Navitus Bay Wind Park Order

PINS Ref: EN010024

Statement of Common Ground

(1) Navitus Bay Development Limited

(2) Hanson Aggregates Marine Limited

(2) Lafarge Tarmac Marine Limited

Signed

Name Louise Mann

Position Marine Licensing Manager

For Hanson Aggregates Marine Limited

Signed

Name Dr Andrew Bellamy

Position Resources Manager

For Larfarge Tarmac Marine Limited

Date

Signed

Name Stuart Grant

Position Senior Project Manager

For Navitus Bay Development Limited

Date

Contents

1 Introduction

2 The Development

3 Application elements of interest to Hanson Aggregates Marine Limited and

Lafarge Tarmac Marine Limited

4 Consultation with Hanson Aggregates Marine Limited and Lafarge Tarmac

Marine Limited

5 Matters agreed

6 Matters for discussion

7 Matters not agreed

Appendices

1 Chart of marine aggregate license / application areas in relation to project

boundaries

2 HAML letter 1st Oct 2013

3 LTML Letter 24th Sept 2013

1 Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) has been prepared in respect of Navitus Bay

Development Limited’s (the Applicant) application for development consent to the Planning

Inspectorate (PINS) under the Planning Act 2008 (the Application).

1.2 This SoCG with Hanson Aggregates Marine Limited (HAML) and Lafarge Tarmac Marine Limited

(LTML) is a means of clearly stating any areas of agreement and disagreement between the

three parties in relation to the Application. The SoCG has been structured to reflect topics of

interest to the HAML AND LTML on the Application.

1.1 The structure of the SoCG is as follows:

Consultation with the HAML and LTML

Matters agreed;

Matters for discussion; and

Matters not agreed.

1.2 Throughout this SOCG the phrase “It is agreed…” is used as a precursor to any point of

agreement that has been specifically stated by agreement between the Applicant and HAML and

LTML. The phrase “It is not agreed…” is used as a precursor to any point that the Applicant and

the HAML and LTML wish to clearly state as not yet agreed. Points that are “not agreed” will be

the subject of ongoing discussion wherever possible to resolve, or refine, the extent of

disagreement between the parties.

2 The Development

2.1 The Application is for development consent to construct and operate the proposed Navitus Bay

Wind Park, which comprises up to 194 wind turbine generators and associated infrastructure,

with an installed capacity of up to 970 MW (the Project). The proposed wind farm will cover an

offshore area of approximately 153 km2 and will connect to the National Grid via underground

cables to the power station at Mannington in Dorset.

2.2 The DCO, if made, would be known as the Navitus Bay Wind Park Order. It will comprise the

following elements:

2.2.1 Offshore wind turbines and foundations (up to 194 wind turbines to provide an

installed capacity of up to 970 MW).

2.2.2 Up to one meteorological mast.

2.2.3 Up to three offshore substations.

2.2.4 Undersea cables between the wind turbines, meteorological mast and offshore

substations.

2.2.5 Up to 6 offshore undersea export cables to transmit electricity from the offshore

substations to the shore.

2.2.6 A landfall located at the Taddiford Gap between Barton-on-Sea and Milford-on-Sea

with onshore transition joint bays to connect the offshore and onshore cables.

2.2.7 Up to 6 onshore underground cable circuits with joint bays to transmit electricity to a

new onshore substation.

2.2.8 An onshore substation on land in the vicinity of the existing National Grid substation

at Mannington, Dorset and up to 2 underground cable circuits to connect the offshore

wind farm to the National Grid.

2.2.9 The permanent and/or temporary compulsory acquisition of land and/or rights for the

Project.

2.2.10 Overriding of easements and other rights over or affecting land for the Project.

2.2.11 The application and/or disapplication of legislation relevant to the Project including

inter alia legislation relating to compulsory purchase.

2.2.12 Such ancillary, incidental and consequential provisions, permits or consents as are

necessary and/or convenient.

2.3 The Application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014 and accepted for

examination on 8 May 2014.

3 Application elements covered by this Statement of Common Ground

3.1 HAML and LTML jointly extract aggregates from active licensed marine aggregate extraction area 127 to the north of the Turbine Area and have the rights set out below to 6 new application areas for potential future extraction operations to the east of the Turbine Area

Area 500/1 (under joint option by LTML and HAML);

Area 500/2 (under joint option by LTML and HAML)

Area 500/3 (under option by LTML);

Area 500/4 (under option by LTML);

Area 500/5 (under option by HAML);

Area 500/6 (under option by HAML).

Refer to Appendix 1 for chart of license areas.

4 Consultation with HAML and LTML

Pre-Application

4.1 The Applicant engaged with the HAML and LTML on the Project during the pre-application

process, both in terms of informal non-statutory engagement and formal consultation carried out

pursuant to section 42 of the Planning Act 2008.

4.2 During formal consultation, HAML and LTML issued letters confirming agreement that the project

boundary took into consideration aggregate industry safety buffers and highlighted mitigation

required for two areas of the export route that did not meet the 500m buffers. HAML letter is

included in Appendix 2 and LTML letter in Appendix 3.

4.3 Pre application stakeholder engagement with the HAML and LTML relevant to Navitus Bay is

detailed in the table below.

Date Form of Consultation Summary

Tarmac Marine

Dredging Ltd

(Tarmac), July

2011 to May

2013

Meeting Meetings have been held to discuss the

existing licensed and application aggregates

areas and also the buffer zone applicable to

marine aggregate extraction areas

Hanson

Aggregate

Marine

Ltd (HAML),

January 2012 to

May 2013

Meeting Meetings have been held to discuss the

existing licensed and application aggregates

areas, and also the buffer zone applicable to

marine aggregate extraction areas.

Post Application Position

4.4 LTML made a relevant representation on the Application to the Planning Inspectorate on 10th

June 2014 (the Relevant Representation). A summary of the comments contained in the

Relevant Representation with the Applicant’s response is set out in the table below.

4.5 HAML have not submitted a representation to the Planning Inspectorate.

LTML Comment Applicant

Response

LTML Position HAML Position

LTM is satisfied with the

mitigation proposed by NBD

with regards to aggregate

extraction.

Agreed Accepted Accepted

It should be noted however

that LTM stresses the

importance of cables being

laid a suitable distance

away from aggregate

licence boundaries to

ensure that they are not

snagged by the dredging

activities. Furthermore LTM

requests the following

points are considered as

appropriate mitigation:

Agreed Accepted Accepted

1) Cables should be

appropriately buried or

armoured to avoid them

from being snagged and

dragged into the aggregate

licence areas where they

overlap the buffer zone

Agreed Accepted Accepted

2) GIS shapefiles to be

provided to LTM displaying

the location of the cable in

relation to the licence

areas. These files will be

kept up to date as and

when maintenance occurs.

. Agreed Accepted Accepted

LTML Comment Applicant

Response

LTML Position HAML Position

3) If maintenance work is

required on the cables post-

construction, when relaying

the cable all effort to be

made to ensure that any

excess cable is laid away

from the aggregate licence

areas and not closer to

them

Agreed Accepted Accepted

5 Matters Agreed

Matter LTML HAML Applicant

For the turbine area the

boundary takes into account the

required aggregate industry

safety buffers and no further

mitigation is required.

Agreed Agreed Agreed

For the export cable area the

boundary takes into account the

required aggregate industry

safety buffers for the majority of

the active/planned extraction

areas save for two locations on

Area 127 where only a 400m

buffer is achieved. This is

acceptable provided the 3

mitigations listed in 4.4 Post

Application Position are

implemented.

Agreed Agreed Agreed

6 Matters for Discussion

6.1 There are not any matters still undergoing discussion between HAML and LTML and the Applicant.

7 Matters Not Agreed

7.1 There are not any matters not agreed between HAML and LTML and the Applicant

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3