RELEVANT
REPRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED MORGAN AND MORECAMBE OFFSHORE WIND FARMS
TRANSMISSION ASSETS DCO
PLANNING
INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER: EN020032
INTRODUCTION
This is a Relevant Representation (RR) regarding the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Transmission Assets Project (the Project), promoted by Morgan Offshore Wind Limited and Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Limited (the Applicant) made by Broadfield Law UK LLP on behalf of Newton with Clifton Parish Council (the Council).
The Council objects to the Project on the grounds set forth in this RR. These grounds raise questions about the Applicant's reasoning for the proposed site locations for the Morgan and Morecambe onshore transmission assets, as well as the detrimental environmental consequences of this decision.
GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
1
Site
/ Route Selection and Alternatives
1.1
The
Applicant, in selecting the location for its onshore transmission assets, has given
preference to development in designated Green Belt land, in contravention of the
requirements and guidelines prescribed in The National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF).
In particular, safeguarding the environment,
responding to local character, reflecting the identity of local surroundings,
reducing flood risk, protecting and enhancing local landscapes and,
importantly, Green Belt land.
1.2
A
significant portion of the proposed route for the underground cabling and the
Morgan and Morecambe substations is located within the Green Belt between Freckleton and Kirkham. At paragraph 160, the NPPF provides
that ‘when located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy
projects will comprise inappropriate development’, and that where this is
the case, ‘the developers will need to demonstrate very special
circumstances if projects are to proceed’. The Applicant has failed to clearly
demonstrate how the Project’s location of onshore transmission assets in Green
Belt land qualifies as ‘very special circumstances’, particularly as it has failed
to provided evidence of consideration of brownfield sites or alternatives. If a diligent consideration exercise had been conducted,
the Applicant would have considered the use of already provided industrial
development land and electricity transmission infrastructure, as outlined in
paragraphs 1.7 to 1.12 of this RR.
1.3
In
terms of size, the dimensions of the substations are disproportionately large
and intrusive, and the reason for this remains unclear. The Applicant proposes
to take 22.35 hectares of Green Belt land for a system with a headline output
of 2GW. By contrast, the two converter substations for the 2.4GW Dogger Bank
A&B Offshore wind farms occupy a footprint of a total of 7.5 hectares. Insufficient
explanation or justification has been provided by the Applicant. Had the
Applicant chosen a smaller design, this would have increased their pool of
possible locations, potentially eliminating the need to take Green Belt land.
1.4
The
Council acknowledges and welcomes that the Applicant’s efforts to reduce and streamline
certain aspects of its Project design since its consultation on the Preliminary
Environmental Information Report (PEIR). Nevertheless, certain crucial aspects
are yet to be addressed or justified. For example, the maximum height of the
Morecambe substation has decreased from 20 meters to 13 meters, but the
equivalent metric for the Morgan substation has decreased from 20m to only 15m.
There is no explanation provided for this distinction. Similarly, the temporary
access track width for both substations has been increased from 15 meters to 20
meters.
1.5
It
is unclear why both substations could not be combined into a single site, where
reasonable separation measures would ensure the independence of the Morgan and
Morecambe lines. The placement of these substations in close
proximity has the effect of doubling the environmental impacts. In
addition, the choice of an 8 kilometre
search zone for the placement of the substations is not explained, and the
chosen site is situated at the very edge of this zone as shown in Figure 1. If substations can be separated from
the Penwortham substation, why couldn't they be further away? If distance has a
greater impact due to a higher voltage cable between the substation and
Penwortham, why was this not factored in to give greater weight to closer
options rather than choosing a site at the limit of the chosen search area.
Figure 1
.fld/image001.png)
1.6
This
Council is concerned that approval of the Applicant’s Project as proposed would
have the effect of downgrading the weight of consideration to be afforded to
Green Belt land, resulting in urban sprawl and a gradual loss of green belt
protections. As an alternative, the Council strongly advocates for and advises
the Applicant to withdraw the application and promote the Hillhouse alternative
set out below instead.
Alternative – Hillhouse Technology Local Enterprise Zone
1.7
The
Local Development Frameworks across the Fylde Coastal Plain have provisioned 3
Local Enterprise Zones (LEZ) with infrastructure, utilities connectivity
and planning support to facilitate development such as the Project being
proposed by the Applicant. These also offer close and even adjacent access,
re-use and upgrade of existing electricity transmission infrastructure which
provides connectivity to the Penwortham substation, without additional further
major planning, given its status and existing easement portfolio. These LEZs
are segregated from countryside and residences, whilst being designed for
multi-activity commercial use.
1.8
There
is no evidence submitted by the Applicant to suggest that the Hillhouse
Technology LEZ (HTEZ) has been considered as a component of the land
route to Penwortham. This 138-hectare site has been specifically allocated to
support development in the energy sector, so could accommodate the 22.35
hectares of the proposed designs of the 1.5GW Morgan and the 0.5GW Morecambe
converter substations, their respective construction compounds, road networks,
utilities infrastructure, etc. It currently houses infrastructure for the
Walney2 Offshore wind farm and has a direct connection with the National Grid Stanah substation with space for any increased capacity
requirements.
1.9
An
informal examination of the Stanah substation has revealed
that the existing overhead power lines and substation would need to be upgraded.
However, the Stanah substation is connected to the
main North-Southwest branch of the Grid that runs between Heysham and
Penwortham, with the T junction being at Hambleton, whilst the east branch runs
beside the M6 and then around Preston to the West before also feeding into
Penwortham.
1.10
This
option offers a shorter land route whose connection could be upgraded
comparatively easily, if the existing overhead pylons are re-strung to increase
power carrying capacity with an increased number of conductors attached,
potentially with reinforcement of the pylons. All easements for access to the
existing overhead lines already exist, and an upgrade would not require major
planning activity. The owners of the Hillhouse site are pursuing the
development of a Green Hydrogen facility at Stanah,
using the underground Halite Caves on the East Side of the Wyre for storage. Figure
2 illustrates the more simplified route when considering the Stanah Grid substation connection.
Figure 2
.fld/image002.png)
1.11
In
summary, should the Morgan and Morecambe windfarms opt to connect to the
Hillhouse site, this would bring about the following benefits:
1.11.1
A
route that only requires drilling underground for 4 kilometres.
1.11.2
Although
it will require upgrading the lines and pylons from Stanah
to the Grid, this should be much cheaper than the proposed 30
kilometre corridor.
1.11.3
Hillhouse
is a brownfield site and is outside the Green Belt and is therefore a much more preferable alternative to avoid the Green Belt and maintain
separation between rural communities.
1.11.4
Springfields
(Westinghouse) are seeking to develop large-scale hydrogen production at Hillhouse,
which would be a good use of the spare capacity in the local area for local
benefit. The current corridor only exports to the National Grid, with no local
benefit.
1.11.5
The
Wyre MP and Town council see this as an opportunity for growth in HTEZ.
1.11.6
Investment
in this area will also attract extra skilled jobs into Fleetwood (one of the most deprived areas in Lancashire) and into the port for the offshore
work that would be needed to support the windfarms.
2
Cumulative
Impacts
2.1
The
Newton with Clifton Parish comprises of rural countryside with two main
settlements:
2.1.1
Newton
with Scales being approximately 125 acres; and
2.1.2
Clifton
being approximately 60 acres.
2.2
At
present, the Springfields nuclear fuel energy site, in conjunction with
numerous solar energy projects located to the north of Clifton, at Clifton
Marsh, and at Halls Cross, already entails the allocation of a total of 225
acres for green energy in Newton and Clifton Parish, with an additional 42
acres situated in close proximity.
2.3
The
Project, if consented as proposed, would add two additional substations in
addition to the existing 170-acre solar farm application at Clifton Marsh,
south of the A584, and a 79-acre solar farm application to the west of Parrox
Lane which are also in the process of being considered by Fylde Borough
Council.
2.4
This
is a high concentration of energy generation projects within a limited radius,
which would significantly alter the long-standing character of the rural
settings in a short period of time, which should further count against the
project as a cumulative impact.
3
Deficient
Community Engagement and Consultation
3.1
The
consultation outcome may have been at risk of having been predetermined. For
example, there was a consultation on the proposed landfall site at Blackpool
Airport, but this was already decided by the Holistic Network Design carried
out by National Grid in 2022. The fixing of the Penwortham substation end point
dictates the route and the substations, making the consultation more of a fig
leaf exercise, with no consideration of other viable routes. All other
potentially viable options have been disregarded in favour
of the proposed 30-kilometre corridor.
3.2
The
consultation on the PEIR did not comply with the legal definition of
'preliminary environmental information' at regulation 12(2) of the
Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, in
that information that the applicant possessed was not included. For example,
landowners were shown more precise details of the substations on maps prior to
the statutory consultation process and events, and those detailed maps were not
provided in the PEIR.
3.3
Furthermore,
at consultation events, no-one present was sufficiently qualified to answer
questions from attendees, and thus the events were merely presentation of
proposals rather than any attempt at engagement, the purpose of pre-application
consultation. The consultation events were held too late in the process to
allow the consultees to prepare their responses. The decision to open the
consultation on October 12 and only hold the first event on October 26 suggests
a strategy designed to obstruct any meaningful consultation.
3.4
Indeed,
both Fylde Borough Council and Lancashire County Council refused to issue an Adequacy
of Consultation Notice in autumn 2024.
4
Ecology
4.1
The
sand dunes at Lytham St Annes are home to the Sefton Sand Lizards (Lacerta
agilis), one of the rarest lizard families in the UK. These reptiles are strictly
protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended) and under Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &.)
Regulations 1994 (as amended). Following a decline in numbers during the 1960s,
attributed to the loss of habitat, among other factors, the recent decade has
witnessed significant conservation efforts, leading to an increase in
populations that could potentially be jeopardised if
not carefully considered.
4.2
The
Project proposes to permanently remove four ponds as part of constructing the
substations. Given that the Fylde is very flat and wet, it provides an ideal
habitat for Great Crested Newts, which would be directly impacted by these
works. This presents a significant risk, given
the recent discovery of Great Crested Newt populations in an adjacent field.
4.3
A
few metres away from the location of the proposed substations, there exists a
significant population of critically endangered Black Tailed Godwits on the
Newton Marsh SSSI. Both Great Crested Newts and Black-Tailed Godwits should be recognised in the DCO for special protection.
4.4
The
cable corridors for the Project traverse through the biological heritage site
of Lytham Moss, which comprises 283 hectares of farmland on the Lytham Moss
between Heyhouses, Long Wood and Peel. The site is of
ornithological importance as a winter feeding ground
for pink footed geese and whooper swans.
4.5
Furthermore,
a range of protected species can be found near the area of the
substations. These include:
4.5.1
Bats
(pipistrelle)
4.5.2
Toads
4.5.3
Ring
Ouzel
4.5.4
Thrush
4.5.5
Dunnock
4.5.6
Starlings
4.5.7
Sparrows
4.5.8
Brown
Hares
4.5.9
Hedgehogs
4.6
Protected
Species Licences from Natural England or Defra have
not been obtained to allow activities that would otherwise be illegal, and
these or letters of no impediment should be obtained before the Project is
consented. Protected species licensing requirements are in addition to the
requirements for planning permission and we have not seen evidence of this.
5
Burial
Grounds at Quakers Wood
5.1
The
location of the Morecambe substation (and associated mitigation and access
rights), as shown on the Work Plans as works 20b, 22b, 23b, and 24b,
appear to overlap with Quakers Wood. Following archaeological research
conducted by Oxford University, it has come to our attention that Quakers Wood
and the fields surrounding it, as depicted in Figure 3 (and marked as
52, 49, 76, and 126) were utilised as burial grounds by Quaker communities. It
is estimated that between 50-60 burials occurred without headstones. Furthermore,
it is anticipated that other surrounding fields have the potential to hold
significant archaeological features and/or artefacts, which must be considered before
any on-site works take place. On this basis, we object to any invasive works being
carried out on these grounds subject to deploying an archaeological survey. Any
issues brought to light therein should be adequately and sensitively addressed.
Furthermore, there is no provision in the DCO to deal with human remains.
.fld/image003.png)
6
Landscape
and Visual Impact
6.1
The
visual impact of the substations is very significant, and any screening will
itself have a visual impact. For example, paragraph 10.12.5 onwards of Chapter 10: Landscape and Visual
Resources of the
Environmental Statement (ES) shows several major and moderate adverse
visual impacts from the substations.
6.2
Figure 4
shows a view of the substations from a public footpath. However, no renderings
of the substations show the impact on the settings of the heritage assets.
6.3
The
cluster comprising of Dagger Cottage (1164155), Dixons Farmhouse (1072035) and
The White Barn (which is curtilage listed) is significantly impacted from the
views from Grange Lane, Thames Street, Newton with Scales. Figure 5
shows the view from the corner of Grange Lane and Thames Street, with an x
showing where the Morecambe substation would be.
Figure
4
.fld/image004.png)
Figure
5
.fld/image005.png)
6.4
Both
substations create a visual intrusion on the rural landscape. This has a
significant impact as Fylde and as nearby areas like Lytham St Annes rely
heavily on tourism, industrial infrastructure could reduce the appeal of the
area, causing economic harm.
7
Traffic
Disruptions
7.1
Creation
of the substations will require significant construction work, which will
disrupt local roads through the creation of noise, dust, and traffic congestion
of local communities.
7.2
Table
7.21 of Chapter 7: Traffic and Transport of the ES shows substantial
percentage increases in heavy good vehicles on roads and motorways. For
example:
7.2.1
1,400%
increase on Leach Lane North / Appealing Lane / The Hamlet
7.2.2
1,740%
increase on Blackpool Road North from Kilnhouse Lane
junction and access A5
7.2.3
345%
increase on Ballam Road between Peel Road and accesses A16 / A19
7.2.4
656%
increase on Ballam Road between Peel Road and Fox Lane Ends
7.3
The
Applicant does not consider mitigation for the impact on users of highways or Public
Rights of Way, where the introduction of abnormally shaped construction
vehicles will block up the width of certain roads. For example, Lower Lane Freckleton, Bryning Lane and
multiple Public Rights of Way.
8
Noise
and Vibration
8.1
The
substations and development corridor are very close to residential properties
and schools including Strike Lane Primary School, Newton Bluecoat
Church of England Primary School and Carr Hill High School.
8.2
No
information has been provided regarding the possible acoustic issues that may
surround substation equipment, which may produce a low frequency 50hz
background hum (estimated to be about 60dB) which can be significant in the
context of the sensitive receptors identified above. What information that is
available suggests that a noise level in excess of
35dB above ambient is to be expected. This is intolerable for anyone living
close to the development and experience suggests that in some weather
conditions the noise footprint would be far wider than predicted.
9
Flooding
9.1
Much
of Lytham lies below sea level. The Climate Central Coastal screening
tool risk map shows much of Lytham and St Annes underwater by 2050. Drilling wide
cable corridors under the sand dunes, will weaken the current coastal defences. Undermining the sand dunes and constructing a
concrete corridor for cables could potentially create a corridor for water to
travel inland, resulting in the flooding of vulnerable residential areas much
earlier than anticipated.
9.2
The
Applicant has only recently requested affected farmers to identify whether or not their fields hold water at any time of the
year, indicating that they do not understand the topography of the southern
Fylde, which still contains large areas of designated marsh adjacent to the
areas being considered. Much of the rest of the Fylde, which is particularly
low lying as shown by the EA flood maps, is reclaimed marsh and relies on the
effectiveness of the drainage systems created over a long period starting with Lytham
Moss in the 17th century. This includes the existing main river tributaries,
the associated dykes and ditches and extensive use of
buried land tiles/drains to drain the area. Damage will naturally worsen the
ability to drain the land and ensure more areas retain water, rather than have
it drain.
10
Draft
Development Consent Order
Comments in respect of the draft Development Consent Order.
Project A - Morgan
10.1
Requirement
3 – Stages of authorised project – For clarity, a provision should be added or
(3) modified so that it requires the Applicant to implement the scheme as
approved by the relevant planning authority.
10.2
Requirement
7 – Implementation and maintenance of landscaping – For clarity, a provision
should be added requiring the Applicant to implement the landscaping scheme as
approved under Requirement 6.
10.3
There
is no landfall construction method statement concerning works (Work Nos. 3A,
4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A, 36A, 38A, 42A, 43A and 47A together with any other
authorised development associated with those works and related ancillary works).
A provision governing this process ought to be included to the effect that (1)
no landfall construction work may commence until a method statement or
equivalent has been submitted and approved by the relevant planning authority,
and (2) the method statement referred to above is implemented as approved.
10.4
Requirement
8 – Code of construction practice – (3) only concerns Project A onshore works, does
this apply to Project A intertidal works? Please justify if not or otherwise
amend to include Project A Intertidal works.
10.5
Requirement
9 – Traffic and Transport – (3) only concerns Project A onshore works, does
this apply to Project A intertidal works? Please justify if not or otherwise
amend to include Project A Intertidal works.
10.6
Requirement
11 – Onshore archaeology – similar projects have been prescriptive with the
detail that ought to be included in the archaeological written scheme of
investigation. Please include further detail on what such schemes will cover.
10.7
Requirement
13 – European protected species onshore – (3) only concerns Project A onshore
works, does this apply to Project A intertidal works? Please justify if not or
otherwise amend to include Project A Intertidal works.
10.8
Requirement
14 – Construction hours – construction hours on Saturdays are typically 0700
hours to 1300 hours, is there a justification for why the hours are 0700 hours
to 1900 hours Monday to Saturday? For (3) a provision ought to be added to the
effect that such approved works must be completed within the agreed time. The outline Code of Construction
Practice at
paragraph 1.6.2.1 provides that no core working will be undertaken on Sundays
or Bank Holidays, except in exceptional circumstances. There is no inclusion or
reference to such exceptional circumstances in Requirement 14. For the
avoidance of ambiguity please detail what situations may give rise to such
exceptions or if not required remove such wording as this carries the risk of
establishing conflicting exceptions.
10.9
Requirement
15 – Fencing and other means of enclosure - For clarity, a provision should be
added requiring the Applicant to complete the fencing and other means of
enclosure works as approved by the relevant planning authority.
10.10 Requirement 16 – Restoration of land
used temporarily for construction – as drafted, there is no hard timescale for
the Applicant to carry out the restorative works which carries the risk of
potential slow progress. We suggest that any restorative works are completed
within 12 months of completion of the relevant stage of the Project A onshore
works and Project A intertidal works, or such other period as the relevant
planning authority may approve.
10.11 Requirement 18 – Control of noise
during operational stage – while this requirement makes
reference to the noise management plan, there is no specific sound level
(in decibels) expressly stated which must not be breached at any time. This
detail ought to be included given its significance.
Project B - Morecambe
10.12 Many of the concerns are the same as
for Project A but are listed here for completeness.
10.13 Requirement 3 – Stages of authorised
project – For clarity, a provision should be added or (3) modified so that it
requires the Applicant to implement the scheme as approved by the relevant
planning authority.
10.14 Requirement 7 – Implementation and
maintenance of landscaping – For clarity, a provision should be added requiring
the Applicant to implement the landscaping scheme as approved under Requirement
6.
10.15 There is no landfall construction
method statement concerning works (Work Nos. 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B, 9B, 10B, 36B,
38B, 42B, 43B and 47B together with any other authorised development associated
with those works and related ancillary works). A provision governing this
process ought to be included to the effect that (1) no landfall construction
work may commence until a method statement or equivalent has been submitted and
approved by the relevant planning authority, and (2) the method statement
referred to above is implemented as approved.
10.16 Requirement 8 – Code of construction
practice – (3) only concerns Project B onshore works, does this apply to
Project B intertidal works? Please justify if not or otherwise amend to include
Project B Intertidal works.
10.17 Requirement 9 – Traffic and
Transport – (3) only concerns Project B onshore works, does this apply to
Project B intertidal works? Please justify if not or otherwise amend to include
Project B Intertidal works.
10.18 Requirement 11 – Onshore archaeology
– similar projects have been prescriptive with the detail that ought to be
included in the archaeological written scheme of investigation. Please include
further detail on what such schemes will cover.
10.19 Requirement 13 – European protected
species onshore – (3) only concerns Project B onshore works, does this apply to
Project B intertidal works? Please justify if not or otherwise amend to include
Project B Intertidal works.
10.20 Requirement 14 – Construction hours
– construction hours on Saturdays are typically 0700 hours to 1300 hours, is
there a justification for why the hours are 0700 hours to 1900 hours Monday to
Saturday? For (3) a provision ought to be added to the effect that such
approved works must be completed within the agreed time. The outline Code of Construction
Practice at
paragraph 1.6.2.1 provides that no core working will be undertaken on Sundays
or Bank Holidays, except in exceptional circumstances. There is no inclusion or
reference to such exceptional circumstances in Requirement 14. For the
avoidance of ambiguity please detail what situations may give rise to such
exceptions or if not required remove such wording as this carries the risk of
establishing conflicting exceptions.
10.21 Requirement 15 – Fencing and other
means of enclosure – For clarity, a provision should be added requiring the
Applicant to complete the fencing and other means of enclosure works as
approved by the relevant planning authority.
10.22 Requirement 16 – Restoration of land
used temporarily for construction – as drafted, there is no hard timescale for
the Applicant to carry out the restorative works which carries the risk of
potential slow progress. We suggest that any restorative works are completed
within 12 months of completion of the relevant stage of the Project B onshore
works and Project B intertidal works, or such other period as the relevant
planning authority may approve.
10.23 Requirement 18 – Control of noise
during operational stage – while this requirement makes
reference to the noise management plan, there is no specific sound level
(in decibels) expressly stated which must not be breached at any time. This
detail ought to be included given its significance.
Conclusion
Given the above concerns, while the
substations and existing cable corridors remain in their proposed locations,
the Council opposes to these elements of the Project, and will continue to do
so throughout the process until the Application has been withdrawn or their
impacts have been reduced to acceptable levels, particularly given that the
Applicant has failed to explore the Hillhouse option discussed above which
offers a far more logical and suitable option to carry out the Project.