SASES.ORG.UK - Latest News

4th December
SASES – LAUNCH ONLINE DONATIONS FACILITY 

We have launched a donations page to help fight for Friston’s future. Your donations will help if we are able to mount a legal challenge to help protect Friston and the AONB. It is essential we are prepared. The treats we face are not just from Scottish Power alone, others feel the AONB and East Suffolk is fair game for development and together we have to stop them!

Donate at our ‘Chuffed’ donations page >>>

30th October – Guidance notes for Phase 3.5 consultation 
As requested we have uploaded some guidance notes for completing your Phase 3.5 consultation. Phase 3.5 resources here >> 

28th August – SASES final response to SPRs poor Phase 3 consultation 
SASES agrees fully with the joint local authorities press release of 24th August 2018. There is not sufficient co-ordination of electricity infrastructure projects See the letter here >>

NOTE: We do feel that the authorities need to do more and actually shut the door on some of the proposed projects. There is simply not the infrastructure to accommodate proposals. The ‘will’ of residents and communities in East Suffolk & Suffolk Coast is no longer there!

24th August – EAST SUFFOLK GOV – Call for Energy Co’s to co-ordinate 
Local Authorities have made a call for energy companies to co-ordinate their ‘work plans’…
SASES Response: We feel that the authorities need to do more and actually shut the door on some of the proposed projects. There is simply not the infrastructure to accommodate proposals. The ‘will’ of residents and communities in East Suffolk is no longer there!  See the letter here >>

16th August – SASES to meet with representatives from the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB 
SASES will meet next week with representatives from the SC&H AONB to discuss Scottish Powers proposals, including the proposed substations to the north of Friston.

14th August – SASES response to the AONBs letter to Scottish Power Renewables 
SASES has sent a letter to the Chairmen of the SC&H AONB in response to the AONBs letter to Ian Mackay (SPR Onshore Project Manager). 
It is clear that all stakeholders including the AONB, which has a ‘duty to seek to foster the social and economic wellbeing of local communities’, work together to achieve compromise over National Infrastructure Projects.

6th August – Zone 7 north of Friston has bats, spotted fly catchers and badgers 
SASES has learnt that the land Scottish Power proposes to build its substations on to the north of Friston has protected animals. There are at least 3 species of bat including the Pipistrelle & Long Eared bats, there are also barn owls, spotted fly catchers and a family of badgers.
Details about complying with UK wildlife legislation here >>

18th July 2018 – Meeting with David Walker (Director – Offshore Development) 
Joanna Young (Stakeholder Manager) 
Scottish Power Renewables
We fed back the communities anger about Scottish Power Renewables failure to effectively publicise Phase 2 consultation and Public Information Days (PID) to ‘The Parish of Friston’ & Friston residents. 

We explained the concerns of communities and Scottish Power Renewables numerous failures in Phase 1&2 consultation, including:

  • Apparent failure to provide adequate evidence that they, ‘SPR’, have done everything they possibly can to work with EDF to try and locate at Sizewell. 
    – David Walker said extensive talks had taken place but EDF needed the land.
  • Why were the easterly Zones in the AONB discounted, as most were not outstandingly beautiful or significant.
    – They were not considered suitable due to being AONB, referred to National Planning Framework. 
  • Why they had not taken onboard joint views of both Local Authorities to locate close to the coast at Sizewell. 
    – Sizewell land issue and AONB. 
  • The failure to mention ANY requirement for onshore industrial development (large onshore industrial substations) in the SoCC advertisements for PIDs (Public Information Day Advert) for Phase 2 Consultation.
    – No adequate explanation provided.
  • A failure to provide at least one Phase 2 Consultation PID in Friston or Knoddishall, communities most effected by the 3 westerly appraisal zones. SPR only gave a short presentation to Friston Parish Council (05/03/17) twelve days before the first Phase 2 PID.
    – No adequate explanation provided as to why they held no PIDs in either Friston or Knoddishall. 
  • The failure to contact Friston residents in early stage consultation (prior to March 2018). 
    – Unsatisfactory response that local authorities had a responsibility to inform communities in early consultation. 
  • Misinformation to Friston Parish Council about the appraisal Zones. When SPR finally met with Friston Parish council in March 2018 SPR gave the impression the preferable location for substation/s was to the east near the coast. In fact it now seems clear SPR were actually focusing on a westerly location.
     – No satisfactory explanation provided. Only than SPR had identified a suitable location for an Aldeburgh road crossing at Aldringham.   
  • Failure to provide associated background information & documentation referred to in RAG Assessments (requested by numerous people in Friston and elsewhere).
    -There is associated documentation, they would try and get it to us.
  • SPR were asked about economic benefit, SASES pushed the point that economic benefit was negative to Friston and the wider community.
    – SPR conceded that specialised surveying and substation construction would be completed by specialist contractors, not local, and agreed that Substations were unmanned once built and connected. 
  • SPR were asked about the type and design of substation. What would it look like, how big, how many buildings, what equipment. 
    No information or decisions were available at this time, it will follow in the full impact assessment documents. David Walker said there were various options for buildings, cladding etc. trees could be planted for screening. 
  • The action group highlighted the concerns of property owners along the cable route – specifically the feeling SPRs contractors were using what could be viewed as ‘bullying tactics’ to get permission to gain access to properties and land. 
    David Walker did agree that this was unacceptable.

In conclusion to our meeting, David Walker and Joanna Young would take onboard our comments. 
SASES cannot accept David Walkers frequent response, SPR are taking a ‘broad-brush’ approach to answer difficult questions and or requests for specific details of SPR plans – It is simply unacceptable.

When asked wether there would be any changes as a result of our meeting, David Walker said NO, implying nothing would change and SPR would be pushing forward with Phase 3 Consultation. 

SASES Response to David Walker & Joanna Young – We would have to pursue the clear failures in Phase 1 & 2 consultation robustly with the Planning Inspectorate. SASES expressed that the wider community and residents of Friston felt Phase 1 & 2 consultation had failed them. SPR had let Friston and other effected communities down.

 

Scottish Power reject Broom Covert & take Grove Wood, Friston to Phase 4 Consultation - more info >>

SASES.ORG.UK - Latest News

4th December
SASES – LAUNCH ONLINE DONATIONS FACILITY 

We have launched a donations page to help fight for Friston’s future. Your donations will help if we are able to mount a legal challenge to help protect Friston and the AONB. It is essential we are prepared. The treats we face are not just from Scottish Power alone, others feel the AONB and East Suffolk is fair game for development and together we have to stop them!

Donate at our ‘Chuffed’ donations page >>>

30th October – Guidance notes for Phase 3.5 consultation 
As requested we have uploaded some guidance notes for completing your Phase 3.5 consultation. Phase 3.5 resources here >> 

28th August – SASES final response to SPRs poor Phase 3 consultation 
SASES agrees fully with the joint local authorities press release of 24th August 2018. There is not sufficient co-ordination of electricity infrastructure projects See the letter here >>

NOTE: We do feel that the authorities need to do more and actually shut the door on some of the proposed projects. There is simply not the infrastructure to accommodate proposals. The ‘will’ of residents and communities in East Suffolk & Suffolk Coast is no longer there!

24th August – EAST SUFFOLK GOV – Call for Energy Co’s to co-ordinate 
Local Authorities have made a call for energy companies to co-ordinate their ‘work plans’…
SASES Response: We feel that the authorities need to do more and actually shut the door on some of the proposed projects. There is simply not the infrastructure to accommodate proposals. The ‘will’ of residents and communities in East Suffolk is no longer there!  See the letter here >>

16th August – SASES to meet with representatives from the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB 
SASES will meet next week with representatives from the SC&H AONB to discuss Scottish Powers proposals, including the proposed substations to the north of Friston.

14th August – SASES response to the AONBs letter to Scottish Power Renewables 
SASES has sent a letter to the Chairmen of the SC&H AONB in response to the AONBs letter to Ian Mackay (SPR Onshore Project Manager). 
It is clear that all stakeholders including the AONB, which has a ‘duty to seek to foster the social and economic wellbeing of local communities’, work together to achieve compromise over National Infrastructure Projects.

6th August – Zone 7 north of Friston has bats, spotted fly catchers and badgers 
SASES has learnt that the land Scottish Power proposes to build its substations on to the north of Friston has protected animals. There are at least 3 species of bat including the Pipistrelle & Long Eared bats, there are also barn owls, spotted fly catchers and a family of badgers.
Details about complying with UK wildlife legislation here >>

18th July 2018 – Meeting with David Walker (Director – Offshore Development) 
Joanna Young (Stakeholder Manager) 
Scottish Power Renewables
We fed back the communities anger about Scottish Power Renewables failure to effectively publicise Phase 2 consultation and Public Information Days (PID) to ‘The Parish of Friston’ & Friston residents. 

We explained the concerns of communities and Scottish Power Renewables numerous failures in Phase 1&2 consultation, including:

  • Apparent failure to provide adequate evidence that they, ‘SPR’, have done everything they possibly can to work with EDF to try and locate at Sizewell. 
    – David Walker said extensive talks had taken place but EDF needed the land.
  • Why were the easterly Zones in the AONB discounted, as most were not outstandingly beautiful or significant.
    – They were not considered suitable due to being AONB, referred to National Planning Framework. 
  • Why they had not taken onboard joint views of both Local Authorities to locate close to the coast at Sizewell. 
    – Sizewell land issue and AONB. 
  • The failure to mention ANY requirement for onshore industrial development (large onshore industrial substations) in the SoCC advertisements for PIDs (Public Information Day Advert) for Phase 2 Consultation.
    – No adequate explanation provided.
  • A failure to provide at least one Phase 2 Consultation PID in Friston or Knoddishall, communities most effected by the 3 westerly appraisal zones. SPR only gave a short presentation to Friston Parish Council (05/03/17) twelve days before the first Phase 2 PID.
    – No adequate explanation provided as to why they held no PIDs in either Friston or Knoddishall. 
  • The failure to contact Friston residents in early stage consultation (prior to March 2018). 
    – Unsatisfactory response that local authorities had a responsibility to inform communities in early consultation. 
  • Misinformation to Friston Parish Council about the appraisal Zones. When SPR finally met with Friston Parish council in March 2018 SPR gave the impression the preferable location for substation/s was to the east near the coast. In fact it now seems clear SPR were actually focusing on a westerly location.
     – No satisfactory explanation provided. Only than SPR had identified a suitable location for an Aldeburgh road crossing at Aldringham.   
  • Failure to provide associated background information & documentation referred to in RAG Assessments (requested by numerous people in Friston and elsewhere).
    -There is associated documentation, they would try and get it to us.
  • SPR were asked about economic benefit, SASES pushed the point that economic benefit was negative to Friston and the wider community.
    – SPR conceded that specialised surveying and substation construction would be completed by specialist contractors, not local, and agreed that Substations were unmanned once built and connected. 
  • SPR were asked about the type and design of substation. What would it look like, how big, how many buildings, what equipment. 
    No information or decisions were available at this time, it will follow in the full impact assessment documents. David Walker said there were various options for buildings, cladding etc. trees could be planted for screening. 
  • The action group highlighted the concerns of property owners along the cable route – specifically the feeling SPRs contractors were using what could be viewed as ‘bullying tactics’ to get permission to gain access to properties and land. 
    David Walker did agree that this was unacceptable.

In conclusion to our meeting, David Walker and Joanna Young would take onboard our comments. 
SASES cannot accept David Walkers frequent response, SPR are taking a ‘broad-brush’ approach to answer difficult questions and or requests for specific details of SPR plans – It is simply unacceptable.

When asked wether there would be any changes as a result of our meeting, David Walker said NO, implying nothing would change and SPR would be pushing forward with Phase 3 Consultation. 

SASES Response to David Walker & Joanna Young – We would have to pursue the clear failures in Phase 1 & 2 consultation robustly with the Planning Inspectorate. SASES expressed that the wider community and residents of Friston felt Phase 1 & 2 consultation had failed them. SPR had let Friston and other effected communities down.