Page 368 - Alderney Regional Environmental Assessment of Renewable Energy: Environmental Report

Alderney Regional Environmental Assessment of Renewable Energy:
Environmental Report
Stakeholder Comment Action (Including Clarification
Sought/Received, if Applicable)
Section(s) in
REA
(Section) 2.1.2 Interconnector Cable Routes
and Onshore Substation - paragraph 3 "....
ARE has investigated terrestrial sites on
Alderney and has identified Mannez Quarry as
a potential location for the substation/converter
station. Both AC but particularly DC converter
stations are very large and would be likely
need to be delivered by barge, accessing a
temporary jetty local to substation/converter
station location."
(Section) 7.2.3 Data Gaps and Further Work.
We note that "further archaeological
information .... will be requested from the
Alderney Maritime Trust and La Societe
Guernesiaise."
The more detailed archaeological knowledge
of the Alderney Society must be added.
Although this clause in the Scoping Report
states that further archaeological advice will be
sort from the AMT and La Societe
Guernesiaise, no mention is made of seeking
advice from the Alderney Society - its advice
should be sort.
Noted N/A
Although large scale terrestrial building work is
not anticipated in the near future, when it does
happen, it is likely to have a pretty enormous
impact on the eastern part of the Green Belt. It
is to be hoped that ARE will reveal its
terrestrial building plans sooner rather than
later.
Noted N/A
Peter Gill,
Guernsey Harbour Master
(received 23-04-13)
The report has identified consultation with the
French. I wonder if the scope of the French
consultation identified is sufficient politically. I
suspect that the limited room for navigation in
the Race might be more politically sensitive
than a scientific / measurable matter. It’s not a
problem that any other REA has had to
address yet.
Noted N/A
The figures at the end of the report all print in a
somewhat geographically distorted fashion.
(not a big deal). However, more importantly,
figures 13 and 14 are both misleading insofar
as Fig 13 does not portray the international
maritime boundaries or the 12 mile fishing
limits correctly. Fig 14 is a very poor
representation of navigational features - In
particular the legend shows an inshore traffic
zone, the scope of which is entirely different to
that depicted. Navigational features might also
include, for example, lighthouses and even the
headland at Jobourg.
Points noted. Source of Figure 13 or 25 in the
REA amended.
The REA contains more detail on navigation
features.
Section 7.3
Graeme Proctor,
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(received 25-04-13)
The REA environmental report should supply
detail on the possible impact on navigational
issues for both Commercial and Recreational
craft, viz.
Both commercial, and recreational navigation
is considered within the REA.
7.3
Collision Risk. Collision risk is incorporated within the REA. 7.3.2.1
Navigational Safety. Navigational safety is considered throughout
the commercial and recreational shipping
section.
7.3
Visual intrusion and noise. Visual is considered separately specifically
under recreation and tourism. Noise is also
considered separately.
7.5 and 7.6
Risk Management and Emergency response. Changes to risk management and emergency
responses are considered.
7.3
R/4001/7 A.4 R.2129