

consultation. When deciding who to consult

in these situations, applicants are

encouraged to think laterally, by, for

A number of coastal local authorities

were consulted as a result of Forewind‘s

interpretation of Section 43 of the

Planning Act.

See Section 3.3.

Given the scale of the proposals, there is

the possibility that a large number of

coastal communities could be impacted in

a small or negligible way but The

Applicant felt it would be



example, identifying nearby local

authorities with busy harbours, active

fishing or sailing / water-sports

communities or key local environmental

groups.

disproportionately impractical to consult

them all. The Section 48 Notice was

published in the national press in

advance of the second stage of statutory

consultation, giving the wider population

an opportunity to respond to the

consultation.

See Chapter 5.

47 Where there are no obvious impacts on

local communities, applicants should

consult the local communities closest to the

proposed project. It may be that there are

impacts which are not immediately obvious

but which a consultation can identify.

Equally, local communities may have

concerns, for example, about

environmental impacts, and open

engagement with the applicant will allow

them the chance to express their concerns

and to understand how these concerns are

being addressed. The level of interest

shown by local authorities and

communities will dictate the degree and

depth of consultation required. It may be

that for certain offshore projects, the

consultation process with local

communities can be undertaken at a

focused and proportionate way, and

therefore completed within the minimum

statutory timescales required by the

Planning Act.

The Applicant‘s statutory consultation

with local communities was open to all

those with an interest in the proposals.

48 Ultimately, applicants for offshore projects

should take a pragmatic approach,

consulting in proportion to the impacts on

communities and the size of the project,

whilst ensuring that relevant local

communities are kept informed about the

proposals and offered the chance to

participate in shaping them. Applicants

should use this as a guiding principle for

consultation together with the statutory

requirements as set out in the Planning

Act. Provided they do this, and fully explain

their approach in the consultation report

which accompanies their application, the

The Applicant considers that its

consultation process with the local

community has been pragmatic,

proportionate and open to all. This is

reflected in Forewind‘s consultation

objectives, as set out in the Stakeholder

Engagement Plan.

See Appendix A.



expectation is that their application will not

be rejected on the grounds of insufficient

public consultation.

49 In addition to relevant local authorities and

their communities, prospective applicants

for development consent for certain types

of projects are required to consult and

engage with the Marine Management

Organisation. They will be also be able to

advise on what, and with whom, additional

consultation might be appropriate.

Additional guidance is available from the

Inspectorate on transboundary

consultations.

The Applicant consulted the MMO on the

content of the draft SoCC. Relevant

responses to the SoCC consultation and

the regard The Applicant had to them are

summarised in Appendix M1.

50 To realise the benefits of early consultation

on a project, it must take place at a

sufficiently early stage to allow consultees

a real opportunity to influence the

proposals. But equally, consultees will

need sufficient information on a project to

be able to recognise and understand the

impacts.

The Applicant carried out two stages of

statutory consultation. This allowed

consultees to comment on the initial, fluid

proposals as well as the near final

proposals, prior to the application being

submitted. In between statutory periods,

The Applicant carried out non-statutory

consultation in order to continue

engaging with relevant stakeholders.

The first stage of statutory consultation

was carried out at an early stage in the

development process, when the study

area was narrowed down from the large

Scoping Area, but the proposals were still

reasonably fluid. This allowed consultees

a real opportunity to influence key

decisions about the design (such as the

landfall location) and approach to the

EIA.

See Chapter 8.

51 Applicants will often also require detailed

technical advice from consultees and it is

likely that their input will be of the greatest

value if they are consulted when project

proposals are fluid, followed up by

confirmation of the approach as proposals

become firmer. In principle, therefore,

applicants should undertake initial

consultation as soon as there is sufficient

detail to allow consultees to understand the

nature of the project properly.

52 To manage the tension between consulting

early, but also having project proposals

that are firm enough to enable consultees

to comment, applicants are encouraged to

consider an iterative, phased consultation

consisting of two (or more) stages,

especially for large projects with long

development periods. For example,

applicants might wish to consider

undertaking informal early consultation at a



stage where options are still being

considered. This will be helpful in informing

proposals and assisting the applicant in

establishing a preferred option on which to

undertake formal statutory public

consultation.

53 Where an iterative consultation is intended,

it may be advisable for applicants to carry

out the final stage of consultation with

persons who have an interest in the land

once they have worked up their project

proposals in sufficient detail to identify

affected land interests.

Those with an interest in the land were

consulted at both stages of statutory

consultation to ensure that they were

aware of the proposals as early as

possible.

See Section 3.4

54 …The Planning Act provides for a

minimum 28 day period for consultation. It

is expected that this may be sufficient for

projects which are straightforward and

uncontroversial in nature. But many

projects, particularly larger or more

controversial ones, may require longer

consultation periods than this. Applicants

should therefore set consultation deadlines

that are realistic and proportionate to the

proposed project. It is also important that

consultees do not withhold information that

might affect a project, and that they

respond in good time to applicants. Where

responses are not received by the

deadline, the applicant is not obliged to

take those responses into account.

Forewind allowed more than the statutory

28 days for responses to statutory

consultation periods. These are detailed

in Sections 3.6 and 3.7.

55 Applicants are not expected to repeat

consultation rounds set out in their


unless the project proposals have changed

very substantially. For example, where

proposals change to such a large degree

that what is being taken forward is

fundamentally different from what was

consulted on, further consultation may well

be needed. This may be necessary if, for

example, new information arises which

renders all previous options unworkable or

invalid for some reason. When considering

the need for additional consultation,

The proposals did not change to such an

extent during the pre-application process

that additional rounds (over and above

the two stages set out in the SoCC) of

community consultation were required.



applicants should use the degree of

change, the effect on the local community

and the level of public interest as guiding

factors.

57 If the application only changes to a small

degree, or if the change only affects part of

the development, then it is not necessary

for an applicant to undertake a full re-

consultation. Where a proposed application

is amended in light of consultation

responses then, unless those amendments

materially change the application or

materially changes its impacts, the

amendments themselves should not trigger

a need for further consultation. Instead, the

applicant should ensure that all affected

statutory consultees and local communities

are informed of the changes.

The Applicant met with or responded in

writing to several statutory consultees

regarding any changes made to the

proposals following the final stage of

statutory consultation.

58 Consultation should, however, also be fair

and reasonable for applicants as well as

communities. To ensure that consultation is

fair to all parties, applicants should be able

to demonstrate that the consultation

process is proportionate to the impacts of

the project in the area that it affects, takes

account of the anticipated level of local

interest, and takes account of the views of

the relevant local authorities.

The Applicant has carried out a through

pre-application consultation process as

described in the Consultation Report and

believes that this has been proportionate

to the impacts of the project.

61 Therefore, the consultation report should:

(a) provide a general description of the

consultation process undertaken;

(b) set out specifically what the applicant

has done in compliance with the

requirements of the Planning Act,

relevant secondary legislation, this

guidance, and any relevant policies,

guidance or advice published by

Government or the Inspectorate;

(c) set out how the applicant has taken

account of any response to

consultation with local authorities on

what should be in the applicant‘s

statement of community consultation;

The Applicant produced a Consultation

Report which included all matters set out

in paragraph (61). References below

refer to where examples of compliance

may be found in full.

(a) See Section 2.5

(b) See Section 2.1

(c) See Section 4.2

(d) See Appendix M

(e) See Chapter 8 and Appendix M

(f) See Chapter 8 and Appendix M

(g) The Applicant has endeavoured to

follow all advice of the local authority,

DCLG guidance and relevant advice



(d) set out a summary of relevant

responses to consultation (but not a

complete list of responses);

(e) provide a description of how the

application was influenced by those

responses, outlining any changes

made as a result and showing how

significant relevant responses will be

addressed;

(f) provide an explanation as to why

responses advising on major changes

to a project were not followed,

including advice from statutory

consultee on impacts;

(g) where the applicant has not followed

the advice of the local authority or not

complied with this guidance or any

relevant advice note published by the

Inspectorate, provide an explanation

for the action taken;

(h) be expressed in terms sufficient to

enable the Secretary of State to fully

understand how the consultation

process has been undertaken and

significant effects addressed. However,

it need not include full technical

explanations of these matters.

notes issued by the Inspectorate.

(h) The Applicant has endeavoured to

produce the Consultation Report in

terms sufficient to allow the Secretary

of State, consultees and the local

community to fully understand the

consultation process.

62 It is important that those who have

contributed to the consultation are informed

of the results of the consultation exercise;

how the information received by applicants

has been used to shape and influence the

project; and how any outstanding issues

will be addressed before an application is

submitted to the Inspectorate.

A summary of feedback received during

the final stage of statutory consultation

and the regard The Applicant has had to

relevant responses was circulated to all

stakeholders in edition 5 of Dogger Bank

News in early August 2013 (See

Appendix I1). This included a reference

to the full Consultation Report which will

be made available if and when the

Planning Inspectorate validates the

application.

In addition The Applicant met with or

responded in writing to many of the

consultees following the final stage of

consultation.

63 As with the consultation itself, it is likely

that different audiences will require

different levels of information. The local

community may be particularly interested in

what the collective view of the community

is and how this has been taken into

account. Consultees with technical

information will require more detailed

information on what impacts and risks have



been identified, and how they are proposed

to be mitigated or managed.

64 The consultation report may not be the

most appropriate format in which to

respond to the points raised by various

consultee groups and bodies. Applicants

should therefore consider producing a

summary note in plain English for the local

community setting out headline findings

and how they have been addressed,

together with a link to the full consultation

report for those interested. If helpful, this

could be supplemented by events in the

local area.

65 Response to points raised by consultees

with technical information is likely to need

to focus on the specific impacts for which

the body has expertise. The applicant

should make a judgement as to whether

the consultation report provides sufficient

detail on the relevant impacts, or whether a

targeted response would be more

appropriate. Applicants are also likely to

have identified a number of key additional

bodies for consultation and may need to

continue engagement with these bodies on

an individual basis.

The Applicant continues to engage with a

number of the technical consultees, on

issues raised during the final stage of

consultation. Statements of Common

Ground have been initiated pre-

application.

See Chapter 9.

73 For the pre-application consultation

process, applicants are advised to include

sufficient preliminary environmental

information to enable consultees to

develop an informed view of the project.

The information required will be different

for different types and sizes of projects and

it may differ depending on the audience of

a particular consultation. The preliminary

environmental information is not expected

to replicate or be a draft of the

environmental statement. However, if the

applicant considers this to be appropriate

(and more cost-effective), it can be

presented in this way. The key issue is that

the information presented must provide

clarity to all consultees. Applicants should

A document entitled ―Preliminary

Environmental Information 1‖ was

provided at the first stage of statutory

consultation and the draft ES was

provided at the second stage of statutory

consultation. These documents were

available to all consultees on the

Forewind website, at public exhibitions, in

local libraries and on DVD on request.

See Appendices G and H.



be careful not to assume that non-

specialist consultees would not be

interested in any technical environmental

information. It is therefore advisable to

ensure access to such information is

provided during all consultations.

77 Applicants may find it helpful to undertake

early informal discussion with a range of

parties on the content of the draft Order.

The draft Order, and the deemed marine

licences, have been the subject of

consultation with the Planning

Inspectorate, the Marine Management

Organisation (MMO), the Crown Estate,

Network Rail and East Riding of

Yorkshire Council. A consultation draft

DCO was also made available to all

consultees upon request throughout the

second statutory consultation period.

Where possible or appropriate Forewind

has sought to take on board any

comments in the documents submitted.

See Paragraph 1.8 in the Explanatory

Memorandum (Planning Inspectorate

document reference number 3.2)

Documents

Consultation Report · 4.2.3 The relevant responses to the SoCC consultation are provided in Appendix F3, and a table explaining the regard that Forewind had to both these responses,