Statement of Common Ground between Forewind Coastguard …... · The relevant regulations are detailed within Table 2.1 of Chapter 16 of the ES, Shipping and Navigation (ref 6.16)

May 2014

Statement of Common Ground between Forewind and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency

DOGGER BANK TEESSIDE A & B

F-OFC-CH-026_MCA_OF 3.21 © 2014 Forewind Page ii


F-OFC-CH-026_MCA_OF 3.21 © 2014 Forewind Page iii

Document Title Dogger Bank Teesside A & B

Statement of Common Ground

MCA

Forewind Document Reference F-OFC-CH-026_MCA_OF

Issue Number 3.2

Date May 2014

Drafted by Rachel Hall

Checked by Martin Goff

Date / initials check MG 14-May-2014


F-OFC-CH-026_MCA_OF 3.21 © 2014 Forewind Page iv

Title: Statement of Common Ground with MCA

Contract No. (if applicable) Onshore Offshore

Document Number: F-EXL-CG-026_MCA OF 3.2

Issue No: 3.2

Issue Date: 11 - 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

09/05/2014 1.0 Internal Review RH MG

15/05/2014 2.0 Consents and Legal Review RH AG

22/05/2014 3.0 Stakeholder Meeting RH PT

29/05/2014 3.1 Stakeholder Review RH PT

11/06/2014 3.2 Stakeholder Sign Off RH MG


F-OFC-CH-026_MCA_OF_3.2 Page 5 © 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

1.5 Development description..................................................................................... 9

1.6 Relevant Regulations ........................................................................................ 10

1.7 Consultation Schedule ...................................................................................... 10

3. Shipping and Navigation .......................................................................................... 14

1.8 Matters of Specific Agreement in relation to Shipping and Navigation .............. 14

1.9 Matters unresolved in relation to Shipping and Navigation ............................... 18

4. Confirmation of Agreement ...................................................................................... 19

5. Appendices ................................................................................................................ 20

Table of Tables

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

10

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

MCA................................................................................................................................... 13



1. Introduction

1.1 Reason for this document

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

Forewind and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) 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 MCA 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 MCA in a

SoCG in order to seek agreement on the topics of:

HOLD: Await Rule 6 letter. Insert relevant topics from Rule 6 letter

1.2 Stakeholder Remit

1.1.6. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency implements the government's maritime

safety policy in the UK and works to prevent the loss of life on the coast and at

sea. As well as provision of emergency response, salvage and counter pollution

within UK waters the MCA also develop and maintain guidance and regulations

for the navigational safety including the provision of navigation risk assessment



guidance to ensure that offshore developments maintain safe navigation around

the waters of the UK.

1.3 Structure

1.1.7. 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.

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

MCA.

1.1.9. Matters unresolved, as described in 3.2.1, between Forewind and the MCA will

be of particular focus for the ExA.

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

Guidance and consultation;

Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) Methodology (including Cumulative

Impact Assessment);

Existing Environment;

Project Description;

Mitigation measures.

1.4 Programme

1.1.11. 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).

1.1.12. 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.

1.1.13. 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.

1.1.14. 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.

1.1.15. 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

1.5 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). The water depth ranges from 18 to 63 meters (59 to 206 feet).

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 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.

Onshore (in the Borough of Redcar & Cleveland):

Underground cable landfall and transition joint bay;

Underground HVDC export cable system carrying power from the landfall

to the onshore HVDC converter station;



Onshore converter station located within the Wilton Industrial Complex with

associated road, fencing, landscaping and drainage;

Underground High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) cable system

carrying power from the onshore HVDC converter station to the existing

NGET substation at Lackenby;

Connection bays within the existing NGET substation at Lackenby

containing switchgear and electrical equipment for connection of the export

cable system to the transmission network;

Ancillary works including: temporary working and laydown areas,

permanent and temporary access roads, service corridors, including

telecommunications, water and connection to the local electricity network

and directional drilling as part of the landfall, as well as under roads,

foreshore, railways, watercourses, pipelines, other cables and other

obstructions.

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/ ).

1.6 Relevant Regulations

2.1.5. The relevant regulations are detailed within Table 2.1 of Chapter 16 of the ES,

Shipping and Navigation (ref 6.16).

1.7 Consultation Schedule

2.1.6. Stakeholder engagement with the MCA 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 MCA

Date Form of consultation

Statutory/None Statutory Summary

26/08/2010 Meeting Non-Statutory

Zone Appraisal and Planning: Meeting between Forewind and MCA, Trinity House (THLS), Department for Tansport (DfT) and the Chamber of Shipping to discuss shipping and navigation across the Dogger Bank Zone. Dogger Bank Zone


Zone Appraisal and Planning: Meeting to present and discuss the approach being taken by Forewind to shipping and navigation constraints and the location of Tranche B within the Dogger Bank as well as update the consultees on the status of the development of the Zone. Dogger Bank Zone

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/




Zone Appraisal and Planning: Meeting to discuss the cumulative issues relating to shipping and navigation for the Dogger Bank, Hornsea and East Anglia Zones and to present the initial findings of the Southern North Sea Offshore Wind Forum (SNSOWF) joint navigation study being carried out by the group. Dogger Bank Zone


Zone Appraisal and Planning: Meeting to present and update the MCA on the shipping and navigation data collected for the Dogger Bank Zone as well as plans for the development of the Zone and specifically the data to be used for the Tranche A project Navigational Risk Assessments (NRA). The data used was agreed with the condition that going forward the Met Masts would continue to collect AIS data. Information on the proposed location of the two met masts to be installed within the Zone was also presented (note: Two met masts are now installed and operating). Dogger Bank Zone


Zone Appraisal and Planning: Update meeting to discuss developments within the Dogger Bank Zone. Dogger Bank Zone


Project Layout: Meeting to discuss the options for layout boundaries, layout rules, data collection and safety zones. Dogger Bank Zone


Project Layout: Meeting to continue earlier discussions from July on project layouts, layout rules and present the draft Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA). Dogger Bank Zone

01/05/2013 Workshop Non-Statutory

Hazards Workshop: Attendance at Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Hazard Workshop. Dogger Bank Zone


Update: Meeting to update the MCA, THLS and Chamber of Shipping on Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project development and the submitted PEI3 consultation documents for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. Dogger Bank Creyke Beck/Dogger Bank



Teesside A&B

12/06/2013 Consultation

response Non-Statutory

Update: Formal statutory consultation response from the MCA on Dogger Bank Creyke Beck draft application documents. Comments, where applicable, have been taken account of within the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Application. Dogger Bank Creyke Beck/Dogger Bank Teesside A&B


Update: Meeting to discuss the consultation responses received from the MCA, THLS and Chamber of Shipping to the second phase of statutory consultation for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. Comments, where applicable, have been taken account of within the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B Application. Dogger Bank Creyke Beck/Dogger Bank Teesside A&B

21/08/2013 Telephone Call Non-Statutory

Array Visualisation: Telephone call

following up on clarity of scope for a 3D

model/visualisation.

Dogger Bank Creyke Beck/Dogger Bank

Teesside A&B

12/12/2013 Consultation

response Statutory

Draft ES: Final stage of statutory

consultation – response on the Dogger

Bank Teesside A & B draft Environmental

Statement and DCO.

Dogger Bank Teesside A&B


Draft ES: Meeting to discuss the

consultation responses received to the

second phase of statutory consultation for

Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and updates

that had been made to the draft

Environmental Statement.

Dogger Bank Teesside A&B

17/02/2014 Report Non-Statutory

Navigational 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


Array Visualisation: Forewind held a

meeting with the UK Chamber of

Shipping, the MCA and THLS to present a

3D model representative of the wind farms



proposed in the Dogger Bank Zone.

Dogger Bank Zone

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

Date Form of consultation

Summary

22/05/2014 Email SoCG between Forewind and MCA issued to MCA for

review.

27/05/2014 Meeting Meeting to provide an update on Dogger Bank Teesside A

& B and discuss SoCG.

29/05/2014 Email Updated SoCG post meeting on 27 May issued to MCA for

review. Point by point response re-issued to MCA.

09/06/2014 Email Email from MCA with comments on SoCG and confirmation

of agreement subject to minor amendment.

11/06/2014 Email Updated SoCG issued to the MCA.



3. Shipping and Navigation

1.8 Matters of Specific Agreement in relation to Shipping and Navigation

ID Statement on which Forewind seek agreement Forewind Stakeholder

A. Guidance and Consultation

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

impacts on shipping and navigation 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 section 3.1 of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B

Navigational Risk Assessment Appendix A to Chapter 16 of the ES (ref 6.16.1) and are

appropriate for this assessment.

Agreed Agreed

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

application stage and post-submission stage.

Agreed Agreed

B. Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) Methodology (including Cumulative Impact Assessment)

3-B-1 The NRA for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B 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 agreed

methodology for Assessing Marine Navigational Safety Risks.

Agreed Agreed

3-B-2 The data sources used in assessing the baseline shipping 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

D. Project Description

3-D-1 The worst case scenario, as defined in section 10 of the NRA (ref 6.16.1), is appropriate for the NRA.

Agreed Agreed

3-D-2 It is agreed that curved arrays have been removed from the layout rules (section 5.2 of Chapter 5 of the ES (ref 6.5)) and that this has addressed the concerns raised by the MCA.

Agreed Agreed

3-D-3 A layout plan will be agreed with the MCA within the parameters set out by the layout rules in section 5.4 of Chapter 16 of the ES (ref 6.16) and section 5.2 of Chapter 5 of the ES (ref 6.5). This is secured through requirement 7 of the DCO (ref 3.1) and condition 5 in DMLs 1 & 2, which require the wind turbine generators and offshore platforms to be arrayed in accordance with the layout rules.

Agreed Agreed

3-D-4 It is agreed that concerns regarding curved dense perimeters have now been addressed through presentation of a 3D model and confirmation that the sign-off of the final layout by the MMO, in consultation with the MCA, would ensure any curves are of an acceptable design. This is secured through condition 5 of DMLs 1&2.

Agreed Agreed

3-D-5 It is agreed that the SAR and shipping & navigation community, represented in the form of Nautical and Offshore Renewable Energy Liason 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 the removal of curved arrays from the layout rules (3-D-2), is a positive mitigation measure undertaken by Forewind.

Agreed Agreed




E. Mitigation Measures

3-E-1 It is agreed that the undertaker of the DCO shall abide by all relevant recommendations advised by the MCA.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-2 It is agreed that the use of a safety zone with a radius of 500m around any proposed construction activity is appropriate.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-3 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 point of its application.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-4 It is agreed that the use of a safety zone with a radius of 500m around any permanently manned platform (e.g. accommodation platforms) is appropriate during the operational phase, subject to justification of its requirement at the point of its application.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-5 It is agreed that offshore works shall not commence until the Secretary of State, in consultation with the MCA, has given written approval for an Emergency Response and Co-operation Plan (ERCoP) and this is adequately secured by requirements 10(1) and 10(2) of the DCO (ref 3.1).

Agreed Agreed

3-E-6 It is agreed that Forewind, or lead operator of each project, will consult with the MCA post-consent in order to agree a final name for each offshore wind farm to ensure names are appropriate to aid navigation wherever possible.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-7 The amendment of requirement 11 of the draft DCO (ref 3.1) to remove “in consultation with the MCA” as requested by THLS is agreed (see 3-E-7 of the Statement of Common Ground with THLS).

Agreed Agreed

3-E-8 The amendment of the wording of DMLs 1 & 2 conditions 9(1)(a) and DMLs 3 & 4 conditions 6(1)(a) to begin: “A plan to be agreed in writing with the MMO in consultation with Trinity House and the MCA which shows – “ is agreed.

Agreed Agreed




3-E-9 It is agreed that Forewind will bury the export cables where feasible which will reduce the risk of anchor snagging. Where Forewind requires the use of cable protection Forewind will take into account the risks associated with anchor snagging during the detailed design stage, secured through the production of a cable specification and installation plan (DMLs 1&2 requirement 9(f), DMLs 3&4 requirement 6(e)). A cable protection plan will be produced and is secured in (DMLs 1&2 requirement 9(f)(iii), DMLs 4&4 requirement 6(e)(iii)).

Agreed Agreed

3-E-10

It is agreed that concerns regarding a single marine controller being established across the projects within the Zone relate primarily to marine co-ordination for emergency response. This concern has therefore been resolved through Forewind’s commitment to a single point of contact for emergency response for projects across the Dogger Bank Zone, and it is agreed that the following amendment to DCO Requirement 10(1) would adequately secure this, given the requirement for the MCA to approve the Emergency Response and Co-operation Plan (ERCoP):

10.—(1) Offshore works shall not commence until the Secretary of State, in consultation with the MCA, has given written approval for an Emergency Response and Co-operation Plan (ERCoP) which includes full details of the ERCoP for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the authorised development in accordance with the MCA recommendations contained within MGN371 "Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) – Guidance on UK Navigational Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues". This should include recent recommendations and guidance for inclusion within the ERCoP template made and accepted by the MCA and the NOREL group. The ERCoP shall include the identification of the point of contact for emergency response.

This will ensure that the MCA are able to reflect the relevant point of contact in ERCoPs produced for each of the Dogger Bank projects as these are presented to the MCA and ensure that the commitment is adhered to by all projects within the Dogger Bank Zone.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-11 It was agreed at a meeting on 7 April 2014 that, during the operational phase, offshore wind farms developed by Forewind on the Dogger Bank may be marked as a single site but that this can be adequately secured through the agreement of appropriate aids to

Agreed Agreed




navigation for each project. The aids to navigation will be agreed with THLS as currently secured by requirements 11 to 15 of the DCO. It is recognised that discussion is ongoing about the nature of the conditions and their location within the DCO and DML but it is agreed that the concerns of the MCA on this issue are addressed so long as THLS maintain the sign off of the aids to navigation for the projects.

3-E-12 It is agreed that concerns regarding the uniformity of layouts across all projects have been alleviated through presentation of a 3D model and commitment to a single point of contact in emergency situations as well as the suggestion that improved resolution of charting in the area may help mariners’ awareness of potentially different layout designs. In addition, explanation at a recent meeting that technical constraints and uncertainties would restrict the viability of uniform layouts across projects clarified why this may not be feasible. In addition, the layout rules and sign-off of the final layout by the MMO, in consultation with the MCA addresses any further concerns. Agreement to the layout rules has been acknowledged in 3-D-3 of the SoCG between Forewind and the MCA.

Agreed Agreed

3-E-13 It is agreed that concerns regarding the linear progressions of the construction programme have been addressed through the presentation of a 3D model. It is agreed that the potential for marking of construction activities in a way which accounts for the development activity of an individual project and also across the Zone, for which the MCA and THLS will have sign off as currently secured through DCO Requirements 11 to 15 assures the MCA that such concerns and associated risks can be reduced to As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

Agreed Agreed

1.9 Matters unresolved in relation to Shipping and Navigation

3.1.1. There are no issues unresolved between Forewind and the MCA in relation to Shipping and Navigation.



5. Appendices

List of attached appendices:

Appendix 1 - Minutes of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and Dogger Bank Creyke Beck 3D model demonstration meeting.



Appendix 1 – Minutes of Dogger Bank Teesside A & B and Dogger Bank Creyke

Beck 3D model demonstration meeting.

CONFIDENTIAL Meeting record

Page 1 of 5

Meeting title Dogger Bank Teesside and Creyke Beck Shipping and Navigation Consultation Meeting

Location Tower Hill, London, EC3N 4DH

Date/ time 7 March 2014 10:00 – 16:00

Originator Forewind

Attendees Julie Drew-Murphy – Teesside Offshore EIA Manager Martin Goff – Teesside Offshore EIA Manager Sophie Barrell – Creyke Beck Offshore EIA Manager Michael Stephenson – Creyke Beck Offshore Project Developer Samantha Westwood – Principal Risk Analyst (Anatec) Graeme Proctor – MCA Roger Barker - THLS Stephen Vanstone – THLS Nick Dodson – THLS Richard Nevinson – CoS Anne Westwood – TCE Andy Dennison – 3DWeb Tech (to arrive at 0930) Vedran Buchko - 3DWeb Tech

Apologies

Purpose of meeting

Review 3D model of Dogger Bank Offshore Wind Farm (all current scoped projects), objectives include;

Clarification on Dogger Bank Teesside B and its design with regards to fishing/fishing grounds; and

Review 3D models and navigation marking scenarios in order to assist with a forward going strategy for the lighting and marking of all currently scoped projects within the Dogger Bank Zone.

Agenda Item: Owner Timing (from – to)

Arrival and introduction 10:00

1 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A&B and Dogger Bank Teesside A&B – Project Update

SB/JD 10:00 – 10:30

2 Dogger Bank Teesside A&B – Site Design MG 10:30 – 10:45

3 3D Model - Defined Scenarios 10:45 – 12:30

Lunch 12:30 – 13:30

4 3D Model - Defined Scenarios 13:30 – 15:00

4 Outcomes of Models and Actions Going Forward 15:00 – 15:45

7 AOB All 15:45 – 16:00

Outputs from meeting

Output

From

Distribute agenda before meeting Fix responsibilities for each item

Start on time Finish on time

Set out your ground rules Publish minutes / actions

Stick to the agenda Continuous improvement


Page 2 of 5

KEY ACTIONS

Action No Action description Owner Date set Target date

Update Update details

0703 – 01

Forewind to contact UKHO regarding the production of charts at a smaller scale showing the Dogger Bank offshore wind farms.

FW 07/03/14 31/03/14

Update

0703-02 Forewind to look into an automatic system for identifying lighting failures on turbines.

FW 07/03/14 31/03/14

Update

0703-03 Forewind to send THLS shape files for Teesside C & D FW 07/03/14 21/03/14

Update Sent to Nick Dodson on 13/03/14 – close action.

0703-04 Forewind to look into how a lighting management plan might work in practice.

FW 07/03/14 31/03/14

Update

0703-05 Forewind to check wording for DML condition regarding pre-construction plans.

FW 07/03/14 21/03/14

Update Forewind notes that a DCO change is proposed to specifically add THLS and MCA as consultees to the layout plan. Above that, Forewind would be resistant to add ‘relevant stakeholders’ to the DCO/DMLs as it wouldn’t hold much weight legally – further, the MMO will ensure relevant stakeholders are consulted on the plans, and many will be statutory consultees for these plans.

NOTES

1 Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A & B and Dogger Bank Teesside A & B – Project Update An update on the examination for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A & B was provided by Sophie Barrell (SB). It was noted that the Examining Authorities’ first written questions had been recently issued and that there were questions directly addressed to the MCA, CoS and THLS. An update on the timescales for the application submission for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B was provided by Martin Goff (MG). The submission date remains at the end of March. It was further highlighted that Forewind had recently announced that the seventh and eighth projects would not be developed. 2 Dogger Bank Teesside A & B – site design MG presented how the array areas for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B had been decided; Forewind have taken into account stakeholder feedback and avoided specific areas that seine net fishermen had shown in consultation were key fishing grounds. Seine netters may struggle to fish within the wind farm and, as Forewind believes in co-existence with the fishing industry, allowing seine netting to continue within the Dogger Bank Zone is an important part of this. Danish VMS data was also used to identify areas of high sandeel fishing activity, so that project boundaries could be designed accordingly. For example, this resulted in reducing the developable area in the western boundary and making Dogger Bank Teesside D ‘landscape’ rather than ‘portrait’. It was noted that the Dogger Bank Zone has relatively low numbers of shipping and recreational users, and that the main navigational


Page 3 of 5

stakeholders active on Dogger Bank are fishermen. RB noted that that although traffic was low THLS had concerns over the user that may not be familiar with the area and navigational marking will need to consider this. 3 3D Model – defined scenarios Roger Barker (RB) asked whether the indicative layouts used in the model accounted for geophysics/geotechnical surveys that may have identified areas where turbines would not be installed. Sam Westwood (SW) stated that this is not currently incorporated and SB added that potential micrositing will be in line with that that THLS have dealt with on other offshore wind farms. RB acknowledged that this would be part of the final site layout sign-off procedure. RB stated that the construction period is the most risky time with respect to navigation; MG replied that this is actually the time where there would be more awareness as there would be rolling safety zones and marking and guard vessels to ensure these are adhered to. Graeme Proctor (GP) stated that the MCA’s key concern is the operational relationship of multiple offshore wind farms in proximity to one another. Scenario 1 - Helicopter overview of the 6 projects at helicopter transit height. All 6MW monopole. Day and night conditions GP noted that two lines of orientation were visible in the example layout and that this is good for Search and Rescue (SAR) capabilities. SB noted that there will always be personnel out on Dogger Bank during operation and that Forewind would be happy to consider a ‘find and retrieve’ mechanism in the Emergency Response Co-ordination Plan (ERCoP) if this was something that might be considered beneficial. GP agreed that this might be useful and stated that the self-help ability of the wind farms should be emphasised more by Forewind. SW reiterated that Forewind has already committed to a single point of contact for emergency response for the whole Zone (it was later noted that this was for anyone on Dogger Bank, not just Dogger Bank personnel). RB commented that this was comforting. A discussion was held regarding the development of a smaller scale chart of Dogger Bank offshore wind farms. It was agreed that Forewind will set up a separate meeting with the UK Hydrographic Office regarding this as it was acknowledged that this should be addressed. [Action 0703 – 01]. RB stated that there is a need to look at a reporting system for identifying any lighting failures. SB stated that Forewind are happy to look at a remote monitoring system to identify if a light goes out etc. [Action 0703 – 02]. SW noted that Forewind had been asked a question by the Examining Authority regarding an ‘Aids to navigation plan’ and asked THLS whether there had been any update on this. THLS indicated that no further details were available at the moment. Forewind stated that it had no objection in principle to this but cannot commit until a lighting scheme is agreed with THLS and the details of the plans content are discussed. Post Meeting Note: This Navigational Management Plan is not a requirement but best practice. Scenario 2 - Vessel bridge view of the fully developed zone passing in the south, similar to rerouted vessels. Transit inside for perspective of fishing / O&M vessel. Comments were made that the visual difference between the ‘dense perimeter’ and the inside of the array were positive from a navigational perspective

RB left the meeting. ND queried that the 1.2 nautical mile channel in between the two Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects does not fit the shipping template. SB responded that this is not a navigational route and that this has been agreed in previous discussions. RN stated it would be up to Forewind to demonstrate why this is not a new corridor. SW stated that it could be demonstrated by traffic levels. Scenario 3 - Vessels view from the ‘triangle’ day and night It was acknowledged that the 3D model showed that often straight rows of turbines can appear as


Page 4 of 5

curves due to perspective. SB queried the MCA’s view on curved perimeters and whether there was something specific that they disagreed with. GP stated that the concern was regarding a series of parallel straight rows ending at different points, thus creating a curved perimeter. An actual curved row of turbines forming a perimeter, as presented in the 3D model, seems more acceptable. GP also noted though that they would not want to see large ‘s’ curves. The 3D model was turned to night time to observe the lighting of turbines. Nick Dodson (ND) noted that whilst the individual duration and frequency of lighting/flashes are set by International standards and therefore cannot be varied, differences between two wind farms in a field of vision at night could be achieved through differences in the timing of the lighting (i.e. relaying). Lunch THLS stated that they had held discussions with the MCA and COS during the lunch break and had reached the conclusion that following consideration of the model and baseline data they were content that they could light and mark the Dogger Bank Zone within the parameters currently set out in documentation for Dogger Bank projects. The key conclusions were:

During the operational phase, THLS will view the whole Zone as one wind farm with respect to marking and will therefore mark the periphery turbines of the whole Zone rather than individual projects.

In the ‘triangle’ between the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck B and Dogger Bank Teesside B array areas, specialised marking will be considered in order to aid fishermen in that area.

During the construction phase, THLS will mark each project on a case-by-case basis with a view to eventually marking the Zone as a whole once construction of all projects is complete.

A slightly different synchronisation of lighting between wind farms within the Zone would be a good solution.

There may be a possible requirement for floating aids but these will be discussed once a development plan is in place.

GP confirmed that the zonal approach to marking supports that the channel between the two Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects is not a navigational corridor. Richard Nevinson (RN) confirmed that the CoS were happy with this from a commercial shipping perspective. SW asked GP whether Forewind’s commitment to having one person as the central contact for emergency response across the whole Zone addresses the MCA’s concern in their latest response regarding a single point of contact for marine co-ordination. GP confirmed that this does address these concerns. It was decided that after the discussion following lunch, no further scenarios would be required at this meeting. AOB SB noted that Forewind will be downscaling in August following the completion of the examination of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. It was noted, however, that there will remain a contact for matters concerning Dogger Bank Creyke Beck to ensure that stakeholders remain in touch with the development of the project. RN noted that NOREL will be a good forum for this. ND queried how the export cable corridors are dealt with in the DCO. SB stated that there is a separate DML for each export cable corridor and each array; four in total per application. ND asked whether THLS could receive the shapefiles for Dogger Bank Teesside C & D. Forewind agreed to send them to THLS following the meeting. [Action 0703 – 03] RN asked whether agreement had been reached regarding the naming of the projects. Julie Drew-Murphy (JDM) stated that Forewind had committed to agreeing names with relevant stakeholders post-consent in the ES for Dogger Bank Teesside A & B. SB noted that this has also been agreed in the Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs) between Forewind and THLS and the MCA for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. The reason for not doing this any earlier is to minimise stakeholder confusion in the consenting process. SB noted that they would be happy to discuss what the MCA and THLS


Page 5 of 5

might consider to be more appropriate names. For example, if naming followed a convention of ‘Dogger Bank One’, ‘Dogger Bank Two’ etc, this might go well with the proposal to potentially have a number of painted bands around each turbine to indicate to mariners which project they were within or in proximity to. ND asked whether any transboundary stakeholders had been involved. SB noted that SoCGs had been agreed with all transboundary fishing stakeholders for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. SW noted that the Royal Dutch Shipowners’ Association (KVNR) had stated that a SoCG was not required in relation to Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. GP informed Forewind that aviation lighting requirements are to be refined next week; there is a need for refined systems for the use of SAR helicopters. GP stated that it is currently thought that a solution can be found whereby all turbines are fitted with aviation lights but the default for the interior turbines is that they are turned off. When a SAR operation is taking place, the lights can be remotely switched on as required. These lights would be a much lower intensity – approx. 200 candela. SW stated that Forewind are looking into the request by the MCA for traffic monitoring – it was confirmed that this would be throughout construction and for one year of operation. The outcome would be a change to buoyage or lighting if the monitoring showed that traffic levels had not effectively settled into a pattern. ND proposed that a lighting management plan would be a useful addition for the Zone with one document encompassing the whole Zone, made up of constituent parts referring to each project. Forewind took an action to look at how this might work in practice without having to cross-refer to other projects within the DCO. [Action 0703 – 04] Stephen Vanstone (SV) asked whether Forewind could check the requirement in the DCO/DMLs regarding construction plans – THLS would like to ensure that reference is made to production of these plans ‘in consultation with relevant stakeholders’ or similar. [Action 0703 – 05]. SW noted that the updated SNSOWF report had now been distributed to stakeholders present at the meeting and that a meeting was currently proposed for 26

th March to discuss this report. Forewind

stated that they would not look to attend this meeting as the matters that would be discussed were unlikely be relevant to the Dogger Bank Zone, and that any outstanding concerns associated with the Dogger Bank projects are not suitable for that forum. SB asked whether Forewind need to do any more to address the MCA’s concerns regarding curved perimeters. GP stated that the layout rules proposed are adequate to restrict the types of layouts that the MCA have outstanding concerns about. GP stated that Paul Townsend at the MCA would be the appropriate person to contact if GP is unavailable. END

Documents

Statement of Common Ground between Forewind Coastguard …... · The relevant regulations are detailed within Table 2.1 of Chapter 16 of the ES, Shipping and Navigation (ref 6.16)