Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm 2019-02-07آ  Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm 2019-02-07آ  Vattenfall Wind Power...

  • Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm Appendix 1 to Deadline 2 Submission: Applicant’s Response to Written Representations

    Relevant Examination Deadline: 2

    Submitted by Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd

    Date: February 2019

    Revision A

  • Applicant Responses to Written Representations Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm

    Page 2 / 249

    Revision A Original Document submitted to the Examining Authority

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    Drafted By: Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd

    Approved By: Daniel Bates

    Date of Approval: February 2019

    Revision: A

    Copyright © 2019 Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd

    All pre-existing rights retained

  • Applicant Responses to Written Representations Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm

    Page 3 / 249

    Contents 1 Responses to Written Representations ............................................................................. 5

    2 RAMAC Holding Limited (REP1-089) .................................................................................. 6

    3 Environment Agency (REP1-092) ..................................................................................... 29

    4 John Lowe (REP1-093)...................................................................................................... 32

    5 Government of France (REP1-094) .................................................................................. 33

    6 Historic England (REP1-095) ............................................................................................ 34

    7 Kent County Council (REP1-096) ...................................................................................... 59

    8 Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (REP1-099) .................... 64

    9 Kent Wildlife Trust (REP1-102) ........................................................................................ 72

    10 Magda Crostline on behalf of RAMAC Holdings Limited (REP1-105) ............................ 123

    11 Marine Management Organisation (REP1-107) ............................................................ 126

    12 Natural England (REP1-113) ........................................................................................... 129

    13 National Trust (REP1-119) .............................................................................................. 187

    14 Nemo Link Limited (REP1-122) ...................................................................................... 203

    15 Mr G Pulman (REP1-123) ............................................................................................... 220

    16 Shakespeare Martineau on behalf of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (NGET) (REP1-125) .............................................................................................................................. 221

    17 Trinity House (REP1-130) ............................................................................................... 230

    18 Thanet District Council (REP1-133) ................................................................................ 237

    19 Thanet Fishermen’s Association (REP1-134) ................................................................. 240

    20 The Crown Estate (REP1-135) ........................................................................................ 248

    References ............................................................................................................................. 249

    Tables Table 1: Response to RAMAC Holding Limited .......................................................................... 6 Table 2: Response to Environment Agency ............................................................................. 30 Table 3: Response to John Lowe .............................................................................................. 32 Table 4: Response to Historic England ..................................................................................... 34 Table 5: Response to KCC ......................................................................................................... 59 Table 6: Response to KEIFCA .................................................................................................... 64 Table 7: Response to KWT ....................................................................................................... 72 Table 8: Response to Magda Crostline on behalf of RAMAC Holdings Limited (REP1-105) .. 123

  • Applicant Responses to Written Representations Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm

    Page 4 / 249

    Table 9: Response to MMO ................................................................................................... 126 Table 10: Response to Natural England ................................................................................. 129 Table 11: Response to National Trust .................................................................................... 187 Table 12: Response to Nemo Link Limited............................................................................. 203 Table 13: Response to Mr Pulman ......................................................................................... 220 Table 14: Response to NGET .................................................................................................. 221 Table 15: Response to Trinity House ..................................................................................... 230 Table 16: Response to TDC .................................................................................................... 237 Table 17: Response to TFA ..................................................................................................... 240 Table 18: Response to TCE ..................................................................................................... 248

  • Applicant Responses to Written Representations Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm

    Page 5 / 249

    1 Responses to Written Representations

    Introduction

    1 Following submission of Written Representations by Interested Parties at Deadline 1, the Applicant has taken the opportunity to review each of the Written Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate.

    2 The following sections provide a record of the Applicant’s responses to all Written representations received. Each section provides a summary of the representation received and a point by point response to the full representation. Certain exceptions apply where common themes have emerged from the Written Representations.

    3 Due to the common themes arising from multiple shipping and navigation stakeholders’ separate documents at Appendix 2 – 5 are provided which provide a combined response to all representations made on the following themes.

    • Theme 1 (Red Line Boundary Changes).

    • Theme 2 (Ports/Shipping Routes)

    • Theme 3 (Pilotage)

    • Theme 4 (NRA)

    4 The stakeholders captured within the above thematic responses are as follows:

    • Maritime and Coastguard Agency (REP1-109)

    • UK Chamber of Shipping (REP1-136)

    • Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of Estuary Services Limited (REP1-141)

    • Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of Port of London Authority (REP1-142)

    • Port of Tilbury London Limited and London Gateway Port Limited (REP1-148)

    • London Pilots Council (through reference to their post hearing submissions for ISH 2 (REP1-104))

    5 The Written Representation received from Trinity House (REP1-130) is captured within this overarching document as their representation refers specifically to DCO matters, rather than the specific themes referred to above.

  • Applicant Responses to Written Representations Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm

    Page 6 / 249

    2 RAMAC Holding Limited (REP1-089)

    Summary

    6 The primary concerns made by Charles Russell Speechlys on behalf of RAMAC Holding Limited relate to:

    7 Bullet summary of stakeholder’s key concerns

    • Objection to compulsory acquisition of freehold property in their ownership.

    • Substation site selection

    • Substation technical solution

    • Extent of consultation by The Applicant

    8 A point by point response to MMO’s Written Representation is documented below.

    Table 1: Response to RAMAC Holding Limited

    UID Interested Party’s Written Representation Applicant’s Response

    Ramac- 1

    Further, as required by the Directions, we notify you that our client wishes to be represented at, and to appear and adduce evidence at, the Specific Issues/ Open Floor / Compulsory Acquisition hearings (including but not limited to the Compulsory Acquisition hearing on 21 February 2019).

    The Applicant notes Ramac’s position.

    Ramac-2

    We also notify you that our client wishes to attend an Accompanied Site Inspection (or Inspections as applicable). In that regard, our client nominates the entirety of the land at Richborough Port owned by our client as part of such Site Inspection given that (A) compulsory acquisition of a

    The Applicant notes Ramac's position and the direction of the Examining Authority as to the scope of the accompanied site visit.

  • Applicant Responses to Written Representations Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm

    Page 7 / 249

    UI