Power the Nation, Preserve Suffolk Coastal. That's what Therese has been campaigning for ever since the Suffolk coast was threatened by numerous onshore connections for offshore wind farms. Recognising that Suffolk is already taking its fair of energy infrastructure with the construction of Sizewell C. Therese has been clear that brownfield sites closer to London, where the electricity is needed, should be prioritised instead of sub-stations, convertor stations and cable corridors in the Suffolk countryside.
Over the last 5 years Therese has:
- Made written and verbal representations to the Planning Inspectorate.
- Proactively responded to National Grid consultations suggesting alternatives.
- Met the Prime Minister, Energy Secretary and other senior Ministers to lobby for a change to the National Energy Policy – which is now happening.
- Spoken in Parliament on numerous occasions to lobby for further change.
- Set up the Offshore Electricity-Grid Taskforce (OffSET) with other East Anglian MPs.
- Organised and spoken at a number of public meetings to keep constituents informed.
- Supported SEAS, SASES and the Parish Councils in their campaign for a proper Offshore Grid, limiting onshore infrastructure.
24 May 2024
Therese asks for Moratorium on Further Energy Connections in Parliamentary Debate
Therese repeated her request for a moratorium on energy connections on the Suffolk Coast during a debate in the House of Commons last night. Pressing all the way up to the dissolution of Parliament that the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan must be completed before any further connections are offered.
Therese said: “I’ve been concerned for some time about the lack of vision in using new technology to avoid the devastation on the landscape that energy infrastructure, convertor stations and substations would have on the Suffolk Coast. Instead we should be doing everything we can get connections on brownfield sites – such as Bradwell or the Isle of Grain - closer to where the electricity is needed. The voices of the residents of Friston and other affected communities need to be listened to.”
In his response to the debate, the Minister of State for Energy, Justin Tomlinson praised the OffSET (Offshore Electricity-Grid Taskforce) Group of East Anglian MPs and committed to an urgent review of National Grid ESO’s assumptions.
Therese added: “I’m grateful to the Minister for his positive response to our request and I will continue pressing the case with my OffSET colleagues, James Cartlidge and Bernard Jenkin.”
You can watch Therese's full contribution here.
2 May 2024
Therese asks for Moratorium on Further Energy Connections in Parliamentary Debate
Therese spoke in a debate in Parliament on pylons and upgrades to the National Grid - taking the opportunity to ask for a moratorium on any further energy connections along the Suffolk coast until the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan is completed. She also drew attention to the extensive work of organisations like Suffolk Energy Action Solutions - SEAS and advocated the benefits of brownfield sites for energy hubs - such as Bradwell or the Isle of Grain - closer to the energy demand. The voices of the residents of Friston and other affected communities need to be listened to.
You can watch Therese's full speech here.
29 March 2024
Therese Speaks in Delegated Legislation Committee on Energy Policy
Therese spoke at length in the Delegated Legislation Committee, which was considering the Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy. She outlined in detail the current issues facing East Suffolk and what she thinks should be done to improve the planning, regulatory and connection framework to ensure onshore infrastructure is built in the right locations.
You can watch Therese's full contribution here.
8 March 2024
Therese Responds to National Grid's LionLink Proposals
National Grid Ventures have published their supplementary non-statutory consultation response to Lionlink, which includes a proposal for landfall into either Southwold or Walberswick with a huge converter station at Saxmundham and substation at Friston.
Therese said: "I completely oppose NGV’s proposals and continue to make the case to National Grid ESO and government ministers that brownfield sites closer to London should be used instead, especially as a majority of the power will then be transported to London and the southeast. Now that Ofgem is not supporting the Nautilus project, I call on National Grid to investigate the Isle of Grain as their landing point for Lionlink, which they were previously investigating for Nautilus. Ultimately, though, there is still a long way to go before final permissions are granted, including NGV having to undertake a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment. That will not be easy for them to justify considering the impact this would have on the specially protected sites in the Blyth Estuary. I am already engaging with statutory bodies such as Natural England on their response to these proposals. It is welcome that NGV is no longer considering the other sites along the coast, though I recognise that Sealink is still a threat."
You can view NGV’s consultation response here.
17 January 2024
Therese Presses the PM to get National Grid to publish their Study of Bradwell
Therese pressed the Prime Minister on National Grid refusing to publish their study of Bradwell as a potential landfall site for cables and interconnectors for offshore wind instead of burdening the Suffolk coast with yet more energy infrastructure at PMQS today.
Speaking in the House of Commons she said: “I know the Prime Minister is committed to energy security and the development of renewables as am I. Only this week, Sizewell started its construction process. However, there is plenty of other infrastructure planned where National Grid plan to use compulsory purchase orders to plough up farmland used for food and tree production, when there are brownfield sites already available connected to the network. National Grid is refusing to publish its study of Bradwell on why they deem it would not be suitable.”
In his reply, the Prime Minister said that “it was important to listen to the views of local communities” and gave his assurances that the relevant ministers are paying close attention to her concerns.
Speaking afterwards, Therese said: “It must be logical to try and prioritise brownfield sites with existing connections to the electricity network over greenfield sites on the Suffolk coast and whilst I’m pleased that National Grid will finally now be undertaking a comparative study, they are still refusing to publish their previous study in full. I’m grateful to the Prime Minister for his response today and I hope it will help persuade National Grid to do the right thing.”
You can watch Therese's PMQ here.
16 January 2024
Therese Demands National Grid Publish its Full Assessment of Bradwell
Today in Parliament, Therese asked the Energy Minister to require National Grid to fully publish their assessment so far of Bradwell as a potential landfall site for cables and interconnectors for offshore wind. She said that it must be 'logical to try and prioritise brownfield sites with existing connections to the electricity network' over greenfield sites on the Suffolk coast. Especially as Suffolk is already taking its fair share of future energy production with the construction of Sizewell C. She will continue to demand answers on this.
Watch Therese's question here.
9 January 2024
Therese Presses National Grid on Comparative Study
Therese attended an important meeting with National Grid ESO this afternoon to press them on the scope of their comparative study, assessing the environmental aspects of Bradwell as a landing point for Sea Link with Aldeburgh/Friston.
Therese said: "I’ve been calling on National Grid to undertake a proper comparative study for some time now and I’m pleased that is now going to happen. I will continue to press the case that onshore connections for offshore wind should be placed on brownfield land"
Watch Therese's video from the meeting on YouTube here. Her response to the Sealink consultation can be found here.
18 December 2023
Therese Opposes Completely Unacceptable proposals in the Sealink Consultation
Therese has today opposed the ‘completely unacceptable’ proposals put forward in the latest Sealink consultation, designed to transport offshore wind power from East Suffolk to the Kent coast and has questioned the need for more onshore infrastructure in the county when alternatives are available. The consultation proposals recommend landfall into Aldeburgh with underground cabling to a convertor station to the southeast of Saxmundham then further cabling into a substation at Friston, which is currently subject to a judicial review.
Therese said: “I have been clear and continue to press the case that onshore connections for offshore wind should be placed on brownfield land, especially as East Suffolk will already be hosting the new Sizewell C nuclear power station. The Sealink proposals and the impact they will have on our precious landscapes and the quality of people’s lives are completely unacceptable when alternatives are available. I also question the overall need for Sealink. There is absolutely no need to deviate power generated offshore into Suffolk if its final destination is the South East.”
Therese added: “The inclusion of Sealink in the government’s Offshore Coordination Support Scheme process also opens the door for a complete re-evaluation of this project. Coordination with Five Estuaries and North Falls will likely mean a very different project to what is being consulted upon and so will need to be consulted upon again or risk further judicial reviews. The recent National Grid ESO written commitment to look at offshore alternatives to pylons across East Anglia reinforces the point that power needs to come ashore closer to the population it is intended to serve.”
“I, therefore, strongly urge National Grid Electricity Transmissions to look for alternative landfall sites away from the Suffolk coast. This could be into the Isle of Grain, as is being explored for Nautilus or Bradwell.”
I am Dr Thérèse Coffey, Member of Parliament for Suffolk Coastal. I commend the submissions made by Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk District Council. Officers and councillors have worked hard on the technical detail. I also commend the submissions by several local parish and town councils, including Aldeburgh and Saxmundham – the two most affected areas. Finally, I commend the efforts of SEAS and their submission.
You can read Therese’s full consultation response below:
"I responded to the initial Sealink consultation in December 2022, opposing all the proposed landfall sites, cable corridors and converter stations, which if constructed would have a devastating impact on our precious landscapes and have a profound impact in the quality of people’s lives here in East Suffolk.
I have been clear and continue to press the case that onshore connections for offshore wind should be placed on brownfield land. I am, therefore, incredibly disappointed that this latest consultation recommends landfall into Aldeburgh with underground cabling to a convertor station to the southeast of Saxmundham then further cabling into a proposed substation at Friston, which is currently subject to a judicial review. These proposals are completely unacceptable when alternatives are available and I, once again, formally oppose them via this consultation response.
I also question the overall need for Sealink. Ultimately, Sealink is being proposed as a response to resilience for energy in the South East and London, not the East of England, as backup or insurance in layman terms. First, I question if this insurance is truly necessary – especially given the timings of other projects for the future. This project feels premature at best. Furthermore, if changes are to be made onshore, improvements should be made in Kent, Surrey and Sussex for resilience rather than the undersea cabling proposed between Suffolk and Kent. Alternative technology is also possible through a series of offshore grids, like we see on the continent, making landfall further down the coast where the power is needed. There is absolutely no need to deviate power generated offshore into Suffolk if its final destination is the South East.
If it is deemed necessary to develop this link now, on the basis that undersea cabling is being proposed for this project, then it should be considered for a shorter connection involving the brownfield site of Bradwell rather than developing high quality agricultural land that is being used currently for the production of food and other horticulture.
I recognise that the inclusion of Sealink in the Offshore Coordination Support Scheme (OCSS) process has only been announced during the current consultation. The OCSS opportunity does open the door for a complete re-evaluation of this project. Considering that is now the case and that that process will explore coordination with Five Estuaries and North Falls, I am concerned that this consultation is proceeding and instead it should be dropped entirely or at least paused. This is especially the case as what we will end up with will likely be a very different project to what is being consulted upon here, and so will need to be consulted upon again or risk further judicial reviews.
If the outcome of the OCSS work determines that Sealink, Five Estuaries and North Falls are coordinated – then I would strongly urge National Grid Electricity Transmissions to look for alternative landfall sites away from the Suffolk coast. This could be into the Isle of Grain, as is being explored for Nautilus, and Bradwell.
I know some work has been done, as described in the option selection and design evolution report, which includes three offshore connection options and one onshore pylon option all with a starting point at Sizewell – with the alternative onshore option dismissed because of lifetime costs. However, I cannot see that any serious work has been done to assess the costs of an offshore transmission network or undertaking a comparative study properly assessing the environmental impact of landfall in Suffolk with brownfield alternatives.
So far, National Grid have not published their rationale for not pursuing the other potential landfall site of Bradwell and I strongly encourage them to do so.
Aside from the OCSS, the recent National Grid ESO written commitment to look at offshore alternatives to pylons across East Anglia reinforces the point that power needs to come ashore closer to the population it is intended to serve.
In their Cabinet discussion on the Sealink proposals, the County Council also recognised the widespread and significant public concern about this project and also pointed to the forthcoming ESO review. They plan to formally write to National Grid ESO asking them to consider alternative proposals, specifically in relation to the suggestions I have previously put forward about Bradwell and the Isle of Grain. I welcome this.
I also express my concern about the extent of compulsory purchases that would be required and the lack of meaningful compensation that has been discussed with landowners.
Suffolk is a flat landscape with considerable agricultural production and multiple designated sites for environmental purposes. As such, the sites proposed for substations and landfall are unsuitable.
- On the edge of Saxmundham, the site proposed for the converter station is at the top of a hill and will dominate the landscape considerably. The current dominant feature is the Grade 2* listed (since 1949) medieval church of St John Baptist. It is not clear that flooding, runoff or drainage problems have been considered in the selection of this site. It is well established agricultural ground that will be lost permanently and may make the rest of the farm unviable.
- The landfall site at Aldeburgh Beach and through RSPB North Warren is particularly fragile. While not directly in the AONB or SSSI, it is adjunct. I am concerned by the impact on wildlife, including migrating birds. I understand it is proposed to cable very low (12m underground) to mitigate but drilling itself is likely to impact this fragile coast.
- The Cable corridor passes through environmentally sensitive areas. It also disrupts existing businesses that will permanently not be able to farm in the same location. Lifetime compensation will be needed.
- Paths and rights of way are likely to be permanently closed.
- Light pollution – recognising the dark skies of this area, with policy designed for lights to be switched off, the extent of light pollution during construction and its permanent use is in complete contrast to the local environment.
- Noise pollution – the permanent noise of the substation will be harmful to residents and drive wildlife away.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I once again oppose the proposals set out in the consultation document. Instead, I encourage National Grid Electricity Transmissions to better explore the other options that are available and take advantage of the opportunities that have now been presented as part of the Offshore Coordination Support Scheme before re-consulting. I will also continue to engage with the Secretary of State and the Energy Minister both individually and through the Offshore Electricity Grid Task Force that I helped set up with other East Anglian MPs on this matter.
If the worst was to happen and National Grid Electricity Transmissions pursues the current proposals to an NSIP application, then at the very least significant changes will have to made to mitigate the impact.
First, the proposed convertor station at Saxmundham needs to be dug into the ground with a proper landscaping plan. The current proposal suggests it is going to be 26 metres high with no conifers or similar providing adequate screening.
Second, after various conversations with local farmers including those in Sternfield and Friston, their concern is that the cables are only going to be 0.9 metres underground. Farmers subject to future compulsory purchase are particularly concerned due to the nature of drainage and the effect of the sandy soil. There is a genuine risk to life if cables can be accessed so readily while farming. Any cabling needs to be at a minimum of 1.5 metres to avoid this (and engineers should explore if it needs to be further). This effectively sterilises a large portion of agricultural land along the proposed route for fear of interfering or damaging the infrastructure. For that reason, I would also encourage National Grid to pursue voluntary rather than compulsory purchase of what is primarily agricultural land to facilitate the cable corridor. It is vitally important that those who want to continue to farm their land can do so.
Third, I specifically associate myself with the technical and highways concerns that the County Council raises in relation to construction constraints."
20 November 2023
Therese Guest Speaker at Energy Infrastructure Public Meeting
Therese has consistently been working with campaign groups like SEAS and SASES to raise concerns about the impact of excessive energy infrastructure on the Suffolk coast and was pleased to be their guest speaker at a public meeting on Friday in Saxmundham.
Therese said: "No longer being part of the government, I can speak far more freely and loudly in my opposition to the proposed onshore infrastructure and support the connection in Bradwell.
Whilst it is now likely that the Nautilus project, which was also planned for the Suffolk coast, will be connected via the Isle of Grain, potentially from a modular offshore grid combining North Falls and Five Estuaries. This should also be considered for Lionlink and Sealink as part of the Offshore Coordination Support Scheme.
I will continue my campaign to try and make that happen by continuing to engage with the Secretary of State and the Energy Minister both individually and through the Offshore Electricity Grid Task Force that I helped set up with other East Anglian MPs - and as I’m not now in government, feel unleashed to accelerate this."
3 November 2023
Therese Visits Proposed Lionlink Landing Site in Southwold & Responds to Consultation
The consultation on Lionlink closed today. Earlier this week, Therese was in Southwold at one of the proposed landing sites, which she thinks is entirely inappropriate for this project.
Therese said: "I have opposed all the options in the consultation. Instead, it is my strong view that onshore energy connections should be placed on brownfield land much further down the coast. Especially as East Suffolk will already be hosting the new Sizewell C nuclear power station."
You can read Therese's full submission below.
26 October 2023
Lion Link Consultation Response
I responded to the initial Eurolink (now Lionlink) consultation in December 2022, opposing all the proposed landfall sites, cable corridors and converter stations, which if constructed would have a devastating impact on our precious landscapes and have a profound impact in the quality of people’s lives here in East Suffolk.
I have been clear and continue to press the case that onshore connections for offshore wind should be placed on brownfield land. I’m, therefore, incredibly disappointed that almost a year on, this latest non-statutory consultation only includes some very limited alternative options, centred around other inappropriate landfall and cable corridor sites at Walberswick and the north of Southwold.
Whilst I’m glad that there is now a commitment to ‘explore the potential for co-location’, that is only any good if the infrastructure is placed in the appropriate location. It is now likely that the Nautilus, North Falls and Five Estuaries projects will have a combined connection via the Isle of Grain potentially from a modular offshore grid. This is good news and clearly the right approach. The same should be done for Lionlink and Sealink and potentially EA1N & EA2 (although I know the latter two already have planning permission, albeit subject to a judicial review), with an onshore connection at Bradwell or similar, closer to the larger scale populations these energy projects will serve.
In my previous consultation response, I referenced the emerging National Policy Statements that make clear that applicants are expected to be able to demonstrate how the optimum onshore connection locations have been identified and how environmental, community and other impacts have been considered. I can’t see how this has yet been achieved without a full assessment of brownfield alternatives that don’t need the extensive cable corridors proposed for East Suffolk.
I’m also surprised that this consultation is taking place before the Offshore Coordination Support Scheme outcomes are known, which could potentially help with the coordination of the above projects in a much more appropriate location away from the Suffolk Coast. This is especially important considering East Suffolk will already be hosting the new Sizewell C nuclear power station.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I once again oppose all the options set out in the consultation document. Instead, I encourage National Grid Ventures to better explore the other options that are available. I will also continue to engage with the Secretary of State and the Energy Minister both individually and through the Offshore Electricity Grid Task Force that I helped set up with other East Anglian MPs on this matter.
18 May 2023
Therese Welcomes Energy Minister to Suffolk
Energy Minister, Andrew Bowie visited east Suffolk today at the request of Therese - to meet local stakeholders concerned about the amount of energy infrastructure planned for the Suffolk Coast. As well as a roundtable meeting in Aldeburgh, Therese showed him directly the concerns she has about potential onshore landing points for offshore wind farms.
Therese said: “I thank the Minister for making the time to visit. It was a good opportunity to show him the local impact of housing around 30% of the UK’s future energy supply on a small stretch of the Suffolk Coast when there are other options available."
Therese added: “While I support the government's desire to have much more renewable energy electricity powering our nation including from windfarms, I have consistently made it clear that it is essential our precious landscapes and communities are protected by placing the onshore infrastructure in the most appropriate location. That’s why I opposed the Friston sub-station, the Nautilus proposals and why I am opposing the options set out in the Eurolink/Lionlink & Sealink consultations. I have previously been clear and pressed the case again with the Minister that onshore connections should be placed on brownfield land - and repeated my request for Bradwell in Essex to be assessed.”
“I’m pleased that the Minister was in listening mode and he intimated that there may be future changes as part of the ongoing Offshore Coordination Support Scheme work. For example, I’m pleased that it is now likely that the Nautilus project will be connected via the Isle of Grain potentially from a modular offshore grid. The same needs to be done for other connections and I will continue to press the case on this.”
29 March 2023
3,800 Sign Petition to Review Suffolk Energy Connections
Therese has today formally submitted her parliamentary petition, which calls for a review of all onshore energy connections along the Suffolk coast, to the House of Commons. The petition signed by 3,821 people requests that a comparative study be undertaken, including brownfield sites, properly assessing the environmental impact before any of the current energy proposals are taken further.
Therese said: “Thank you to everyone who signed my petition. This clearly demonstrates the strength of feeling locally. Although there is an entirely correct government commitment to provide 40GW of offshore wind electricity by 2030, I’ve consistently made it clear that it’s essential our precious landscapes and communities are protected by placing the onshore infrastructure in the most appropriate location. That’s why I opposed the Friston sub-station, the Nautilus proposals and why I’ve recently sent off submissions opposing the options set out in the Eurolink and Sealink consultations. I have been clear and continue to press the case that onshore connections should be placed on brownfield land.”
Therese added: “Whilst I welcome the recent commitment by National Grid ESO to consider “offshore routes” for electricity transmission, it’s clear their review needs to go a step further. Undertaking a proper comparative assessment of the environmental, social and economic impact before these connections proceed any further. Although I recognise National Grid are now investigating the Isle of Grain in Kent as a possible connection for the Nautilus project instead of here on the Suffolk coast. It is my view that this should also be done for both the Eurolink and Sealink proposals.”
Dr Coffey has recently written to both the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps and the new Minister for Networks, Andrew Bowie asking them to investigate Bradwell in Essex as a possible landing point. Not least because she is given to understand that site has a currently dormant connection to the grid.
Therese will continue to engage with Ministers both individually and through the Offshore Electricity Grid Task Force that she helped set up with other East Anglian MPs. As well as with National Grid to push for the onshore infrastructure to be sited in much more appropriate locations.
15 February 2023
Therese Renews Calls for Bradwell to be Investigated
Therese has renewed her call for Bradwell in Essex to be investigated as a possible connection point for offshore wind to help relieve the pressure of energy infrastructure on the Suffolk coast. She repeated the request at the recent Offshore Electricity Grid Task Force meeting (pictured) where East Anglian MPs met Energy Minister, Graham Stuart. She has also followed that up in writing with a letter to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Grant Shapps.
Therese said: “Although there is an entirely correct government commitment to provide 40GW of offshore wind electricity by 2030, I’ve consistently made it clear that it’s essential our precious landscapes and communities are protected by placing the infrastructure in the appropriate location. That’s why I opposed the Friston sub-station and why I’ve made submissions opposing the options set out in the recent Eurolink and Sealink consultations. I have been clear and continue to press the case that onshore connections should be placed on brownfield land.”
Therese added: “Although I’m disappointed that the department has not backed a full review, I recognise that in his recent letter, Graham Stuart has indicated that he wishes to reduce landing points in East Anglia. I particularly welcome the fact that National Grid is now investigating a brownfield site on the Isle of Grain in Kent as a possible connection point for the Nautilus project.”
“Now that Graham Stuart has released himself from the decision-making function for any forthcoming Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, enabling him to actively engage with developers, MPs and other stakeholders on coordination and siting. I think there is a real opportunity for the department to investigate the viability of Bradwell and then potentially promote it. Especially as I am given to understand that the site has a currently dormant connection to the grid.”
Therese’s petition, which calls on the department to carry out a comparative study, has so far received 2,800 signatures.
15 December 2022
Eurolink & Sealink Consultation Response
As the consultations for Eurolink and Sealink are being coordinated and because the two-developer preferred converter station site options for Sealink are the same as options one and three for Eurolink, I am combining my response and submit the following in reply to National Grid Electricity Transmissions and National Grid Ventures in response to both consultations:
Tackling climate change is one of the top priorities for the Government. The UK was the first G7 country to legislate for net-zero by 2050 and the Energy White Paper establishes a permanent shift away from our dependence on fossil fuels, underlining the government’s commitment to providing 40GW of offshore wind electricity by 2030. The same White Paper and the subsequent review of the National Policy Statements for Energy set out that a more coordinated approach to the delivery of onshore electricity transmission infrastructure is required recognising cumulative impact. However, whilst integrating multiple projects is undoubtedly the right thing to do, rather than having separate connections, it’s essential our precious landscapes and communities are protected by placing the infrastructure in the appropriate location.
That’s why I consistently opposed the Friston sub-station for EA1 & EA2, the Nautilus proposals and why I can’t support any of the options set out in the Eurolink and Sealink consultations. I have been clear and continue to press the case that onshore connections should be placed on brownfield land.
Instead of carrying out an inadequate desktop exercise that proposes unworkable landfall sites, unclear routes for cable corridors and massive converter stations that will have a devastating impact on the local environment. National Grid need to undertake a comparative study, including already suggested brownfield sites, like Bradwell in Essex. Properly assessing the environmental, social and economic impact of these connections before proceeding any further.
I welcome the fact that National Grid is now investigating a brownfield site on the Isle of Grain in Kent as a possible connection for the Nautilus project instead of here on the Suffolk coast. It is my view that this should also be done for both Eurolink and Sealink proposals. Not necessarily the Isle of Grain, although that could be an option, but looking in detail at other brownfield alternatives. The fact that it is being done for Nautilus means it can and should be done for both Eurolink and Sealink.
The emerging National Policy Statements are clear that applicants are expected to be able to demonstrate how the optimum onshore connection locations have been identified and how environmental, community and other impacts have been considered.
As this is a non-statutory consultation, meaning there is time before the statutory consultation period that informs the development consent order process then I would expect National Grid to get on with assessing alternatives. If they don’t, then there will be huge challenges – not least from myself – during the planning application but a potential risk as we have seen in the past of judicial review. I, therefore, urge National Grid to do the right thing for Suffolk and properly assess the alternatives before moving these projects onto the next stage.
Dr Thérése Coffey MP
25 November 2022
Therese Launches Energy Petition
Tackling climate change is one of the top priorities for the Government. The UK was the first G7 country to legislate for net-zero by 2050 and the Energy White Paper establishes a permanent shift away from our dependence on fossil fuels, underlining the government’s commitment to providing 40GW of offshore wind electricity by 2030. The same White Paper and the subsequent review of the National Policy Statements for Energy set out that a more coordinated approach to the delivery of onshore electricity transmission infrastructure is required recognising cumulative impact. However, whilst integrating multiple projects is undoubtedly the right thing to do, rather than having separate connections, it’s essential our precious landscapes and communities are protected by placing the infrastructure in the appropriate location.
That’s why I consistently opposed the Friston sub-station, the Nautilus proposals and why I’m planning to oppose the options set out in the Eurolink and Sealink consultations. I have been clear and continue to press the case that onshore connections should be placed on brownfield land. We have had some success on that recently, as National Grid is now investigating the Isle of Grain in Kent as a possible connection for the Nautilus project instead of here on the Suffolk coast. However, the latest consultations propose landfall sites, associated cable corridors and converter stations here in east Suffolk.
I, therefore, want BEIS and National Grid ESO to review all onshore energy connections along the Suffolk coast and instead commit to carrying out a comparative study, including already suggested brownfield sites, like Bradwell in Essex. Properly assessing the environmental impact of these connections before proceeding any further.
But I need YOUR help.
Please sign the petition. Importantly, encourage your friends and family to do likewise. I will then place it into the petitions bag behind the Speaker's Chair.
I hope that with sufficient public support we can get a commitment from Government and National Grid to carry out such a review.
Onshore Energy Connections along the Suffolk Coast"To the House of Commons.
The petition of the people of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area,
Declares that the UK was the first G7 country to legislate for net-zero by 2050, which coupled with an even stronger need for energy independence means a government commitment to provide 40GW of offshore wind electricity by 2030; further declares that emerging government policy including the subsequent review of the National Policy Statements for Energy sets out that a more coordinated approach to the delivery of onshore electricity transmission infrastructure is required recognising cumulative impact; further declares the concerns of the petitioners, that through a mixture of already granted planning consents, proposed landfall sites, cable corridors & convertor stations the huge impact these connections would have on the communities and precious landscape of the Suffolk coast, much of which is in the AONB.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review all onshore energy connections along the Suffolk Coast and carry out a comparative study, including already suggested brownfield sites, properly assessing the environmental impact of these connections before proceeding any further.
And the petitioners remain etc.”
26 October 2021
National Grid Ventures - Nautilus Interconnector Public Consultation
Please see below my response to your consultation on proposals for the Nautilus Interconnector:
Tacking climate change is one of the top priorities for the Government. The UK was the first G7 country to legislate for net-zero by 2050 and the Energy White Paper establishes a permanent shift away from our dependence on fossil fuels, underlining the Prime Minister’s commitment to provide 40GW of offshore wind electricity by 2030. The same White Paper¹ and the subsequent review of the National Policy Statements for Energy² set out that a more coordinated approach to the delivery of onshore electricity transmission infrastructure is required. The role of multi-purpose interconnectors is well established to help resilience. However, whilst integrating multiple projects is undoubtedly the right thing to do, rather than having separate connections, it’s essential our precious landscapes and communities are protected by placing the infrastructure in the appropriate location.
The proposed National Policy Statements for Energy also place an expectation on applicants to demonstrate how the optimum connection locations have been identified. I cannot understand how this has been achieved by National Grid predicating these entire consultation proposals on the proposed substation at Friston, the Development Consent Order for which, having not yet been determined.
I have consistently opposed the Friston substation site throughout its examination hearing on the grounds that it would have a devastating impact on the local environment and the local listed buildings that surround the substation site - with no adequate landscaping - and the cable corridor impacting 9km of sensitive landscape including elements of the AONB. I have strongly recommended that Bradwell in Essex be used instead, helped by its existing substation network.
My biggest concern though was the extent to which the cumulative impact of other energy infrastructure projects were not being taken into account. I note that this consultation has been launched following the end of the EA1 & EA2 examination hearings, which necessitates further development between Friston and the coast, which I don’t think was adequately considered during the hearing. It will come as no surprise then that I object most strongly to your proposals to connect at Friston.
Again, considering these entire proposals are predicated on the connection at Friston, I do not wish to support any of the associated infrastructure, which promotes that connection. However, I know in their submission, Suffolk County Council have used their expert officers to summarise the highly constrained nature of your proposed landfall and converter station sites and cable routes. The findings of which I associate myself with.
Recognising the cumulative impact of this and other pending projects, the long-term capacity of Bradwell as an integrated Wind Energy Hub has significantly greater potential than the Friston site. It is closer to London and on the coast thus negating the need for cable corridors to be dug and re-dug with every future wind farm project attempting to connect to the Grid. It is a brownfield site and in need of development. I would urge National Grid to seriously consider this and for the developer to demand a new connection site.
04 June 2021
EA1N & EA2 Examination
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to speak at the Issue Specific Hearing on the 28th May 2021. I did commit to sending Hansard links regarding some points I made in the submission.
The first is James Cartlidge MP’s questions to the Prime Minister: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-05-19/debates/C4EF032A-1F6B-…
The second is the written ministerial statement from BEIS regarding another application, which I maintain is strongly related to the impact of the Justice Holgate ruling. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/20…
JRs are always about technical elements of whether the law was appropriately followed. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/pearce-v-secretary-of-state-for-busi… https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Pearce-v-BEIS.pdf
As Justice Holgate ruling (41 pages in length) indicates, he held for the plaintiff on both grounds and granted the quashing of that DCO. This was not on some minor technical point as has been asserted during this latest hearing by the QC responding on behalf of the developer. As such, given that the Government has shown no intent of appealing, the legal points laid down by Mr Justice Holgate should be considered in deliberation of whether this proposed DCO takes account of the cumulative impact and I would suggest that as it stands, it does not.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Therese Coffey MP
28 May 2021
EA1N & EA2 Examination - Verbal Submission
Thank you, Mr Smith, for allowing me to speak today – and for providing me, once again, with a specific time slot, which I really appreciate. As I’ve been active throughout this process, both in making verbal and written submissions, I wanted to contribute to the end of the hearing by making a number of brief points and provide an update that I think is still relevant to your consideration of the drafting of the DCO in recognition of what is effectively changing government policy.
Firstly, I wanted to draw the examining authorities’ attention to comments made by the Prime Minister at PMQs on the 19th of May 2021, when responding to my Suffolk colleague, James Cartlidge, firmly backed the need for an offshore transmission grid.
To quote from Hansard:
“As well as building the fantastic windmills, it is vital that we bring the energy onshore in a way that has minimal disruption for local communities and enables us to maximise efficiency."
I put it to the examining authority that this application does not lend itself to fulfilling that clear policy statement from the Prime Minister.
This is further evidence of the government’s policy in this area – which adds to the Prime Minister’s 10 Point Plan, The Prime Minister’s response to Duncan Baker in parliament, the the BEIS Review and the Government’s Energy White Paper. All of which promote greater offshore coordination to protect the environment and reduce the cumulative impact of associated onshore development.
I've already made the examining authority aware of and they will be aware anyway, of Justice Holgate’s ruling when he ruled against the particular project on grounds of cumulative impact, and that not being clearly considered. I’m not aware that the government has decided to appeal that ruling, indeed, in a written statement to Parliament, by the Energy Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan, they've actually postponed the decision making process for the sister project to the one that was quashed, in order to allow for an effect the effects of that ruling to be considered as part of the planning consent process. And that's why I don’t think it’s good enough for the applicant simply not to engage in this developing policy landscape that is rapidly emerging. While I appreciate they are not currently legally required to engage on the potential for sharing transmission, the opportunity is open to them to do so. Even at this stage. Their justification that EA1N and EA2 are to be built out too soon to engage with the 'enduring regime' detracts from what they could achieve if they chose to.
As I pointed out at Deadline 10, the 'enduring regime' is not all that the BEIS Review is about:
The BEIS Review is phased. Stakeholders have been requested by BEIS to come forward with proposals for 'Pathfinder' projects capable of early implementation. In the case of EA1N and EA2, these two projects can share the same technology, share the same developer, which quite possibly would negate the need for changes to legislation and therefore have opportunities to integrate within the existing regime and to engage with the BEIS Review as a 'Pathfinder' project or similar.
Ensuring this happens now would negate the need for cable corridors to be dug and re-dug with every future wind farm project attempting to connect to the Grid here on the Suffolk coast.
This is why I have previously backed a split decision, which would enable an alternative grid connection to be identified that is actually IN LINE WITH the government’s emerging environmental and wind energy policy by ensuring that the onshore infrastructure minimises environmental and community damage.
Whilst not holding up the overall project, it would also give the applicant sufficient time to relook at the alternatives such as at Bradwell and Bramford. A comprehensive justification for which I made in writing at Deadline 10. Demonstrating the technology is available now.
In short, in order for the Applicant’s proposals to adhere to the emerging government policy of greater offshore coordination to protect our environment - which has been backed again at the highest level in Parliament this month. Then the onshore aspects of these projects must be rejected in favour of a grid connection which offers the capacity to integrate multiple projects without having a devastating impact on local communities and our precious landscpaes.
That is why might in my view, the aspects of the onshore DCO that has been drafted, should be reconsidered, to anticipate an alternative which will certainly help us fulfil the ruling in effect given by Justice Holgate. I just want to thank you, I will be putting in a further written submission, or I expect to collate some of those comments further together with some references to Hansard to help inform the examining authority. What I don't have the ability to do is to share the minutes of the meeting. But certainly Suffolk and Norfolk MPs have had regular meetings now with the Minister, also with Ofgem and National Grid on ways forward on how we believe that these sorts of projects specifically this project, can actually be part of that Pathfinder approach and we think it's a very worthy candidate to do so. Thank you very much.
2 May 2021
EA1N & EA2
Dear Rynd Smith,
I write ahead of deadline 10 to respond to the comments made by the applicants to my deadline 8 submission.
Technology
Scottish Power Renewables claim that:
“The current schemes could not be built utilising a single HVDC connection. This is due to technology and transmission entry constraints.”
It’s clear from the submissions that SEAS have previously made that they do not agree with this statement. Indeed, the applicant's own East Anglia Three project is due to be 1.4 GW and HVDC. The HVDC technology is clearly available to Scottish Power Renewables.
'Pathfinder' Project
SASES’ has outlined an alternative, possible ''Pathfinder'' project, using HVDC technology to connect EA1N and EA2 windfarms by a coordinated 1.7 GW HVDC Bipole link from an offshore platform to Bramford NGET substation, via a single cable trench from Bawdsey landfall to Bramford NGET substation. This is outlined in their Updated SASES Pathfinder Clarification Note at deadline 9. This alternative could use the existing cable corridor to include cables for both EA1N and EA2 to an existing National Grid substation site, at which the applicant already owns land. This option would cause substantially less environmental damage and economic damage to local communities.
Bradwell
Scottish Power Renewables state that:
“It would have required a very significant overhead transmission reinforcement and would not have been deliverable within the timescales. It would not pass the legal requirements for an OFTO scheme of being an economic and efficient connection.”
The long-term capacity of Bradwell as an integrated Wind Energy Hub has significantly greater potential then the Friston site. It is closer to London and on the coast thus negating the need for cable corridors to be dug and re-dug with every future wind farm project attempting to connect to the Grid. It is a brownfield site and in need of development. Whilst the overhead pylon lines will need upgrading and reinforcing at some cost, there will in turn be cost savings from using fewer trenches and cables. Furthermore the cost benefits from integration have been documented in NGESO's Offshore Coordination Phase 1 Final Report which says that:
"Adopting an integrated approach for all offshore projects to be delivered from 2025 has the potential to save consumers approximately £6 billion, or 18 per cent, in capital and operating expenditure between now and 2050."
Integration and the BEIS Review
The Applicants' response to requests for them to engage in the BEIS Review and the
emerging government policy of integration is:
"The enduring transmission scheme is likely to take until 2030 to deliver. This is beyond the project timelines".
This may be the case for the 'enduring regime' where multiple HVDC projects from
different developers are integrated offshore. But this is not all that the BEIS Review is about. The BEIS Review is phased. Stakeholders have been requested by BEIS to come forward with proposals for 'Pathfinder' projects capable of early implementation. In the case of EA1N and EA2, these two projects can share the same technology, share the same developer (which quite possibly would negate the need for changes to legislation) and therefore have opportunities to integrate within the existing regime and to engage with the BEIS Review as a 'Pathfinder' project or similar. As outlined in SASES response:
“SPR is well placed to integrate these projects and reduce the harm to
the environment. This does not require a ring main or shared assets but runs with the government's energy policy. It enables an alternative grid location to be brought forward with less damaging impacts on our environment and coastal communities in line with the White Paper and BEIS Review.”
Offshore Wind Targets
The applicant justifies the urgency of these projects by referencing the government's intensification of the need for the delivery of large volumes of offshore wind capacity. However, these renewable energy targets cannot be isolated from the government's policy on protecting our natural environment as outlined in the government's 10-point plan and indeed in the energy White Paper, which says:
“We will safeguard our cherished landscapes, restore habitats for wildlife in order to
combat biodiversity loss and adapt to climate change, all whilst creating green jobs.”
SEAS’ deadline 8 comments on the Changing Policy Environment sum this up that:
"The pressing need for renewable energy does not justify the failure to consider the
government's environmental policy. This consistent directive is now echoed within the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial arms of government. The onshore aspects of these projects, as they currently stand, fly in the face of the Prime Minister’s 10 Point Plan, the Prime Minister’s response to Duncan Baker, the BEIS Review, the Government Energy White Paper, the Dasgupta Review and nearly every report written on Network Transmission in the last 10 years. It is now irrational to say that the policy environment is not one of greater offshore coordination to protect our environment."
The Split Decision
The applicant states that:
“Awarding the Projects consent on the basis of a split decision would achieve nothing. Such a project could not bid into a CfD Auction and the engagement of supply chain would stop. Without confidence about delivery, suppliers would cease to engage.”
As per SEAS’ deadline 5 submission, a split decision would, of course, necessitate another DCO to be put forward for the onshore aspect of these works before bidding in CfD. Although given the extension of the examinations, these projects might come too late for the next round of CfD to be opened later this year in any event. If, as has previously been the case, another CfD is not held for another two years, a split decision would give the applicant time to submit a proposal in line with the governments emerging environmental and wind energy policy by ensuring that the onshore infrastructure minimises its environmental and community damage.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Therese Coffey MP
14 December 2020
EA1N & EA2
Dear Rynd Smith,
I write following the verbal submissions made on my behalf by Phil North during the Issue Specific Hearings on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd December 2020.
During the discussion on ‘developments in energy policy’, Phil North referenced the adjournment debate which took place in Parliament on the 5th November 2020, where the Minister of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Kwasi Kwarteng said that “the argument for some form of offshore network review had been won.” The Minister was, of course, referring to a system of integrated and coordinated connections as set out in the National Grid Offshore Network Review that he initiated. As I have already pointed out in previous submissions, the review states that “the majority of the technology required for integrated design is available now” and that ‘”some changes to achieve an integrated network can take place within the current regime.”
Indeed, as Phil North also referenced, SPR think the technology is already available too, hence their commitment to undersea cabling as part of the Scotland to England ‘super-highway’, bringing energy onshore in an integrated way. If they are committing to that elsewhere then I would suggest they could provide undersea cabling to onshore the energy connection for EA1 & EA2 at a more appropriate site, closer to a centre of population. In the past I’ve referenced the brownfield site at Bradwell.
As the adjournment debate was referenced in the issue specific hearings, you requested that I send the Hansard link and copy of the debate as evidence for you and your team to consider. I have also attached the Guardian article that refers to the Scotland to England ‘superhighway’.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Therese Coffey MP
27 January 2020
DCO APPLICATION – EAST ANGLIA ONE NORTH & EAST ANGLIA TWO (EA1N & EA2)
I write in relation to the two Development Consent Order applications above. It is my intention to submit this same response to both applications as the onshore infrastructure required to facilitate them is for both windfarms, not just one - notably the cabling running westward from Thorpeness to connect to the new substations proposed at Friston. It is for that reason that I argued that they should be determined as one application but the decision to accept them as two separate applications has already been made.
At the outset, I wish to reinforce my support for the principle of offshore wind generation. I was Environment Minister when the Government first made the commitment to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The UK already has much offshore wind capacity and more is planned right around the country. Facilitating offshore wind farms is an important aspect of that pledge. I have no specific objection to the offshore elements of these two applications per se though they will need to meet the appropriate environmental assessment. As Environment Minister, I secured the recognition of the natural marine and onshore environment by government for consideration on infrastructure projects. The issue though in this application (in both these applications) is how best to connect these strategic offshore energy sites to the national grid.
Throughout the consultation stages, I have suggested alternatives to Scottish Power Renewables, including the proposed nuclear site at Bradwell, which would have meant less onshore cabling and substations in a more appropriate location. SPR have chosen not to pursue that, which in my view would have made their applications acceptable and are instead proposing a 32-metre wide cabling corridor across 9km of sensitive landscape with large substations on the edge of Friston village, without adequate landscaping.
My biggest concern is the size and scale of the substations proposed at Friston, which will have a devastating impact on the local environment including on local listed buildings which surround the substation site. Paragraph 151 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that ‘plans for renewable energy should ensure that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.’ SPR’s submission doesn’t do that, especially when you consider all the other energy infrastructure which has been planned for this part of the Suffolk coast. This was the point made by the large number of people who attended my public meeting, which goes to show the strength of feeling locally.
There is also a danger that the substation will need to be even bigger than planned. While I understand it is the intention to use SF6 cooling rather than air cooling to significantly reduce the size of the power stations, this cannot be taken for granted given the government’s ratification of
various amendments to the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce significantly the use of fluorinated gases as, if released, they are very potent greenhouse gases. Air cooling infrastructure is much much larger and would be a far worse outcome.
When SPR first proposed Friston as a site for substations, I was clear that at the very minimum – on the basis of planning conditions if the inspectorate was minded to recommend the DCO be granted - they should dig them into the ground to reduce the visual impact. This does not form part of their plans and their proposed planting to screen the development is woefully inadequate, especially when you take into consideration the growth rates of their landscaping mitigation. This really needs further evaluation.
The proposed cabling does not comply with paragraph 151 of the NPPF either as instead of facilitating a connection to the grid as close to shore as possible, the proposal for 9km of underground cabling will cause a significant impact on the landscape including elements of the AONB and the removal of a section of protected woodland close to Aldringham Court, a grade II listed building. I understand that the width of the cable route will be reduced to 16.1m at sensitive locations but despite that, will also cause the loss of a number of hedgerows, interspersed by significant trees. This is in direct opposition to paragraph 170 of the NPPF, which calls for the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes.
I am also really concerned about the proximity of the cabling corridor to residential properties and have received correspondence from concerned constituents about the impact it will have locally. There are no details about how these works will be managed. There are also concerns about how the cabling comes onshore at Thorpeness and the impact of drilling on the stabilisation of the cliffs.
I also have significant concerns about the economic aspect of these proposals and the impact it will have on our precious tourism industry. The disruption the onshore infrastructure will cause during the development phase and the lasting impact on the beauty of this part of Suffolk will have an impact on visitor numbers and the livelihoods of local residents. The cumulative impact of other energy infrastructure projects also needs to be taken into account.
I am aware of the submissions made by other groups, including the parish council, district council and county council. I support their arguments.
In conclusion, the impact of this proposal on the countryside, vital habitats, heritage assets, the amenities of local residents and tourism means I that I formally object these DCO applications and I urge the Planning Inspectorate not to recommend them to the Secretary of State rather that they are refused.