statement of common ground between forewind and the royal ...... · at rwe’s london offices to...

June 2014

Statement of Common Ground between Forewind and the Royal Yachting Association

DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B

F-OFC-CH-051_RYA_OF_3.1 © 2014 Forewind Page ii


F-OFC-CH-051_RYA_OF_3.1 © 2014 Forewind Page iii

Document Title Dogger Bank Teesside A & B

Statement of Common Ground

Royal Yachting Association

Forewind Document Reference F-OFC-CH-051_RYA_OF

Issue Number 3.1

Date June 2014

Drafted by Rachel Hall

Checked by Martin Goff

Date / initials check MG


F-OFC-CH-051_RYA_OF_3.1 © 2014 Forewind Page iv

Title: Statement of Common Ground with the RYA

Contract No. (if applicable) Onshore Offshore

Document Number: F-EXL-CG-051_RYA_0F

Issue No: 3.1

Issue Date: 06/06/2014

Status: Issued for 1st. Technical Review Issued for Stakeholder Review

Issued for 2

nd Technical Review

Issued for Confirmation of Agreement

Prepared by: Rachel Hall

Checked by: Martin Goff

Approved by:

Signature / Approval meeting

Approval Date:

Revision History

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

29/05/2014 1.0 Internal Review RH MG

05/06/2014 2.0 Consent Review RH AG

06/06/2014 3.0 Stakeholder Review RH SC

12/06/2014 3.1 Stakeholder Agreement RH SC


F-OFC-CH-051_RYA_OF_3.1 © 2014 Forewind

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

1.1. Reason for this document ................................................................................... 6

1.2. Stakeholder Remit .............................................................................................. 6

1.3. Structure ............................................................................................................. 7

1.4. Programme ......................................................................................................... 7

2. Background ................................................................................................................... 9

2.1. Development description..................................................................................... 9

2.2. Relevant Regulations ........................................................................................ 10

2.3. Consultation Schedule ...................................................................................... 10

3. Matters of Specific Agreement .................................................................................... 12

3.1. Matters of Specific Agreement in relation to Shipping & Navigation ................. 12

3.2. Matters unresolved in relation to Shipping and Navigation ............................... 14

4. Confirmation of Agreement ......................................................................................... 15

5. Appendices ................................................................................................................. 16

Table of Tables

Table 2.1 Summary of pre-application consultation between Forewind and the RYA ........ 10

Table 2.2 Summary of post-submission consultation between Forewind and the RYA ..... 11



1. Introduction

1.1. Reason for this document

1.1.1. This Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been prepared between

Forewind and the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) to set out the areas of

agreement and any issues unresolved between the two parties in relation to the

proposed Development Consent Order (DCO) application for Dogger Bank

Teesside A & B offshore wind farm. This SoCG focusses on issues relating to

the offshore aspects of this application only.

1.1.2. Forewind is a consortium comprising RWE, SSE, Statkraft and Statoil. Forewind

is committed to securing all the necessary consents required for the

development and construction of offshore wind farms in the Dogger Bank Zone.

1.1.3. Forewind (the applicant) is required under the Planning Act 2008 to apply for a

DCO for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B offshore wind farm, because it is classed

as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The DCO will grant

consent for the offshore element of the project along with the associated

onshore grid connection works.

1.1.4. Department for Community and Local Government (DCLG) Guidance (February

2012) for the examination of applications for development consent for NSIP and

The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 highlight the

importance of the agreement with stakeholders and submission of SoCG to the

Major Applications and Plans Directorate within the Planning Inspectorate during

the Examination stage. A SoCG is defined as a written statement prepared

jointly by the applicant and any interested party, which contains agreed factual

information about the application and is a means of clearly stating any areas of

agreement and disagreement between two parties in relation to the application.

It is also useful to ensure that the evidence at the examination focuses on the

material differences between the main parties which might lead to a more

efficient examination process.

1.1.5. The need for a SoCG between Forewind and the RYA has been reinforced by

the Rule 6 letter, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on xx 2014 which states

that the Examining Authority (ExA) would like Forewind to engage the RYA in a

SoCG in order to seek agreement on the topics of:

HOLD: Await receipt of Rule 6 Letter: Insert relevant topics from Rule 6 letter

1.2. Stakeholder Remit

1.2.1. The Royal Yachting Association is the national body for all forms of recreational

and competitive boating and therefore represents the interest of the leisure

users of the sea. It represents dinghy and yacht racing, motor and sail cruising,

RIBs and sports boats, powerboat racing, windsurfing, inland cruising and

personal watercraft.



1.3. Structure

1.3.1. This document sets out the background to Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and the

stakeholders who are entering into the SoCG. It also summarises the pre-

application consultation, and any post-submission consultation that has taken

place.

1.3.2. Table 3.1 of this SoCG list those matters agreed between Forewind and the

RYA.

1.3.3. Section 3.2 details the matters unresolved between Forewind and the RYA and

are therefore of particular focus for the ExA.

1.3.4. Sequence of sub-headings in the ES Chapters:

Legislation, policy, guidance and consultation;

Methodology (including Cumulative Impact Assessment);

Existing environment;

Assessment of impacts - includes worst case definition; and

Mitigation.

1.4. Programme

1.4.1. Forewind has undertaken a thorough pre-application consultation process,

including the following key stages:

Scoping Report submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (May 2012);

Scoping Opinion received from the Planning Inspectorate (June 2012);

First stage of statutory consultation (in accordance with sections 42 and 47

of the Planning Act 2008) on Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 1

(report published May 2012); and

Second stage of statutory consultation (in accordance with sections 42, 47

and 48 of the Planning Act 2008) on the Environmental Statement (ES)

(published November 2013) designed to allow for comments before final

application to the Planning Inspectorate).

1.4.2. In addition, consultation associated with the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

application (Forewind August 2013) has been taken into account for Dogger

Bank Teesside A & B where appropriate.

1.4.3. In between the statutory consultation periods, Forewind consulted specific

groups of stakeholders on a non-statutory basis to ensure that they had an

opportunity to inform and influence the development proposals. Consultation

undertaken throughout the pre-application development phase has informed

Forewind’s design decision making and the information presented in this

application. A Consultation Report is also provided alongside the ES as part of

the overall planning submission.

1.4.4. After discussing comments with stakeholders and updating the draft ES

according to these, Forewind submitted the final DCO application for Dogger



Bank Teesside A & B on 28 March 2014. The application was accepted for

examination by the Planning Inspectorate on 23 April 2014.

1.4.5. The programme going forward for the examination phase will be set out by the

Planning Inspectorate at the Preliminary Meeting (anticipated in September

2014). The examination phase will last for 6 months and a consent decision is

expected approximately 12 months following the start of examination.



2. Background

2.1. Development description

2.1.1. The Dogger Bank Zone is between 123 and 290 kilometres (77 to 180 miles) off

the North east coast and extends over an area of approximately 8639 km2 (3336

square miles).

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

Bank Zone, and will comprise two wind farms, each with a generating capacity

of up to 1.2GW (total generating capacity of up to 2.4GW). The two wind farms

will connect to the existing National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET)

substation at Lackenby, in Teesside.

2.1.3. Dogger Bank Teesside A and Dogger Bank Teesside B will each primarily

comprise the following offshore elements:

Offshore:

Up to 200 wind turbines with supporting tower structures, foundations fixed

to the seabed and associated support and access structures;

One offshore converter platform, and associated foundation;

Up to four offshore collector platforms, and associated foundations;

Up to two offshore accommodation or helicopter platform(s) for operations

and maintenance activities, and associated foundations;

Offshore export cable systems, carrying power from the offshore High

Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) converter platform to the landfall(s);

Crossing structures at the points where project cables cross existing

subsea cables and pipelines or other Dogger Bank project cables;

Up to five offshore meteorological monitoring stations. This is in addition to

the two meteorological stations which were subject to an earlier and

separate consent application and installed in 2013;

Subsea cables between the elements of offshore infrastructure described

above;

Up to ten vessel mooring buoys; and

Ancillary works (where necessary) including: protection against scour and

subsea foundation damage, seabed preparation measures for foundation

installation and cable protection measures.

2.1.4. For further information on the potential impacts to the environment as a result of

the proposed offshore wind farm, please refer to the ES for Dogger Bank

Teesside A & B, available on the Planning Inspectorate website

(http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/yorkshire-and-the-

humber/dogger-bank-teesside-ab/ ).

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/yorkshire-and-the-humber/dogger-bank-teesside-ab/

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/yorkshire-and-the-humber/dogger-bank-teesside-ab/



2.2. Relevant Regulations

2.2.1. The relevant regulations are detailed within Table 2.1 of Chapter 16 Shipping

and Navigation of the ES (ref 6.16).

2.3. Consultation Schedule

2.3.1. Stakeholder engagement with the RYA in relation to Dogger Bank Teesside A &

B is summarised in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 below.

Table 2.1 Summary of pre-application consultation between Forewind and the RYA

Date Form of consultation

Statutory/Non-Statutory

Summary

15/03/2012 Email

Non-Statutory

Hazard Workshop: The RYA was invited to Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Hazard Workshop but did not attend. Dogger Bank Zone/Creyke Beck

04/05/2012 Meeting

Non-Statutory

Use of Recreational Vessels: A meeting was held at RWE’s London offices to update the RYA on the Dogger Bank Zone and Dogger Bank Creyke Beck progress. The RYA gave their views on wind farms and recreational vessel use as well as on cable burial, safety zones and tip height above sea level. Dogger Bank Zone/Creyke Beck

17/05/2012 Email

Non-Statutory

Cumulative Impact: Distribution of the South North

Sea Offshore Wind Forum’s (SNSOWF)

Cumulative Impact Report.

Dogger Bank Zone

05/05/2013 Workshop

Non-Statutory

Hazard Workshop: Dogger Bank Teesside A & B

Hazard Workshop

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B

17/05/2013 Email

Non-Statutory

Array Layouts: Email from the RYA to Forewind

requesting more information upon the benefits of

curved layouts and dense perimeters.

Dogger Bank Zone

24/05/2013 Email

Non-Statutory

Array Impacts: Reply to email on 17 May 2013 with

Forewind’s response on layout design, wake

effects and turbulence.

Dogger Bank Zone

20/11/2013 Consultation

Response

Statutory

Phase 2 Statutory Consultation: Forewind received

the RYAs section 42 consultation response on the

draft application documents.

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B



17/02/2014 Report

Non-Statutory

Cumulative Impact: Forewind, as a member of the

Southern North Sea Offshore Wind Forum

(SNSOWF), circulated an updated cumulative

impact report to navigational stakeholders.

Dogger Bank Zone

Table 2.2 Summary of post-submission consultation between Forewind and the RYA

Date Form of consultation

Summary

20/05/2014 Email Email requesting confirmation of receipt of final application

DVD and to engage with the RYA in a SoCG.

28/05/2014 Phone Call Phone call confirming receipt of application DVD and set

meeting date to discuss SoCG.

12/06/2014 Meeting

Meeting to provide an update on Dogger Bank Teesside A

& B application and discuss SoCG and the RYAs relevant

representation.



3. Matters of Specific Agreement

3.1. Matters of Specific Agreement in relation to Shipping & Navigation

ID Statement on which Forewind seek agreement Forewind Stakeholder

A. Guidance and Consultation

3-A-1 All the appropriate national and international legislative requirements for the assessment of

impacts on shipping and navigation Including recreational craft) are listed in paragraphs

2.1.1 – 2.1.2 of Chapter 16 of the ES Shipping and Navigation (ref 6.16).

Agreed Agreed

3-A-2 The principal guidance documents used to inform the assessment of potential effects on

shipping and navigation are listed in paragraph 2.1.3 of Chapter 16 of the ES (ref 6.16)

and are appropriate for this assessment.

Agreed Agreed

3-A-3 It is agreed that Forewind has adequately consulted with the RYA throughout the pre-

application stage and commit to continued consultation into post-submission and future

zone development.

Agreed Agreed

B. Methodology (including Cumulative Impact Assessment)

3-B-1 The NRA for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B (Appendix 16A of the ES (ref 6.16)) has been

undertaken in line with the requirements set out in the Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 371 –

Guidance on UK Navigational Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues and the

MCAs approved Methodology for Assessing Marine Navigational Safety Risks and the RYAs

position paper on offshore wind.

Agreed Agreed

3-B-2 The data sources used in assessing the baseline recreational navigation activities, as listed

in section 6 of the NRA (ref 6.16.1), are appropriate.

Agreed Agreed

3-B-3 The marine traffic survey methodology, as described in section 8 of the NRA (ref 6.16.1), is

agreed.

Agreed Agreed




C. Existing Environment

3-C-1 It is agreed that the baseline described in section 18 of the NRA (Ref 6.16.1) is an accurate

reflection of the existing environment. The SNSOWF report undertaken in 2011 and updated

in 2013 shows that traffic routeing within and in proximity to the Dogger Bank is low

compared to other areas.

Agreed Agreed

3-C-2 It is agreed that recreational vessel activity in the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B study area,

as described in section 18.9 of the NRA (ref 6.16.1), is relatively low compared to other

areas of UK waters with only one recreation vessel recorded on Radar during the survey

undertaken.

Agreed Agreed

D. Assessment of Impacts – Worst Case Definition

3-D-1 The worst case scenario, as defined in Table 5.1 of Chapter 16 of the ES (ref 6.16), is

appropriate for the EIA.

Agreed Agreed

3-D-2 It is agreed that the option for curved arrays have been removed from the layout rules, as

described in section 5.2 of Chapter 5 of the ES (ref 6.5) and it is agreed that the ‘worst

case layout’ assessed in the impact assessments using straight rows of arrays is

appropriate. As such, concerns raised in the RYA’s relevant representation (Appendix 1)

regarding curved arrays are no longer applicable.

Agreed Agreed

3-D-3 It is agreed that the Search and Rescue (SAR) and shipping & navigation community,

represented in the form of Nautical and Offshore Renewable Energy Liaison Group

(NOREL) are satisfied with the inclusion of curved arrays in the design envelope, subject to

one line of orientation being in place. It is therefore agreed that Forewind’s decision to

remove curved arrays from the layout rules (3-D-2), is a positive mitigation measure

undertaken by Forewind.

Agreed Agreed

E. Wind Farm Construction

3-E-1 It is agreed that the use of a safety zone with a radius of 500m around any proposed Agreed Agreed




construction activity is appropriate.

E. Wind Farm Operation

3-E-1 It is agreed that the use of a safety zone with a radius of 500m around any major

maintenance activity is appropriate during the operational phase, subject to justification of its

requirement at the time of its application.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-2 It is agreed that the use of a safety zone with a radius of 500m around any manned platform

is appropriate during the operational phase, subject to justification of its requirement at the

time of its application.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-3 It is agreed that the increased level of Search and Rescue capability provided for wind farm

operation and maintenance teams would be of benefit to the yachting community sailing on

Dogger Bank as existing Search and Rescue capabilities at this distance offshore are

limited.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-4 It is agreed that the undertaker of the DCO shall abide by all relevant recommendations

advised in MGN 371, and this is adequately secured by requirement 11(3) of the DCO as

submitted (ref 3.1).

Agreed Agreed

3.2. Matters unresolved in relation to Shipping and Navigation

3.2.1 There are no issues unresolved between Forewind and the RYA in relation to Shipping and Navigation.



5. Appendices

Appendix 1 – RYA Relevant Representation

Appendix 2 – Forewind Point by Point Response to RYA Relevant Representation



Appendix 1 – RYA Relevant Representation

The RYA is content that its concerns and position on operational safety zones, layout and export

cable burial and landfall are reflected in Table 2.2 of Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement on

Shipping and Navigation.

The RYA recognises that the offshore project layout depends on a number of factors set out in

Chapter five and will be finalised in consultation with relevant stakeholders (MMO, MCA and THLS)

should development consent be granted. A number of layout options have been offered for

consideration in the Environmental Statement, however, these have been included to provide clear

examples of layouts which are compatible with the applicant’s layout rules, and are therefore merely

illustrate the types of layouts which could be implemented within final project designs. The RYA

would have expected greater clarity on the layout at this stage and a clear indication of

unobstructed lines of orientation.

We have previously commented that we commend Forewind for developing its own Wind Turbine

Array Layout Rules at Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement these do not have the authority of

the Methodology for Assessing the Marine Navigational Safety & Emergency Response Risks of OREI

or MGN 371. For that reason we remain unconvinced that curved layouts provide a readily

understandable pattern within a site layout for either the mariner or for Search and Rescue assets.

Curved layouts also have the potential to be confusing for any vessel that is not restricted from

navigating within the wind farm.

That said, the RYA notes that in line with the layout rules set out in the navigational risk assessment,

the worst case layout that is risk assessed at figure 10.2 is based on a regular straight line grid albeit

with dense boundaries thus the uncertainties of curved lines and any risks that these induce have

not been specifically considered.


F-OFC-CH-051_RYA_OF_3.1 Page 18 © 2014 Forewind

Appendix 2 – Forewind Point by Point Response to RYA Relevant Representation

August 2014

Point by Point Relevant Representation Response: RYA


© 2014 Forewind

Contents

1. Chapter 16 Shipping & Navigation ............................................................................ 5


4


5

1. Chapter 16 Shipping & Navigation

1.1 The RYA is content that its concerns and position on operational safety zones, layout and export cable burial and landfall are reflected in Table 2.2 of Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement on Shipping and Navigation. 1.2 This is acknowledged by Forewind. 1.2 The RYA recognises that the offshore project layout depends on a number of factors set out in Chapter five and will be finalised in consultation with relevant stakeholders (MMO, MCA and THLS) should development consent be granted. A number of layout options have been offered for consideration in the Environmental Statement, however, these have been included to provide clear examples of layouts which are compatible with the applicant’s layout rules, and are therefore merely illustrate the types of layouts which could be implemented within final project designs. The RYA would have expected greater clarity on the layout at this stage and a clear indication of unobstructed lines of orientation. 1.3 The final site layout rules as defined within section 5.4 of Chapter 16 Shipping and Navigation of the ES (ref 6.16) have been developed and agreed in consultation with stakeholders and discussed at the hazard workshop. The layout rules will apply to the final proposed array layout and will restrict the array patterns employed to reduce the risk to navigational safety. The layout rules relating to the pattern and regularity of wind turbines are detailed in section 5.4.2 of Chapter 16 Shipping and Navigation of the ES (ref 6.16). In summary the layout rules state that ‘The position of all wind turbines, collector substation platforms, converter substation platforms and accommodation platforms shall, so far as is practicable, be arranged in straight lines (to a tolerance of ±150m) in an easily understandable pattern within individual wind farm site layouts, avoiding structures which break this pattern and without any dangerously projecting peripheral structures.’ The reason for this is to facilitate safe navigation and to aid the location of casualties or incidents during emergency response situations. Forewind note the comment that the RYA would have expected greater clarity on the layout at this stage, however, Forewind would like to reiterate that at this stage flexibility is required to optimise wind turbine arrays allowing for issues such as local geology, seabed obstacles and energy capture. Forewind note that the final site layout will be signed off by the MMO prior to commencement of the development, as secured in the DCO requirement 7(2). 1.4 We have previously commented that we commend Forewind for developing its own Wind Turbine Array Layout Rules at Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement these do not have the authority of the Methodology for Assessing the Marine Navigational Safety & Emergency Response Risks of OREI or MGN 371. For that reason we remain unconvinced that curved layouts provide a readily understandable pattern within a site layout for either the mariner or for Search and Rescue assets. Curved layouts also have the potential to be confusing for any vessel that is not restricted from navigating within the wind farm. 1.5 Forewind would like to clarify and confirm that curved arrays have been removed from the Rochdale envelope. This is detailed within section 5.4 of Chapter 16 Shipping


6

and Navigation of the ES (ref 6.16). The removal of curved arrays from the envelope was undertaken in response to the concerns raised by shipping and navigation stakeholders, including the RYA. Forewind note that since the submission of the RYAs Relevant Representation, Forewind met with the RYA on 12 June 2014 to clarify this matter further. The RYA have now reached an agreement with Forewind that curved arrays have been removed from the layout rules and that the worst case layout, as assessed in the impact assessment, is based on straight rows (3-D-2 of Statement of Common Ground between Forewind and the RYA). Forewind also note that NOREL are now satisfied with the inclusion of curved arrays in the design envelope, subject to one line of orientation being in place. 1.6 That said, the RYA notes that in line with the layout rules set out in the navigational risk assessment, the worst case layout that is risk assessed at figure 10.2 is based on a regular straight line grid albeit with dense boundaries thus the uncertainties of curved lines and any risks that these induce have not been specifically considered. 1.7 As stated in the response provided in paragraph 1.5 Forewind have removed curved arrays from the design envelope which has been clarified with the RYA. Forewind note that although the option for curved arrays is removed from the Rochdale envelope the option for curved boundaries remains.

statement of common ground between forewind and the royal ...... · at rwe’s london offices to...

Documents