nb es vd ch3 socioeconomicstourism versionc.docx 210314... · 3.1.1 this assessment considers the...

navitusbaywindpark.co.uk

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Document properties

Author Navitus Bay Development Limited

Title Socio-Economics and Tourism

Document Reference

VERSION HISTORY

Date Version Status Description/Changes

10 April 2014 1.0 Final Issued for application submission

This document has been prepared to provide information in respect of the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park and for no other purpose.

In preparation of this document Navitus Bay Development Limited and their subcontractors have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the content is accurate, up to date and complete for the purpose for which it has been prepared.

Other than any liability detailed in the contracts between the parties for this work. neither Navitus Bay Development Limited or their subcontractors shall have any liability for any loss, damage, injury, claim, expense, cost or other consequence arising as a result of use or reliance upon any information contained in or omitted from this document.

© Copyright Navitus Bay Development Limited 2014

6.1.4.3

Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement

Volume D Project Wide Page iii

Chapter 3 Socio-economics and Tourism

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. Socio-economics and Tourism................................................................... 1

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

3.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ............................................................... 3

3.3 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................... 6

3.4 Baseline Environment ............................................................................ 31

3.5 Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 45

3.6 Mitigation of Impacts and Residual Impact Assessment .............................. 68

3.7 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 69

3.8 Summary Tables ................................................................................... 70

References ..................................................................................................... 75

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 – Summary of relevant NPS advice regarding socio-economics and tourism

...................................................................................................................... 3

Table 3.2 – Summary of consultation responses ................................................. 16

Table 3.3 – Scope of the socio-economics and tourism impact assessment............. 24

Table 3.4 – Socio-economic receptor sensitivity .................................................. 25

Table 3.5 – Socio-economic magnitude of effect ................................................. 26

Table 3.6 – Tourism receptor sensitivity ............................................................ 27

Table 3.7 – Tourism magnitude of effect ............................................................ 27

Table 3.8 – Significance of impact matrix ........................................................... 28

Table 3.9 – Definition of impact significance ....................................................... 28

Table 3.10 – Socio-economic and tourism data sources & documents .................... 31

Table 3.11 – Research – Scope and methodology ............................................... 32

Table 3.12 – Drive time Key Socio-economic data ............................................... 37

Table 3.13 – Substation drive-time baseline characteristics .................................. 37

Table 3.14 – Number of domestic trips, nights and spend 2009-2011 .................... 40

Table 3.15 – Tourism employment .................................................................... 40

Table 3.16 – Tourism business density (% businesses in the area) ........................ 43

Table 3.17 – Operational offshore windfarms (<15 km from shore) (2013 data) ..... 44

Table 3.18 – Assessment parameters relevant to the socio-economic impact

assessment .................................................................................................... 46

Table 3.19 – Assessment parameters relating to the tourism impact assessment .... 47

Table 3.20 – Peak construction employment scenarios – Low Scenario .................. 52

Table 3.21 – Peak construction employment scenarios – Medium Scenario ............. 52

Table 3.22 – Peak construction employment scenarios – High Scenario .................. 53

Table 3.23 – Predicted impact of Navitus Bay on business prospects, by location –

Tourism Business Survey 2013 ......................................................................... 63

Table 3.24 – Summary of impacts ..................................................................... 71

Table 3.25 – Glossary ...................................................................................... 77

Table 3.26 – Abbreviations ............................................................................... 78

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 – Tourism impact assessment – process chart ...................................... 3

Figure 3.2 – Socio-economic supply chain, offshore & onshore tourism study area ... 8

Figure 3.3a – Drive-time study area from Southampton Port ................................. 9

Figure 3.3b – Drive-time study area from Portland Port ....................................... 10

Figure 3.3c – Drive-time study area from Portsmouth Port ................................... 11

Figure 3.3d – Drive-time study area from Poole Port ........................................... 12

Figure 3.3e – Drive-time study area from Yarmouth Port ..................................... 13

Figure 3.3f – Drive-time study area from Onshore Substation ............................... 14


Page iv Volume D Project Wide


Page left intentionally blank


Volume D Project Wide Page 1

Socio-economics and Tourism

3. Socio-economics and Tourism

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This assessment considers the potential socio-economic and tourism

impacts arising from the construction, operation and maintenance, and

decommissioning phases of the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park Project

(the Project). For the purposes of this assessment, the Project comprises:

the Offshore Development Area which incorporates: the Turbine Area and

an offshore Export Cable Corridor;

the Onshore Development Area which incorporates: the cable landfall, an

approximately 35 km Onshore Cable Corridor and associated accesses,

temporary compounds and an Onshore Substation.

3.1.2 As described in Volume B, Chapter 4 Offshore Site Selection and

Alternatives, feedback received during the consultation process with both

the public and other interested stakeholders, along with work undertaken as

part of the Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) process, informed

changes to the Offshore Development Area. As a result, the Turbine Area

presented and assessed within the Preliminary Environmental Information

(the PEI3 Turbine Area) differs from that presented within this assessment

(the Application Turbine Area). Changes to the Turbine Area resulted in a

reduction in the area of 22 km2 and consequently a reduction in the

maximum number of Wind Turbine Generators (WTG) from 218 (PEI3) to

194 (Application). No changes have been made to the density of

development within the revised boundary or to the turbine options or the

foundation parameters and options.

3.1.3 No changes have been necessary to the onshore elements of the Project as

a result of the change to the Offshore Development Area.

3.1.4 This assessment has been informed by the following supporting technical

appendices, which are summarised in terms of their scope and findings in

Table 3.11 of this Chapter:

Summer 2012 Visitor Survey (2012) (Appendix 3.1);

Navitus Bay Wind Park – Supply Chain Analysis (2014) (Appendix 3.2);

Socio-economics and Tourism Baseline Report (2013) (Appendix 3.3);

Spring 2013 Visitor Survey (2013) (Appendix 3.4);

Socio-economics, Tourism and Recreation Assessment – Local Strategy

and Policy Review (2013) (Appendix 3.5);

Survey of Tourism Businesses, Conference Facilities, Language Schools

and Festivals and Events Organisers (2013) (Appendix 3.6);

Design Visual Calibration Study (2013) (Appendix 3.7);

Design Visual Calibration Study (2014) (Appendix 3.8).

3.1.5 This assessment has also been informed by data from assessments

undertaken for other environmental topics. These include:

Air Quality – consideration of the potential for dust and other emissions

to cause disturbance to socio-economics and tourism receptors (refer to

Volumes B and C, Chapters 7 and 8 respectively);

Commercial Fisheries – consideration of the potential for change in the

scale and nature of fishing grounds in the study area to affect socio-

economic receptors (including the fishing fleet) in the study area (refer

to Volume B, Chapter 17);

Landscape and Visual – consideration of the potential visual impacts on

socio-economics and tourism receptors (refer to Volumes B and C,

Chapters 13 and 12 respectively);

Noise and Vibration – consideration of the potential for noise disturbance



Recreation – consideration of potential impacts upon leisure activities

that act as tourist attractions to the study area (Volume D, Chapter 4);

Shipping and Navigation – consideration of the potential impacts on

existing shipping routes, any requirement for deviation and the potential

impacts this would have on socio-economic receptors (Volume B, Chapter

16);

Traffic and Transportation – consideration of the potential for increased

vehicular movements and closures to roads/blockages to access on

socio-economic and tourism receptors (refer to Volume C, Chapter 14);

World Heritage Site – consideration of the potential impacts across all

relevant technical areas in the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site

(Volume D, Chapter 5).


Page 2 Volume D Project Wide


3.1.6 Consideration has been given to whether the boundary change to the

Turbine Area is such that additional surveys or modelling should be

undertaken. Refer to Table 3.11 for details of the surveys undertaken,

confirmation of whether the survey was undertaken using the PEI3

boundary or the Application boundary, and reasoning.

a) Socio-economics

3.1.7 The socio-economic analysis examines the interaction between the Project

and the local and wider economy. It also considers the potential for the local

labour force to absorb new employment opportunities in terms of its

capacity and skills profile. Where relevant, broader population impacts have

been examined. This assessment has been informed by analysis of the

supply chain to define the baseline context for the socio-economic analysis.

Refer to Table 3.11 for details of the scope of this assessment.

3.1.8 This assessment has also been informed by data from assessments

undertaken for other environmental topics. These include:

Air Quality – consideration of the potential for dust and other emissions



Commercial Fisheries – consideration of the potential for change in the

scale and nature of fishing grounds in the study area to affect socio-

economic receptors (including the fishing fleet) in the study area (refer

to Volume B, Chapter 17);

Landscape and Visual – consideration of the potential visual impacts on

socio-economics and tourism receptors (refer to Volumes B and C,

Chapters 13 and 12 respectively);

Noise and Vibration – consideration of the potential for noise disturbance



Recreation – consideration of potential impacts upon leisure activities

that act as tourist attractions to the study area (Volume D, Chapter 4);

Shipping and Navigation – consideration of the potential impacts on

existing shipping routes, any requirement for deviation and the potential

impacts this would have on socio-economic receptors (Volume B, Chapter

16);

Traffic and Transportation – consideration of the potential for increased

vehicular movements and closures to roads/blockages to access on

socio-economic and tourism receptors (refer to Volume C, Chapter 14);

World Heritage Site – consideration of the potential impacts across all

relevant technical areas in the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site

(Volume D, Chapter 5).

b) Tourism

3.1.9 The tourism analysis profiles the attraction of the area to different types of

visitors (including leisure, business and holiday visitors), and includes

consideration of visitor volumes and characteristics, key attractions and

related business effects. This assessment has been informed by: interviews

with visitors to the area; identification of the policy context; and interviews

with tourism businesses, conference facilities, language schools and festival

and event organisers. Figure 3.1 shows the relationship between the

different parts of the tourism assessment.




Figure 3.1 – Tourism impact assessment – process chart

3.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

3.2.1 This Chapter outlines the legislation, policy and guidance relevant to this

assessment of potential impacts on socio-economics and tourism.

3.2.2 This Chapter should be read in conjunction with Volume A, Chapter 3 of this

ES which details the legislative and policy context within which an impact

assessment should be undertaken.

3.2.3 Professional judgement has been applied in considering the relevance and

importance to this assessment.

a) International

3.2.4 There is no international legislation or guidance relevant to this assessment.

b) National

3.2.5 The relevant national policies are set out in the following paragraphs.

i National Policy Statements

3.2.6 The Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy EN-1 (EN-1) in

conjunction with the NPSs for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 (EN-3)

and Electricity Networks Infrastructure EN-5 (EN-5) provide the primary

policy framework for the Project and would be considered during the

examination stage for a Development Consent Order (DCO). Details of how

this assessment has complied with NPSs EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5 are detailed

in Table 3.1.


Summary of NPS Consideration within the ES

NPS EN-1

Paragraph 4.1.3 requires the IPC [now the Planning Inspectorate (PINS)] to take into account the following when weighing the adverse impacts of a proposed development against its benefits:

“its potential benefits including its

contribution to meeting the need for energy infrastructure, job creation and

any long-term or wider benefits”.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter identifies the potential of the Project to generate employment opportunities.

The need for the Project is detailed in Volume A, Chapter 3 Legislation and Policy; as well as the Planning Statement (Document Reference 8.4).






Paragraph 4.1.4 requires the IPC [now PINS] to:

“take into account environmental, social and economic benefits and adverse

impacts, at national, regional and local levels.”

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter identifies the potential impacts of the Project, at the national, regional and local levels.

Paragraph 4.2.2: Requires an applicant to:

“set[s] out information on the likely

significant social and economic effects of the development, and shows how any

likely significant effects would be avoided or mitigated.”

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter identifies the potential impacts and proposed mitigation from a socio-economic perspective.

Paragraph 4.2.6: Requires the IPC [now PINS] to: “consider how the accumulation

of, and interrelationships between, effects might affect the environment,

economy or community as a whole, even though they may be acceptable when

considered on an individual basis with

mitigation in place.”

Volume D, Chapter 6 Interrelationships Impact, identifies the potential impacts arising as a result of interrelationships between different environmental topics.

Paragraph 4.2.7 recognises that:

“In some instances it may not be possible at the time of the application for

development consent for all aspects of the proposal to have been settled in

precise detail. Where this is the case, Navitus Bay Development Limited (NBDL)

should explain in its application which

elements of the proposal have yet to be finalised and the reasons why this is the

case.”

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter identifies the parameters, and rationale for them, which have been used to inform this assessment.

Paragraph 5.12.2 states:

“Where the Project is likely to have socio-economic impacts at local or regional

levels, NBDL should undertake and include in their application an assessment

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the potential socio-economic and tourism impacts of the Project at a local, regional and national level.



of these impacts as part of the ES.”

Paragraph 5.12.3 states that an assessment should:

“consider all relevant socio-economic

impacts, which may include:

the creation of jobs and training

opportunities;

the provision of additional local services

and improvements to local infrastructure,

including the provision of educational and visitor facilities;

effects on tourism;

the impact of a changing influx of

workers during the different construction, operation and decommissioning phases…

cumulative effects.”

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the potential socio-economic and tourism impacts insofar as they relate to the matters identified in EN-1.

An assessment of potential cumulative effects is detailed in Section 3.7 of this Chapter.

Paragraph 5.12.4 requires NBDL to:

“describe the existing socio-economic conditions in the areas surrounding the

proposed development and should also

refer to how the development’s socio-economic impacts correlate with local

planning policies.”

The Legislation, Policy and Guidance context is detailed in Section 3.2 and the Baseline Environment in Section 3.4 of this Chapter. Both these aspects have been used to inform the assessment of impacts, which is detailed in Section 3.5 of this Chapter.

Paragraph 5.12.5 acknowledges:

“socio-economic impacts may be linked to other impacts, for example the visual

impact of a development…but may also have an impact on tourism and local

businesses.”

This assessment draws on the assessments undertaken in a number of other topic area; refer to the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details.

An assessment of interrelationships has also be undertaken (refer to Volume D, Chapter 6 Interrelationships, for details). The assessment of interrelationships identifies potential impacts that may arise in more than one environmental topic area with potential impacts on the same receptor, and what that impact that






may result in.


“the IPC [now PINS] should have regard to the potential socio-economic impacts

of new energy infrastructure identified by NBDL and from any other sources that

the IPC considers to be both relevant and important to its decision.”

This assessment has been submitted to help inform the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and Secretary of State’s

consideration of the Project.


“the IPC [now PINS] should consider any relevant positive provisions the developer

has made or is proposing to make to mitigate impacts…and any legacy benefits

that may arise as well as any options for phasing development in relation to the

socio-economic impacts.”

Mitigation measures have been identified and these are set out in Section 3.6 of this Chapter.

NPS EN-3

There are no specific paragraphs of relevance to this assessment.

NPS EN-5

There are no specific paragraphs of relevance to this assessment.

ii National Planning Policy Framework

3.2.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out ‘the Government’s

planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied’.

The NPPF does not contain specific policies for nationally significant

infrastructure projects. In these cases, applications for development

consent are:

“to be determined in accordance with the decision-making framework set

out in the Planning Act 2008 and relevant national policy statements for

major infrastructure, as well as any other matters that are considered both

important and relevant (which may include the National Planning Policy

Framework).”

3.2.8 The NPPF identifies 12 principles on which planning decisions are to be

made. The following are relevant to the consideration of socio-economic and

tourism impacts arising from the Project:

“Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to

deliver…infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs…;

“Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of

amenity…;

“…encourage the use of renewable resources…;

“Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and

cultural wellbeing for all…”

3.2.9 A literature review has identified the following relevant policy and related

documentation used to inform this assessment:

Core Strategies, Development Plan Documents:

Purbeck Local Plan Part 1 (Adopted), November 2012;

Bournemouth Core Strategy (Adopted), October 2012;

Poole Core Strategy (Adopted), February 2009;

Isle of Wight Core Strategy (Adopted), March 2012;

New Forest District Core Strategy (Adopted), October 2009;

New Forest National Park Core Strategy (Adopted), December 2010;

Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy (Pre-Submission), April

2012.

Economic Development Strategies:

Raising the Game – Building a More Competitive Economy in

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole 2005 – 2016;

Isle of Wight Economic Strategy 2008 – 2020;

Isle of Wight Economic Development Plan 2011/12 – 2013/14;

Economic Strategy for New Forest District, 2006;

Dorset Local Economic Partnership: Prospectus 2011;

Enterprise M3 – Strategy for Growth Discussion Document 2012;

Solent LEP Strategy for Growth 2012.

Tourism and Recreation Strategies:

Towards 2015: Shaping Tomorrow’s Tourism;




Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site Management Plan

2009 – 2014;

Dorset Coast Forum;

Bournemouth and Poole Strategic Framework 2008 – 2010;

Bournemouth Seafront Strategy, 2013;

Christchurch and East Dorset Tourism Key Issue Paper, 2010;

The Isle of Wight 2020 Vision for Tourism – Working Smarter Towards

a Sustainable Future, 2005;

Isle of Wight Island Tourism Strategy Discussion Paper, 2011;

Our Future Together II – Tourism Strategy, New Forest District and

National Park, 2009;

A Tourism Strategy for Purbeck 2008-2013;

A Tourism Strategy for Poole 2006-2015;

Bournemouth and Poole: Sport and Recreation Built Facilities Strategy

and Action Plan, 2007;

Bournemouth Green Space Strategy, 2007-2011;

New Forest National Park Recreation Management Strategy, 2010-

2030.

Renewable Energy Strategies:

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy Strategy to 2020,

2010;

Renewable Energy Potential Assessment in the New Forest District,

2010;

Eco-Island – The Isle of Wight Community Strategy.

3.3 Assessment Methodology

a) The study area

3.3.1 The socio-economics and tourism assessments require separate and distinct

analysis as they consider different aspects of the economy and use different

indicators of activity. For example, labour market effects are examined in

the context of the area within which people are likely to travel to access

employment. Tourism business effects are more concerned with the

proximity of development to relevant receptors, effects on visitor attractions

and disruption effects to businesses. Therefore they require their own study

areas.

3.3.2 Broadly, the scope of this assessment considers the potential impacts on

the following, with further detail provided in Table 3.3:

the local and regional economy and employment as a result of

investment in the construction, operation and maintenance and

decommissioning phases of the Project and the associated supply chain

(i.e. the pattern of purchasing goods and services for the procurement of

the Project);

commercial fisheries businesses, as a result of the potential changes in

the accessibility and displacement of fishing operations from the Offshore

Development Area;

commercial shipping businesses, as a result of potential changes to

routes through and around the Offshore Development Area;

tourism businesses, as a result of potential changes to visitor numbers

through visual and other effects (including impact on environmental and

other designations) and the accommodation requirements of workers at

each phase of the Project.

i Socio-economics: supply chain study area

3.3.3 The supply chain assessment first considers a broad area comprising: the

counties of Dorset and Hampshire; and the unitary authorities of Poole,

Bournemouth, the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton. This

includes the key areas of population and economic activity, as well as the

rural hinterland affected by the associated activities. Refer to Figure 3.2 for

details.

ii Socio-economics: drive-time study areas

3.3.4 More refined study areas were identified to assess the capacity of the labour

market to absorb the jobs created in the construction, operation and

maintenance and decommissioning phases. These are based on the likely

maximum drive-times which workers may consider in taking up related

employment opportunities. The drive-times identified were:

for the offshore elements of the Project, the study area comprises 30, 45

and 60 minute drive-time catchments from potential ports including

Southampton, Portsmouth, Portland, Poole and Yarmouth (Figure 3.3a to

Figure 3.3e);




for the onshore elements, the study area comprises 30, 45 and 60-

minute drive-time catchments from the Onshore Substation (Figure

3.3f).

iii Socio-economics: Commercial fisheries study area

3.3.5 The study area for the commercial fisheries assessment includes the open

sea from St. Catherine’s Point on the Isle of Wight in the east to St.

Aldhelm’s Head in Dorset in the west, including the area of inshore water up

to the coast and the offshore waters beyond the most southerly extent of

the Turbine Area. The study area solely relates to the offshore elements of

the Project. Refer to Volume B, Chapter 17 (Figure 17.1) of this ES for

further details.

iv Socio-economics: Commercial shipping study area

3.3.6 The study area for the commercial shipping assessment is based on a

minimum 10 NM buffer around the Turbine Area. This distance has been

used as it presents a sufficient area to capture the relevant information for

the Project in terms of vessel movements and historical marine accident

data. However, the study area has been extended to greater than the 10

NM buffer where required, for example when presenting main routes or

navigational features. Refer to Volume B, Chapter 16 (Figure 16.1) of this

ES for further details.

v Tourism study area

3.3.7 The wider tourism study area includes the counties of Dorset and

Hampshire, the unitary authorities of Poole, Bournemouth and the Isle of

Wight, which includes the principal towns and settlements of Bournemouth,

Poole and Swanage. As this tends to be the lowest level of aggregation at

which tourism data is available it forms the contextual area for the analysis.

However, more detailed examination of areas relevant to the offshore and

onshore elements has been undertaken based on a combination of primary

research and site visits. These areas are as follows:

Offshore elements

3.3.8 The offshore tourism study area, for the offshore elements of the Project,

comprises a 10 km coastal area stretching from the Purbeck Peninsula to

the east to the Isle of Wight to the west (Figure 3.2).

3.3.9 The offshore study area was established following consideration of how far

inland the Project might be visible, having regard to the approach adopted

in assessing other offshore wind projects and the professional judgement of

those undertaking the Seascape, Landscape and Visual assessment (refer to

Volume B, Chapter 13) and this Socio-economics and Tourism assessment.

Onshore elements

3.3.10 The onshore tourism study area comprises a 2 km buffer either side of the

Onshore Cable Corridor and a 3 km buffer surrounding the Onshore

Substation (Figure 3.2).This is considered to represent the area most likely

to be affected by the onshore elements of the Project in relation to tourism.

These impacts may include physical obstruction from cabling activities,

disturbance from construction (e.g. from machinery, site traffic) or visual

impacts from construction works or from the completed substation once

built.

Copyright: ©2013 Esri,DeLorme, NAVTEQ

Hampshire Co un ty

Dorset Coun ty

Somerset Coun ty

Surrey Coun ty

West Sussex Coun ty

Devo n Coun ty

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013

340000 390000 440000 49000080

000

8000

0

1300

00

1300

00Pa

th: C

:\_W

ork\

Offsh

oreW

orks

\_Pr

oces

sed_

Data

\Disc

ipline

s\Ge

nera

l\ES_

Figur

es\S

ocio_

econ

omic_

Recr

eatio

n\Ch

apte

r3_S

ocioE

cono

mic\

Tour

ismSt

udyA

rea_

3-2.

mxd

Socio-economic Supply Chain, Offshore & Onshore Tourism Study Areas

0 3015 km

Co n tain s Ordn an ce Survey data © Crow n copyright an d database right 2013; Copyright © 1995– 2013 Esri. All rights reserved. NOT FOR NAVIGAT IONAL USEThis map is the copyright of Navitus Bay Development Ltd. The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and Navitus Bay Development Ltd and its representatives disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use the data.

Scale @A3

Ref. No.:

Author:Checked:

Data Sources:PBA/SOCEC/01

ESSM/CG

OS

Date: 01/04/20141:550,000

Coordinate System:

Datum: OSGB 1936

Fig. No.: Figure 3.2

LegendTurbine AreaOffshore Export Cable CorridorPEI3 Turbine AreaOnshore Development AreaSupply Chain/Wider Tourism Study Area

Approved: NS

Navitus Bay Development Ltd

Rv.No.: 01

British Natio n al GridOnshore Tourism Study AreaOffshore Tourism Study Area10 NM BufferCounty Boundary


Hampshire County

Dorset County

Surrey County

Somerset County

West Sussex County

Greater London Authority

East Sussex County


351000 401000 451000 501000 55100086000

86000

136000

136000

Path

: C:\_

Wor

k\Of

fshor

eWor

ks\_

Proc

esse

d_Da

ta\D

iscipl

ines\

Gene

ral\E

S_Fig

ures

\Soc

io_ec

onom

ic_Re

creat

ion\C

hapt

er3_

Socio

Econ

omic\

Socio

Econ

omicS

tudy

Area

_3-3

a.mxd

Drive-time Study Area from Southampton Port

0 3015 km

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013This map is the copyright of Navitus Bay Development Ltd. The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and Navitus Bay Development Ltd and its representatives disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use the data.

Scale @A3

Ref. No.:

Author:Checked:

Data Source:PBA/SOCEC/02

DH

SM/CG

OSPBA

Date: 07/04/2014

1:570,000

Coordinate System:

Datum: OSGB 1936

Fig. No.: Figure 3.3a

LegendTurbine AreaOffshore Export Cable CorridorOnshore Development AreaOnshore Tourism Study AreaCounty Boundary

Approved: NS


Rv.No.: 01

British National Grid

Southampton PortDrivetimes from Southampton Port

30 Minutes45 Minutes60 Minutes


Dorset County

Hampshire County

Somerset County

Devon County


341000 371000 401000 43100086000

86000

116000

116000

Path

: C:\_

Wor

k\Of

fshor

eWor

ks\_

Proc

esse

d_Da

ta\D

iscipl

ines\

Gene

ral\E

S_Fig

ures

\Soc

io_ec

onom

ic_Re

creat

ion\C

hapt

er3_

Socio

Econ

omic\

Socio

Econ

omicS

tudy

Area

_3-3

b.m

xd

Drive-time Study Area from Portland Port

0 105 km


Scale @A3

Ref. No.:

Author:Checked:


DH

SM/CG

OSPBA

Date: 07/04/2014

1:300,000

Coordinate System:

Datum: OSGB 1936

Fig. No.: Figure 3.3b


Approved: NS


Rv.No.: 01


Portland Port Drivetime from Portland Port



Hampshire County

Dorset County

Surrey County

West Sussex County

Somerset County

East Sussex County

Greater London Authority


371000 401000 431000 461000 491000 52100086000

86000

116000

116000

146000

146000

Path

: C:\_

Wor

k\Of

fshor

eWor

ks\_

Proc

esse

d_Da

ta\D

iscipl

ines\

Gene

ral\E

S_Fig

ures

\Soc

io_ec

onom

ic_Re

creat

ion\C

hapt

er3_

Socio

Econ

omic\

Socio

Econ

omicS

tudy

Area

_3-3

c.mxd

Drive-time Study Area fromPortsmouth Port

0 2512.5 km


Scale @A3

Ref. No.:

Author:Checked:


DH

SM/CG

OSPBA

Date: 07/04/2014

1:500,000

Coordinate System:

Datum: OSGB 1936

Fig. No.: Figure 3.3c


Approved: NS


Rv.No.: 01


Portsmouth Port 30 Minutes45 Minutes60 Minutes


Dorset County

Hampshire County

Somerset County


341000 371000 401000 431000 46100056000

56000

86000

86000

116000

116000

Path

: C:\_

Wor

k\Of

fshor

eWor

ks\_

Proc

esse

d_Da

ta\D

iscipl

ines\

Gene

ral\E

S_Fig

ures

\Soc

io_ec

onom

ic_Re

creat

ion\C

hapt

er3_

Socio

Econ

omic\

Socio

Econ

omicS

tudy

Area

_3-3

d.m

xd

0 2010 km


Scale @A3

Ref. No.:

Author:Checked:


DH

SM/CG

OSPBA

Date: 07/04/2014

1:400,000

Coordinate System:

Datum: OSGB 1936

Fig. No.: Figure 3.3d


Approved: NS


Rv.No.: 01


Poole Port Drivetime from Poole Port


Drive-time Study Area fromPool Port


Hampshire County

Dorset County

West Sussex County


401000 431000 46100086000

86000

116000

116000

Path

: C:\_

Wor

k\Of

fshor

eWor

ks\_

Proc

esse

d_Da

ta\D

iscipl

ines\

Gene

ral\E

S_Fig

ures

\Soc

io_ec

onom

ic_Re

creat

ion\C

hapt

er3_

Socio

Econ

omic\

Socio

Econ

omicS

tudy

Area

_3-3

e.mxd

0 105 km


Scale @A3

Ref. No.:

Author:Checked:


DH

SM/CG

OSPBA

Date: 07/04/2014

1:250,000

Coordinate System:

Datum: OSGB 1936

Fig. No.: Figure 3.3e


Approved: NS


Rv.No.: 01


Yarmouth Port Drivetime from Yarmouth Port


Drive-time Study Area fromYarmouth Port


Dorset County

Hampshire County

Somerset County

West Sussex County

Surrey County


341000 371000 401000 431000 461000 49100086000

86000

116000

116000

146000

146000

Path

: C:\_

Wor

k\Of

fshor

eWor

ks\_

Proc

esse

d_Da

ta\D

iscipl

ines\

Gene

ral\E

S_Fig

ures

\Soc

io_ec

onom

ic_Re

creat

ion\C

hapt

er3_

Socio

Econ

omic\

Socio

Econ

omicS

tudy

Area

_3-3

f.mxd

Drive-time Study Area from Onshore Substation

0 2512.5 km


Scale @A3

Ref. No.:

Author:Checked:


DH

SM/CG

OSPBA

Date: 07/04/2014

1:450,000

Coordinate System:

Datum: OSGB 1936

Fig. No.: Figure 3.3f


Approved: NS


Rv.No.: 01

British National GridProposed Substation

Drive-time fromOnshore Substation





b) Consultation

3.3.11 Navitus Bay Development Limited (NBDL) has undertaken extensive formal

consultation, as follows:

a Scoping Opinion was received in November 2011, provided in

accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations;

consultation with the local community was undertaken in November and

December 2011 in relation to the siting of the Onshore Substation, in

accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act;

consultation with statutory consultees was undertaken between June and

July 2012 in relation to Preliminary Environmental Information 21 (PEI2),

in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act;

consultation with the local community was undertaken between February

and April 2012 on the different development options for the Project, in

accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act;

consultation with the local community was undertaken between February

and April 2013 on the revised site boundary, in accordance with Section

47 of the Planning Act;

consultation with all stakeholders (including statutory and non-statutory

consultees and the local community) was undertaken between

September and October 2013 on the final proposed development (which

includes PEI3), in accordance with Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the

Planning Act.

3.3.12 In addition, informal consultation has been undertaken with stakeholders

since 2010. Table 3.2 summarises the meetings and other communication

had with stakeholders outside of the formal consultation stages in relation

to this topic. The table also identifies how regard has been given to this in

terms of helping to develop the Project and shape the impact assessment.

3.3.13 Table 3.2 should be read in conjunction with Volume A Chapter 4

Consultation of this ES, as well as the Consultation Report (see Document

5.1 which forms part of the application for development consent), which

1 PEI1 was produced to support the 2011 Statement of Community Consultation under Section 47 of the Planning Act.

provides further details of each stage of consultation and overall

engagement.

3.3.14 Table 3.2 details the consultation undertaken with stakeholders in respect of

socio-economic and tourism matters.




Table 3.2 – Summary of consultation responses

Organisation and date Summary of response Consideration within the ES

Scoping Opinion (November 2011)

EIA Scoping Opinion, from the Infrastructure Planning Commission, now Planning Inspectorate (PINS)

The key potential environmental issues are identified for both the on and offshore elements of the project, including impacts on recreational users and tourism.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter identifies the potential impacts arising from the Project insofar as they relate to tourism.

Refer to Chapter 4, Recreation, of this volume of the ES.

It was requested that the rationale for scoping out recreation matters from the onshore socio-economic assessment is clearly stated.

An assessment of the recreation impacts arising from the onshore and offshore elements of the Project is detailed in Chapter 4, Recreation of this volume of the ES.

The Socio-economics and Tourism and Recreation assessments have been separated to assist the reader. This enables a distinction between the impacts on the tourism sector, separate to impacts on recreational activities that are undertaken by the local community as well as visitors/tourists.

It was queried how the on and offshore chapters would be split.

We have had regard to the feedback received and the Socio-economics and Tourism assessment examines project-wide impacts, considering offshore and onshore elements together.

It was stated that appropriate cross referencing should be made to other topics, as relevant.

Cross referencing is included within this assessment, as relevant.

It was stated that the assessment should:

identify both adverse and beneficial impacts on the local community, to include the number and type of jobs generated;

detail the potential influx of workers and detail how they would be accommodated;

consider the cumulative impacts of other projects from a socio-economic perspective;

assess the potential impacts of electromagnetic fields around the proposed substation on health.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter identifies the potential impacts on the local community, including any impacts arising from accommodating construction workers.

The Cumulative Impact Assessment is included in this Chapter in Section 3.7.

NBDL has shortlisted the ports of Yarmouth, Poole and Portland for use during the operation and maintenance phase. However, a decision on the port(s) to be used during construction, as well as during operation and maintenance, would not be made until after a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been secured. The supply chain analysis therefore examines potential labour requirements under low, medium and high scenarios, with the degree of local content being the main variant. The ability of the local






area to absorb any influx of workers under each scenario is considered in the Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5).

Refer to Volume C, Chapter 2 Onshore Project Description for details of the assessments and conclusions undertaken in relation to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF), which scopes out this matter.

Borough of Poole It was advised that consultation in relation to tourism matters should take place with local tourism offices, such as Poole Tourism, as the South West Tourism Board no longer exists.

Refer to later rows in this table for a summary of the consultation undertaken with stakeholders. This should be read in conjunction with Volume A, Chapter 4 Consultation, which details the approach to consultation, as well as the Consultation Report (Document Reference 5.1).

Bournemouth Borough Council Clarity was sought on how the assessment of impacts would be undertaken.

Refer to the Assessment Methodology section (Section 3.3) of this Chapter for details.

Lymington and Pennington Town Council It was stated that the site is too prominent in an area where many livelihoods rely on tourism.


Purbeck District Council It was stated that the ES must recognise the importance of tourism on the local economy of Purbeck.

A number of other stakeholders were identified for NBDL to engage with, including the Destination Management Organisations, the Dorset and East Devon World Heritage Site Team and the Dorset Coast Forum.


Stage 1 PEI Section 42 Consultation Responses (June - July 2012)

Dorset County Council A request was made to take account of economic effects on tourism, fisheries, boat-builders, shipping and manufacturing, as well as consideration of links to skills development and learning opportunities with educational establishments.

Justification of the 10 km area for the business survey was sought, with consideration of all potential impacts.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the assessment undertaken.

Purbeck District Council Further details were sought on the methods to assess the direct impact on the tourist industry, particularly in areas such as Swanage.

The Assessment Methodology section (Section 3.3) of this Chapter details the approach to the assessments. This should be read in conjunction with the studies undertaken, which have informed this assessment.






Borough of Poole Consideration of the potential impacts on tourists visiting Poole was sought.

Refer to the Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter for details.

Ryde Town Council Consideration of how local people and businesses could contribute to the development to enable the project to have a positive benefit on the local economy was sought.

Refer to the Mitigation Residual Impact section (Section 3.6) of this Chapter for details.

Lymington & Pennington Town Council Concern was raised that any reduction in recreational boating activity would have an impact on the local economy.


Milford Parish Council Concern was raised that the visual impact of the wind park will affect the enjoyment of the area by both tourists and residents; and tourist, fishing, shipping and recreational boating industries.


East Stoke Parish Council Concern was raised that the wind park may affect tourism in the area.


Stage 2 PEI Section 42 Consultation Responses (September - October 2013)

Various, including Dorset County Council and Bournemouth Council

Further information was sought on the information used to inform the assessment of potential impacts.

Refer to the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details.

Various, including Dorset County Council and Bournemouth Council, Bournemouth and Poole Tourism Management Board

Concerns were raised in relation to the approach taken in the technical studies used to inform the assessment of potential impacts. Comments included reference to the visuals used, the timing of the survey, the study area used, the methodology taken.

Refer to the Assessment Methodology section (Section 3.3) and the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details.

Public Health England Details were sought on the Electro-Magnetic Field assessment, to understand whether there would be any potential impacts.

Refer to Volume C, Chapter 2 Onshore Project Description for details.

Other Consultations

Bournemouth and Poole Tourism Management Boards, April 2012

The Boards were approached on the scope of an assessment to understand the potential impact of the project on the tourism sector.

Feedback was received regarding the need for an assessment of tourism impacts year round.

Refer to the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details of the findings from the surveys undertaken, which include interviews with local businesses.

NBDL considers that a spring and summer assessment is sufficient in order to inform the assessment of potential impacts. These have enabled NBDL to understand people’s

views between the peak and off-peak periods.

Isle of Wight Eco Forum, May 2012 Agreement was sought on the approach to assessing impacts on the visitor economy.

Refer to the Assessment Methodology section (Section 3.3) of this Chapter for details.






Supply Chain Events, June 2012 A supply chain event was held in both Poole and Newport on the Isle of Wight, with approximately 50 companies in attendance as well as NBDL and its specialist technical consultants.

The purpose was to share information with the business community and gathering information on capability of local companies.

Refer to the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details of the findings from the supply chain events held.

Tourism officials /representatives across the study area, 19 June 2012

Bournemouth Borough Council; Christchurch and East Dorset Borough Councils (shared service); Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce; Isle of Wight Council; New Forest District Council;

New Forest Tourism Association; Bournemouth Tourism Management Board; Poole Tourism Management Board; Purbeck District Council;

Swanage and Purbeck Hospitality Association

The draft Business Survey questionnaire was circulated for information/comment. A number of comments were received and adjustments made to the final Business Survey questionnaire. For example, ‘language studies’ was added and an additional question posed to identify businesses with a sea view.

Interviews were held with some local tourism businesses, conference facilities, language schools and festivals and event organisers. Refer to the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details.

Tourism officials / representatives across the study area, 13 July 2012

(as above)

The draft Business Survey sample frame was circulated for information/comment. Various comments were received from officers.

Additional questions were added. Additions were made to the Business Survey population.

Dorset County Council, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Council noted that the following matters should be addressed as part of an impact assessment:

economic impacts on the tourism, fisheries, boat building, shipping and manufacturing industries;

consideration should be given to skills and learning opportunities.

It was also stated that the 10 km study area for the Business Survey needs to be justified.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the potential impacts of the Project, including impacts on receptors which include tourism, fisheries and other industries. In the main this assessment considers potential impacts on the economy as a whole, rather than on individual sectors; this is consistent with the approach taken for similar assessments.

Purbeck District Council, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Council stated that further information should be provided in respect of:

the methodology to assess direct impacts on the tourism sector, specifically in relation to the area of

The Assessment Methodology section (Section 3.3) of this Chapter for details of the approach to the assessments, as well as the Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) which details the findings of those assessments.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this






Swanage;

the methodology to assess direct impacts on the fishing industry, specifically in relation to crabs and the area of Swanage.

Chapter details the potential impacts on the tourism and commercial fisheries sector across the study area.

It is not possible to make comparisons at lower levels of aggregation (e.g. Swanage), due to a lack of data.

Borough of Poole, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Council stated that the assessment should include detailed consideration of potential impacts of the project of visiting tourists to Poole.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the potential impacts on the tourism sector within the study area, rather than on a location by location basis. See response to Purbeck District Council for details.

It is not possible to make comparisons at lower levels of aggregation (e.g. Poole), due to a lack of data.

Ryde Town Council, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Town Council stated that local businesses and people should contribute to the development in order for the project to have a positive benefit on the local economy.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the predicted benefits of the Project at a local, regional and national level.

Milford Parish Council, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Parish Council stated that there would be economic impacts on the tourist, fishing, shipping and recreational boating industries.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the potential impacts on these receptors.

East Stoke Parish Council, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Parish Council stated that the wind park may affect tourism in the local area.

The Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter details the potential impacts on the tourism sector, including local businesses.

West Lulworth Parish Council, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Parish Council stated that the wind park may have an adverse impact on tourism.

Health Protection Agency (HPA), July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the HPA stated that their position in relation to applications for onshore and offshore wind farms.

Refer to Volume C Chapter 2 Onshore Project Description for details of the assessment undertaken in relation to Electro-magnetic fields (EMF). This demonstrates that the Project would not result in EMF levels above those prescribed by the HPA. Therefore, no assessment of potential impacts to health has been necessary.

National Trust, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the National Trust stated it would be keen to comment on tourism related studies.

Refer to the t (Document Ref. 5.1) for details of the feedback received to the Preliminary Environmental Information 3 document, which included details of the socio-economic and tourism assessments undertaken, as well as details of how regard has been had to all representations received in finalising this assessment.






Subsequent meetings have been held in relation to Seascape, Landscape and Visual matters, refer to Volume B, Chapter 13 of the ES for details.

RYA, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the RYA stated that the “RYA UK

Coastal Atlas of Recreation Boating should be used to compile baseline information, which can be used to

understand the importance of effects on tourism, recreation and wider socio-economic matters”.

Several meetings were held with the RYA, including in July 2012 which are detailed in the Commercial Fisheries assessment (Volume B, Chapter 17), upon which this assessment draws.

East Lulworth Parish Council, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Parish Council stated that the wind park would not create any jobs, as the turbines would be manufactured overseas.

The Navitus Bay Wind Park Supply Chain Analysis document (Appendix 3.2) considers various scenarios about the extent of local supply chain involvement in the Project. Refer to Appendix 3.2 and the Impact Assessment Section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter for further details.

Christchurch Tourism Association, July 2012 Views were sought on the approach to assessing impacts on the visitor economy. Comments on the visuals to be used were received. Refer to Volume, B Chapter 13 Seascape, Landscape and Visual for details of visualisations.

The potential impacts on the tourism sector are detailed in the Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter. This assessment was informed by the studies undertaken which include Spring and Summer Visitor Surveys (Appendix 3.1 and 3.4 respectively), two Visual Calibration Studies (April 2013 and February 2014) (Appendix 3.7 and 3.8) and a Business Survey (Appendix 3.6). Refer to these appendices and the Impact Assessment Section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter for further details.

Meyrick Estate, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Meyrick Estate stated that the project would have a visual impact which could have an effect on local tourism.

Refer to the Impact Assessment section (Section 3.5) of this Chapter for details. This has been informed by the Seascape, Landscape and Visual assessments for the offshore and onshore elements of the Project (Volume B, Chapter 13 and Volume C, Chapter 12 respectively).

Several follow up meetings have been held with the Meyrick Estate. Refer to the Consultation Report (Document Reference 5.1) for details the engagement held with landowners.

Christchurch Sailing Club, July 2012 In response to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 2 consultation, the Club stated that the project would have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity which would have potential effects on tourism.

Refer to the Impact Assessment Section (Chapter 3.5) for details. This has been informed by the Landscape and Visual assessments for the offshore and onshore elements of the Project (Volume B, Chapter 13 and Volume C,






Chapter 12 respectively).

Summer Visitor Surveys, June to September 2012 The survey involved face to face interviews with a random sample of 1,520 visitors during the Summer tourism season from June to September 2012. Sampling points were the locations from which the proposed wind farm may be most visible.

Refer to the Summer Visitor Surveys document (Appendix 3.1 of the Technical Appendices) for details of the approach and findings of this survey.

Tourism officers at local authorities in the study area, December 2012 (i.e. Bournemouth Borough Council; Christchurch Borough Council; East Dorset District Council; New Forest District Council; New Forest National Park Authority; Isle of Wight Council; Borough of Poole; Purbeck District Council; Dorset County Council; Hampshire County Council)

The Tourism and Recreation Research Framework was circulated for information/comment, prior to discussion at Tourism Liaison Group.

Detailed comments on the socio-economics and tourism assessment were received. Regard was had to the comments when finalising the scope of the studies undertaken.

Tourism Liaison Group, January 2013 The scope of the Framework was presented and discussed. No further research elements were identified for inclusion.

Method adopted as basis for assessment. Refer to Methodology section (Section 3.3) of this Chapter for details.

Tourism officers at local authorities in the study area, March 2013

Requests were made to each tourism officer for any further relevant data they may have.

Responses were received from Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Poole and New Forest.

The information obtained was used to inform the assessment. Refer to the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details.

Purbeck District Council, March 2013;

Christchurch and East Dorset District Councils, March 2013;

Hampshire County Council, March 2013;

Isle of Wight Council, March 2013;

Poole Borough Council, March 2013;

West Dorset and Weymouth District Councils, April 2013.

Request for individual meeting (or telephone discussion if more convenient) regarding tourism sensitivity and impacts on a location basis.

The information obtained was used to understand the baseline environment which in turn was used to informed the assessment of impacts. Refer to Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this Chapter respectively.

Spring Visitor Surveys, March and April 2013 The survey involved face to face interviews with a random sample of 507 visitors during part of the Spring from March and April 2013. Sampling points were the locations from which the proposed wind farm may be most visible.

Refer to the Spring Visitor Surveys document (Appendix 3.4) for details of the approach and findings of this survey.

Local tourism-related businesses, March and April 2013 Interviews conducted with local tourism-related businesses to understand their views on the potential impacts of the project on their business. Businesses

Interviews were held with some local tourism businesses, conference facilities, language schools and festivals/event organisers. Refer to the Tourism Business Survey –






contacted were identified due to their siting either within:

A 10 km strip from the coastline closest to the proposed development site, stretching from the Purbeck Peninsula to the east of the Isle of Wight

2 km of the proposed onshore cable route and 3 km of the Onshore Substation.

Conference Facilities, Language Schools and Festivals and Events Organisers’ surveys (Appendix 3.6) for details, with a summary set out in the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details.

Design Visual Calibration, April 2013 Qualitative research conducted with four focus groups to understand whether photographic visuals used to support the Summer and Spring Visitor Surveys had any perceived differences between them.

Refer to the Design Visual Calibration Study Technical Report (Appendix 3.7) for details of the methodology used and results collected. A summary is set out in the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter.

New Forest District Council, May 2013

Meeting held to discuss the characteristics of tourism on the New Forest and potential impacts from the wind park.

Interviews were held with some local authorities. Refer to the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter for details.

In July 2013 the following were contacted:

local authorities: Dumfries & Galloway; Allerdale; Copeland; Cumbria; Barrow; Wirral; Sefton; Denbighshire; Conwy; Canterbury; Kent County; Lincolnshire County; East Lindsey; Great Yarmouth; and Norfolk County.

Chambers of Commerce: Dumfries & Galloway; Cumbria; Wirral; West Cheshire & North Wales; Kent Invicta; Lincolnshire County; and Norfolk County.

Discussions were held with local authorities and Chambers of Commerce in locations where offshore wind farms are operational, to understand any potential impacts that may have been experienced.

The Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter includes details of the findings and examines whether perceptions of offshore wind farms from a local authority or business perspective have changed between pre-construction, construction and operational phases.

Tourism Liaison Group 2, November 2013 A summary of consultation responses from statutory consultees was provided, outlining how the main themes would be addressed in the final submission. Initial discussion was had regarding potential mitigation; and a schedule of options was subsequently issued, although no feedback was received.

Refer to the Mitigation and Residual Impact Assessment section (Section 3.6) of this Chapter for details.

Design Visual Calibration, February 2014 Qualitative research conducted with four focus groups to establish whether perceptions of the Project’s visual were changed as a result of the boundary change announced on 6 February 2014.

Refer to the Design Visual Calibration Study Technical Report (Appendix 3.8) for details of the methodology used and results collected. A summary set out in the Baseline Environment section (Section 3.4) of this Chapter.




c) The scope of the assessment

3.3.15 The scope of the assessments have been developed having regard to:

assessments of offshore wind farms elsewhere in the UK; the feedback and

guidance received in the Scoping Opinion from the IPC (now subsumed into

PINS); and feedback from other consultees.

3.3.16 Broadly, the scope of this assessment considers the potential impacts on:

the local and regional economy and employment as a result of

investment in the construction, operation and maintenance and

decommissioning phases of the Project and the associated supply chain

(i.e. the pattern of purchasing goods and services for the procurement of

the Project);

commercial fisheries businesses, as a result of the potential changes in

the accessibility and displacement of fishing operations from the Offshore

Development Area;

commercial shipping businesses, as a result of potential changes to

routes through and around the Offshore Development Area;

tourism businesses, as a result of potential changes to visitor numbers

through visual and other effects (including impact on environmental and

other designations) and the accommodation requirements of workers at

each phase of the Project.

3.3.17 This Chapter should be read in conjunction with other Chapters, which

consider potential impacts on other sectors e.g. the aggregates industry

(refer to Volume B, Chapter 19 Other Offshore Infrastructure) and diving

businesses (refer to Volume A, Chapter 4 Recreation for details).

3.3.18 Table 3.3 details the scope of this assessment, having regard to the

potential impacts that may arise.

Table 3.3 – Scope of the socio-economics and tourism impact assessment

Assessment Scope

Socio-economic:

Supply chain

The construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases would generate potential opportunities for suppliers of goods and services, either directly or indirectly.

The assessment considers the extent to which the local and regional labour market can provide labour services and skills, and the extent to which there is business capacity to supply the components of the Project, either directly or indirectly, based upon the supply chain modelling and the baseline data.

Key socio-economic indicators used to inform this assessment are:

population and skills: current education and training attainment levels; population growth; average earnings; employment by occupational groups.

socio-economic potential: industry profile (particularly manufacturing and construction); economic activity; unemployment; future education; and training provision.

Socio-economic:

Commercial fisheries

The construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases may affect the ability of fishermen to access existing fishing grounds and influence fishing efficiency.

The assessment of potential socio-economic impacts on commercial fisheries considers the potential nature, scale and likelihood of impacts.

Socio-economic:

Commercial shipping

The construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases may affect established shipping routes and port and harbour infrastructure.

The assessment of potential impacts on commercial shipping considers the extent of potential socio-economic impacts on transport and other businesses using shipping lanes and on ports and harbours within the study area.

Tourism

The construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases may affect tourism business and activities within the sector, either directly or indirectly.

The type of effects which may be experienced by tourism businesses/receptors include:

Visual effects – the potential for the presence of the project to affect tourism activity.

Noise effects – The potential for any noise created in the




Table 3.3 – Scope of the socio-economics and tourism impact assessment

Assessment Scope

construction phase to influence tourism activity.

Traffic / Accessibility Effects – The potential for any traffic congestion/severance/disruption during the construction phase to affect tourism activity.

Positive business effects - Accommodation providers may benefit from increased custom for workers staying during the construction phase.

Key socio-economic indicators used to inform this assessment are:

tourism employment;

tourism business density;

tourism-related business impacts (established by the tourism business survey which covered: accommodation providers; language schools; conferences, festivals and event organisers);

origin of tourism business customer base.

d) Impact assessment methodology

3.3.19 This assessment accords with the methodology being adopted for the EIA

for the Project. Refer to Volume A, Chapter 5 Environmental Impact

Assessment Methodology for details.

3.3.20 Applying this approach to the socio-economic impact assessment, which

includes commercial fisheries and commercial shipping, the receptor

sensitivity and magnitude of effect criteria are detailed in Table 3.4 and

Table 3.5.

3.3.21 Tourism is assessed separately, to reflect the different factors affecting

tourism (Table 3.6 and Table 3.7). In particular the role of an area’s image

and status (including designated areas) as a driver for economic activity is

different from the more direct influence of the supply chain.

i Socio-economic impact assessment - sensitivity

3.3.22 Sensitivity of a socio-economic receptor is defined by the nature of the

supply chain. Table 3.4 details the sensitivity categories being used within

this assessment and their respective definitions.

Table 3.4 – Socio-economic receptor sensitivity

Sensitivity Definition

High

There is low/limited availability of labour and skills in the area’s

workforce (this is dependent on specific project requirements and the degree to which they can be met in the area under consideration).

The Project would lead to labour market pressure and distortions (i.e. wage inflation, skills and capacity shortages, import of labour).

Commercial fisheries: the receptor is dependent on resources and fishing grounds which are the main focus of local activity.

Commercial shipping: national shipping lanes or routes which are the main focus of local activity are potentially restricted. The receptor is dependent on access to these.

Medium

The receptor has a constrained supply of labour and skills.

The Project may lead to labour market pressure and distortions (i.e. wage inflation, skills and capacity shortages, import of labour).

Commercial fisheries: the receptor regularly uses regional fishing grounds and/or areas important locally. Business performance is linked to recoverability.

Commercial shipping: regional shipping lanes or routes which are an important focus of local activity are potentially restricted. Receptor makes regular use of these.

Low

The receptor has a readily available labour force: some skill deficits.

The Project is unlikely to lead to labour market pressure and distortions (i.e. wage inflation, skills and capacity shortages, import of labour).

Commercial fisheries: potential effects on resources and recoverability for local fishing grounds and/or on resources of limited focus of local activity. The receptor uses local fishing grounds but has alternatives available.

Commercial shipping: there is a potential restriction of access to minor shipping lanes or on routes which are a limited focus of local activity. The receptor makes limited use of these.

Very low The receptor has a readily available labour force and skills.




Table 3.4 – Socio-economic receptor sensitivity


The Project would not lead to labour market pressure and distortions (i.e. wage inflation, skills and capacity shortages, import of labour).

Commercial fisheries: the fishing grounds affected are never or infrequently used by the receptor.

Commercial shipping: there would be potential restrictions of access to routes which are rarely used by the receptor.

ii Socio-economic impact assessment - magnitude of effect

3.3.23 Table 3.5 details of the magnitude of effect categories being used within this

assessment and their respective definitions.

3.3.24 The key socio-economic indicators for the study area relate to: skills;

changes in the proportion of skilled workforce in the study area in relation

to national averages; changes in educational attainment levels in relation to

national averages; capacity; changes in the proportion of relevant workforce

(i.e. manufacturing and construction workers); changes in the available

labour force (including the unemployed workforce); changes in education

and training provision such as the proposed introduction of relevant courses

in institutions serving the study area.

3.3.25 The key commercial fishing indicators for the study area relate to changes

to the level of access to traditional fishing grounds (business impacts from

them) and the availability of commercially fished species.

3.3.26 The key shipping indicators for the study area relate to the length and time

of commercial route deviations (business impacts from them).

Table 3.5 – Socio-economic magnitude of effect

Magnitude Definition

High

Where effects:

would be observed on an international, national or regional scale;

where the number of jobs created or lost in the study area would be greater than 250 (based upon EU definition of small and medium enterprises);

would be of long-term duration (i.e. greater than 5 years).

Frequency is not a relevant consideration.

Table 3.5 – Socio-economic magnitude of effect


Medium

Where effects:

would be noticeable and may be judged to be important at a local scale, either because there are large effects on few receptors or smaller effects on a larger proportion of receptors;

where the number of jobs created or lost in the study area would be greater than 50, but fewer than 250;

would be medium-term (i.e. 3-5 years).


Low

Where effects:

would be small scale, with a limited number of affected receptors;

where the number of jobs created or lost in the study area would be greater than 10, but fewer than 50;

would be short-term (i.e. 1-2 years).


Very low

Where effects:

would not be discernible;

where fewer than 10 jobs would be created or lost within the study area;

would be temporary (i.e. experienced for less than one year).

iii Tourism impact assessment

3.3.27 Tourism behaviour would be impacted if the Project results in a change to

the pattern of visitors/users in terms of numbers and/or expenditure. In

considering such factors, opportunities for related expenditure, any

potential for variation and its consequent effect on turnover or employment

would be of importance.

3.3.28 The significance of the impact is determined through an understanding of

the sensitivity of a receptor and the anticipated magnitude of effect.

iv Tourism impact assessment - sensitivity of receptor

3.3.29 In considering the level of sensitivity for tourism, the standing of the

receptor or resource is the defining factor. This is established through:




tourism businesses’ relative attraction to customers from outside the

study area and the Project’s potential to influence broader perceptions of

the area. Where a majority of trade is non-local this is more likely to be

the case.

the relative importance of tourism as a business sector. Where tourism is

more important relative to other sectors, impacts may have a potential

to be broader in nature.

3.3.30 The main factors relevant to this consideration are outlined in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 – Tourism receptor sensitivity


High

In relation to tourism businesses, where more than 50% of the customer base is drawn from outside the regional area.

In relation to the importance of the tourism economy within the study area, where the proportion of tourism related employment at the relevant local authority level (or combination of local authorities) is over 120% of the GB average (which is 8.2%).

Medium

In relation to tourism businesses, where greater than 25% of the customer base, but less than 50%, is drawn from outside the regional area.

In relation to the importance of the tourism economy within the study area, where the proportion of tourism related employment at the relevant local authority level (or combination of local authorities) is between 100% and 120% of the GB average (which is 8.2%).

Low

In relation to tourism businesses, where greater than 10% of the customer base, but less than 25%, is drawn from outside the regional area.

In relation to the importance of the tourism economy within the study area, where the proportion of tourism related employment at the relevant local authority (or combination of local authorities) is between 80% and 100% of the GB average (which is 8.2%).

Very low

In relation to tourism businesses, where less than 10% of the customer base is drawn from outside the regional area.

In relation to the importance of the tourism economy within the study area, where the proportion of tourism related employment at the relevant local authority (or combination of local authorities) is less than 80% of the GB average (which is 8.2%).

v Tourism impact assessment - magnitude of effect

3.3.31 The magnitude of effect can be gauged by estimating the amount of change

on the receptor arising from the Project, or relevant components. These are

evaluated in line with the criteria set out in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 – Tourism magnitude of effect


High

Effects are of long-term duration (i.e. greater than 5 years).

Where the perceived impact on turnover/customer base is considered by more than half of the business survey respondents to be high (i.e. greater than 15% reduction or increase) or moderate (i.e. greater than 10% but less than 15% reduction or increase); and where the assessed level of impact remains consistent with the perceived level of impact.

Medium

Effects are medium-term (i.e. 3-5 years).

Where the perceived impact on turnover/customer base is considered by between a third and a half of business survey respondents to be high (i.e. greater than 15% reduction or increase) or moderate (i.e. greater than 10% but less than 15% reduction or increase); and where the assessed level of impact remains consistent with the perceived level of impact.

Low

Effects are short-term (i.e. 1-2 years).

Where the perceived impact on turnover/customer base is considered by less than a third of business survey respondents to be high (i.e. greater than 15% reduction or increase) or moderate (i.e. greater than 10% but less than 15% reduction or increase); and where the assessed level of impact remains consistent with the perceived level of impact.

Very low

Effects are short-term (i.e. less than one year).

Where fewer than 5% of business survey respondents considered the perceived impact on turnover/customer base to be high (i.e. greater than 15% reduction or increase) or moderate (i.e. greater than 10% but less than 15% reduction or increase), and where over two thirds of respondents consider there would be no perceived impact on turnover/customer base; and where the assessed level of impact remains consistent with the perceived level of impact




vi Significance of impact

3.3.32 The overall significance of an impact is determined by combining the site-

specific sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of effect (the impact

significance matrix is illustrated in Table 3.8). This follows the standard

approach illustrated in the EIA Methodology in Volume A, Chapter 5.

Table 3.8 – Significance of impact matrix

3.3.33 It should be noted that professional opinion is also used to determine the

level of impact significance, following the definitions given in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 – Definition of impact significance

Magnitude Criteria

Major

The value of the receptor and the magnitude of effect are predicted to give rise to fundamental change in activity. This would indicate: employment effects in the tourism sector; and/or in the supply chain that cannot be readily absorbed within the existing workforce; or that would result in large scale reductions in business (including tourism receptors) performance.

Moderate

The value of the receptor and the magnitude of effects are predicted to give rise to impacts that are measureable but not likely to cause a fundamental change to the activity. This would include: an increase in demand which could be accommodated with planned improvements in the capacity of the labour market (e.g. increases in working age population, improved skills and

Table 3.9 – Definition of impact significance

Magnitude Criteria

training infrastructure); or a notable reduction in the scale or attractiveness of a tourism receptor to most of its users.

Minor

The value of the receptor and the magnitude of effects are predicted to give rise to impacts that are detectable, but alone are not likely to result in a change to the activity. This would indicate: employment effects in supply chain activity that can be readily absorbed by the existing workforce; and/or little anticipated change in business performance.

Negligible The value of the socio-economic or tourism receptor is not predicted to give rise to impacts that would affect employment or business performance.

3.3.34 Following the determination of impact significance, the overall impact

significance is reported as either ‘Significant’ or ‘Not Significant’ under terms

of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations (2009) (the EIA Regulations). Where impact significance was

assessed as negligible or minor, the overall impact is Not Significant. Where

the impact significance was assessed as moderate or major, the overall

impact is Significant.

e) Limitations and assumptions

i Limitations

3.3.35 The limited availability of tourist and visitor information and data at sub-

regional, local authority and lower levels of aggregation precludes detailed

analysis of impacts at specific locations. In the absence of consistent data

for different tourism receptors (for example reflecting year on year

variations in patronage), pragmatic use has been made of different

information sources. The business survey undertaken has sought to fill

other information gaps.

3.3.36 The Business Survey was carried out in spring 2013 before the revision to

the Turbine Area (in February 2014). However, the assessment of potential

impacts on businesses makes no further adjustment for the boundary

change. This is because a key result of the boundary change has been a

reduction in Seascape, Landscape and Visual impacts, therefore, the results




of the Business Study (on the larger PEI3 boundary) is considered to

provide a worst case.

ii Assumptions

3.3.37 The assumptions used in preparing the assessments include:

Supply chain

3.3.38 The principal assumptions of the supply chain analysis were:

the total lifetime undiscounted cost of the construction, operation and

maintenance and decommissioning phases of the Project is estimated to

be £5.4 billion (using 2013 costs). Of this almost 55% (£2.9 billion) is

capital expenditure covering the project evolution and consenting stages,

turbine manufacture, other plant manufacture, investment in

Operational, Maintenance and Servicing (OMS) facilities and installation

and commissioning of the offshore and onshore components. Applying a

time discount to the capital expenditure over the Project period gives a

discounted investment of £2.4 billion.

Assumed local impact scenarios:

Low local impact – No local manufacture of components or

significant offshore installation; some onshore cable and substation

construction content; managed from elsewhere in the UK and with

Operational, Maintenance and Servicing (OMS) works undertaken by

an offshore service vessel based outside the study area. Major

component replacement uses local ports.

Medium local impact – As per the Low local impact scenario but

with more local management; local pre-assembly and installation

based on new port facilities constructed using local contractors

(although specialist vessels remain non-local); more local support for

foundation, cable and electrical installation. OMS based in a local port.

High local impact – As per Medium local impact scenario but with

locally made concrete turbine foundations moved using local tugs.

the three local impact scenarios reflect the potential variation in local

business’ involvement and the eventual procurement decisions (noting

that local is defined as Dorset, Hampshire, Bournemouth, Poole and the

Isle of Wight). The cost of OMS for the Project is estimated to be £2.1

billion of the total £5.4 billion undiscounted cost. Applying a time

discount to operational expenditure gives a discounted investment of

£1.1 billion.

using the three local impact scenarios it is possible to estimate likely

local impacts. These take account of leakage (both outside the UK and

outside the study area); deadweight (negligible as the effects are

unlikely to occur without the Project); and displacement (the process is

unlikely to displace other wind farm decommissioning activity as far as is

known at this stage).

this analysis includes the onshore and offshore elements of the Project

together, rather than as separate elements.

3.3.39 The following assumptions have been made specifically for the offshore

elements:

a decision will not be taken on which port(s) facilities would be used to

support the construction, operation and maintenance and

decommissioning phases until after a Development Consent Order (DCO)

has been secured. However, the ports of Yarmouth, Poole and Portland

have been shortlisted for use during the operation and maintenance

phase. The capacity of these ports within the study area to meet the

Project’s needs has been considered in the supply chain analysis. The

assessment has been based on consideration of existing facilities, having

regard to existing planning permissions for additional port related

development and facilities, and in discussion with relevant port

operators.

while the assessments focus on a construction programme of between 3

and 4.5 years, if the start of construction were delayed it is not expected

that this would result in greater impacts than those outlined in this

assessment.

in the decommissioning phase, activities would involve dismantling the

foundations, turbines and offshore substations. It is assumed this would

use similar vessels and port facilities to those used at the construction

stage. If a piled foundation design were used it is expected that the piles

would be cut at an agreed point beneath the seabed. If concrete gravity

base foundations were used it is expected that they would be completely

removed. Buried cables are expected to be cut and left in place. A full

decommissioning programme would be submitted to and approved by




the Secretary of State at least four months prior to carrying out any

decommissioning works.

3.3.40 The following assumptions have been made specifically for the onshore

elements:

the majority of onshore cable and substation installation is likely to be

undertaken by UK-based civil contractors, having regard to the findings

of the supply chain analysis.

the extent to which employment and investment is additional requires

consideration of:

deadweight (the extent to which the effects would have taken place

without the Project);

displacement (the degree to which the Project displaces existing

economic activity);

leakage (the proportion of jobs taken up by residents outside the

study area);

multiplier effects (reflecting the impact of the direct, indirect and

induced expenditure in wider economy).

for this assessment, standard capital project additionality adjustments

are made to reflect the less specialist civil and electrical engineering

characteristics of onshore connection infrastructure (compared to those

of the offshore components). The assumptions used are: deadweight at

10.3%; displacement at 43.1%; leakage at 17.3%; multiplier effects at

1.46. This results in a combined net additional adjustment of 51.7%.

These adjustments are taken from “Research to improve the assessment

of additionality” (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2009).

upon the cessation of commercial operation of the connection works, an

Onshore Decommissioning Plan shall be submitted for approval in writing

by the relevant planning authority. The plan will be developed and

updated in light of any changes to legislation or best practice. The

decommissioning plan must be implemented as approved.

Tourism

3.3.41 In assessing potential impacts on the tourism sector, it is assumed that the

views provided by the sample interviewed for the Summer and Spring

Visitor Surveys (see Appendices 3.1 and 3.4) and the Design Visual

Calibration Surveys (Appendices 3.7 and 3.8) are representative of the

views of the wider population. Similarly, it is assumed that the views given

by the sample of tourism businesses and other service providers are

representative of the sector.

f) Cumulative impact assessment methodology

3.3.42 The need to consider cumulative impacts is a requirement of the EIA

process. For the assessment of potential cumulative impacts on Socio-

Economics and Tourism receptors the potential impacts from projects and

plans within the study area (see earlier sections for details), to act

cumulatively with the Project were considered.

3.3.43 The methodology for assessing potential cumulative impacts is detailed in

Volume A, Chapter 5 Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology.

g) Measures adopted as part of the Project

3.3.44 The assessment within this Chapter takes into account mitigation measures

that have been incorporated in the Project as part of the design process,

and other measures that are considered standard practice within the

construction industry. Together these measures are termed “measures

adopted as part of the Project”. This mitigation is distinct from additional

mitigation which is applied following the identification of potentially

significant impacts. The following measures are relevant to this Socio-

economic and Tourism assessment but are not exhaustive:

i Turbine Area

the siting of the Turbine Area further from the coastline (refer to Volume

B, Chapter 4 Offshore Site Selection and Alternatives for details),

resulting in: a reduction in the size of the Turbine Area (from 198 km² to

153 km²); a reduction in the maximum number of turbines (from 333 to

194); a reduction in the horizontal extent of the wind park; and a

reduction in the overall capacity generating capacity (from 1,200 MW to

970 MW);

where possible, the Turbine Area has been sited to avoid commercial and

navigation routes; but where it has not been possible, the Turbine Area

has been sited in order to minimise intrusion on such areas;

similarly, the Turbine Area has been sited to avoid dive sites and other

marine receptors which might act as a tourism focus, as far as possible;




techniques (e.g. soft-start piling) would be adopted during construction,

where possible, to avoid disturbance or damage to known commercial

fisheries, or marine tourism receptors within the Turbine Area (refer to

Volume B, Chapters 10, 16 and 17 of this ES for details);

provision of a communications protocol to be submitted to and approved

by the relevant local authority(ies) prior to commencement of

construction. The protocol would require and specify the measures to be

adopted when disseminating information during the construction phase,

including details of any exclusion zones;

promulgation of Notices to Mariners to ensure awareness of areas to be

avoided during each phase of the Project;

provision of a 500 m rolling Safety Zone around structures and partially

completed structures during construction works, with guard vessels

enforcing this.

ii Onshore cable corridor

while some minor roads may be temporarily obstructed, traffic

management measures would be adopted to enable many to continue to

be used. The management of any road closures would be undertaken in

accordance with the draft Construction Traffic Management Plan

(Document 8.5, Appendix 3);

trenchless crossing, including HDD, of arterial roads, railways and rivers,

would reduce obstruction, to ensure access can be maintained for the

duration of the works, as well as reducing potential impacts on key

sensitive nature designations;

local communities would be informed of the closures/diversions through

advertisements in the press and signs at the entry points, in accordance

with the communications protocol, which will be developed in accordance

with the Code of Construction Practice (see Document 8.5 which forms

part of the application for development consent).

iii Onshore substation

Screening and landscaping of any buildings which would be up to 14 m in

height.

3.4 Baseline Environment

3.4.1 This section describes the broad context relevant to this project-wide socio-

economics and tourism assessment.

a) Baseline data gathering methodology

i Data sources

3.4.2 This assessment has been informed using data related to the various study

areas identified earlier in this Chapter. Studies have been undertaken to

inform the baseline context, including the characteristics of tourist activity

and associated businesses in the study area, as well as identifying the type

of impacts of concern to visitors and tourism businesses.

3.4.3 The baseline data used to inform this assessment comprises data on:

industry profiles; education and training (current attainment levels and

future provision); economic activity; unemployment levels; tourism

employment; tourism business density; tourism business impacts on

turnover; the origin of tourism customer base; supply chain modelling and

analysis; and tourism business data.

3.4.4 Refer to Table 3.10 for details of the sources and documents used.

Table 3.10 – Socio-economic and tourism data sources & documents

Scale Source

Regional Socio-economics

Office for National Statistics (via NOMIS)

Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2012

Census data (2001and 2011)

mid-year population estimates (2011)

Claimant Count (March 2013)

Annual Business Inquiry (2008)

Annual Population Survey (Jan 2012 – Dec 2012)

Regional GVA Figures (2011)

BERR – VAT registrations/de-registrations by industry (2007)

Tourism

South West and South East Top 10 Paid and Unpaid Visitor Attractions (2011)

South West of England Regional Summary (Visit England)




Table 3.10 – Socio-economic and tourism data sources & documents

Scale Source

(2010)

South East of England Regional Summary (VisitEngland) (2010)

Great Britain Tourism Survey Analysis (2007-2011) (VisitEngland)

Overseas Tourism in UK Countries/Regions (2011) (VisitBritain)

Office for National Statistics. International Passenger Survey (2011)

Isle of Wight Tourism Activity Monitor Visitor statistics for tourism year (2010/2011)

the Economic Impact of Tourism: New Forest (Tourism South East, 2008 and 2010)

Dorset Visitor Survey 2009 (Bournemouth University, 2010)

ONS Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) Regional Extract 2008

Business Register and Employment Survey (2011)

Experian

Activities Undertaken by Visitors from Overseas in Different Areas of the UK (2010) (VisitBritain)

District/County Purbeck Core Strategy (2012)

Value of Tourism 2011 (2013)

Bournemouth Core Strategy (2012)

Poole Core Strategy (2009)

Isle of Wight Core Strategy (2012)

New Forest District Core Strategy (2009)

New Forest National Park Core Strategy (2010)

Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy Pre-Submission (2012)

Bournemouth Seafront Strategy (2013)

Building a more Competitive Economy in Bournemouth Dorset and Poole (2005-2016)

Isle of Wight Economic Development Plan (2011/12 – 2013/14)

Economic Strategy for New Forest District (2006)

Dorset Local Economic Partnership Prospectus (2012)

ii Methodology

3.4.5 The research undertaken to inform this socio-economics and tourism

assessment are presented in a number of technical reports which support

this Chapter. These technical reports and their scope are detailed in Table

3.11 and reported in full in the appendices which support this assessment.

Table 3.11 – Research – Scope and methodology

Technical report Scope

Summer 2012 Visitor Survey (refer to Appendix 3.1)

The purpose of the survey was to gather data on the key features of tourism visits to the area, visitors’ perceptions of the Project and to understand whether the proposed wind farm would influence visitors’ decisions to visit the

area in future.

The survey involved face-to-face, personal interviews with 1,520 visitors, taking a random sample across the Summer tourism season from June to September 2012.

The sampling points for interviewing visitors were: Durlston Head Visitor Centre, Swanage, Sandbanks, Bournemouth Seafront, Highcliffe Castle, Milford on Sea and The Needles.

These locations were selected on the basis that the Landscape and Visual assessment (refer to Volume B, Chapter 13) identifies these locations to be where the proposed wind park would be most visible from the shore.

At each survey point a corresponding photomontage was shown to the visitor being interviewed, to provide a visual representation of the Project.

It should be noted that the photomontages used changed between the Summer 2012 and Spring 2013 visitor surveys to reflect the boundary change in December 2012. A Visual Calibration Study (2013) was undertaken to assess whether people would perceive a difference between the visuals in both assessments. Refer to Appendix 3.7 for details.

Navitus Bay Wind Park – Supply Chain Analysis (2014) (refer to Appendix 3.2)

The purpose of this analysis was to understand the supply chain implications of the Project at national and local levels.

The analysis used information in the public domain, input from the developer, and the knowledge and experience of the consultant team gained from working on other projects. In addition, meetings were held with potential local






suppliers to identify assumptions in terms of the lifetime costs of the Project, the level of employment likely to be generated, the programme for each phase of the Project and the capacity of local businesses to meet these requirements.

This data and assumptions were used to identify scenarios (low, medium and high) to estimate how much employment and income would be generated in the area in which the Project is located.

This study has been updated in light of the changes to the boundary of the Turbine Area. As a result there has been a very minor change in the anticipated economic benefits of the Project as a result of the change to the size of the Turbine Area.

Socio-economics and tourism baseline (refer to Appendix 3.3)

This report identifies socio-economic and tourism baseline data collected using a desktop review of available and relevant sources.

The research sought to identify the key characteristics of the area and the profile of visitors and visits.

This study has not been updated in light of the changes to the boundary of the Turbine Area, as there has been no change to the baseline data as a result.

Spring 2013 Visitor Survey (refer to Appendix 3.4)

Similar to the approach taken for the Summer 2012 Visitor Survey, the purpose was to gather data on the key features of tourism visits to the area, visitors’ perceptions of the

Project and to understand whether the proposed wind farm would influence visitors’ decisions to visit the area in the

future.

The survey involved face-to-face interviews with 507 visitors, taking a random sample in the Spring during March and April 2013.

The Spring 2013 Visitor Survey used the same sampling points as those identified for the Summer 2012 visitor survey.

Similarly, those interviewed were shown a photomontage of the view towards the proposed wind park corresponding with the location of the interview, to provide a visual representation of the Project.



It should be noted that the photomontages used changed between the Summer 2012 and Spring 2013 visitor surveys to reflect the boundary change in December 2012. A Visual Calibration Study (2013) was undertaken to assess whether people would perceive a difference between the visuals in both assessments. Refer to Appendix 3.7 for details.

Socio-economics, Tourism and Recreation Assessment – Local Strategy and Policy Review (2013) (refer to Appendix 3.5)

The local development plan documents (principally Local Plans), local and regional economic development documents and the tourism and recreation and renewable energy strategies prepared by various bodies, in particular local authorities, have been reviewed. Where relevant these policies and strategies have informed the socio-economic and tourism baseline.

The Local Strategy & Policy Review has covered the following geographical areas relevant to the offshore components of the Project:

the main coastal tourism destinations, in particular Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset, Isle of Wight, the New Forest, Poole and Purbeck;

areas where there is a focus of maritime and land based recreational activities that may be affected by the Project;

strategies that cover a wider geographic area (e.g. the regional level), where appropriate.

The following geographical areas were considered in reviewing strategy and policy relevant to the onshore components:

the local authority areas potentially affected by the connection landfall and onshore infrastructure i.e. Hampshire and Dorset;

areas where there is a focus of land based recreational activity that may be affected by the Project;

strategies that cover a wider geographic area (e.g. the regional level) where appropriate.

This study was undertaken using the PEI3 boundary. It has not been updated in light of the changes to the boundary of the Turbine Area, as there has been no change to the






baseline data as a result.

Survey of tourism business survey and conference facilities, language schools and festivals and events organisers’ surveys (refer to Appendix 3.6)

The purpose of the Tourism Business Survey was to better understand the potential impacts of the Project on the local tourism business community, from the perspective of local tourism businesses themselves.

The study considered all businesses that may derive part or all of their trade from tourism within a 10 km strip from the coastline closest to the offshore components of the Project, stretching from the Purbeck Peninsula to the east of the Isle of Wight. The main settlements in this area are Bournemouth, Poole, Swanage and Christchurch. The area also extends to large parts of the Isle of Wight.

Businesses within a 2 km distance of the onshore cable corridor and/or 3 km of the onshore substation were also considered.

Businesses were identified through several channels. A database of tourism businesses was purchased from Experian. This was validated through desktop research (including internet searches and review of tourist brochures and guidebooks). Businesses not captured in the purchased database were added to the business survey population. To identify any other relevant businesses, the amended business population was distributed to tourism officers in the relevant local authorities in July 2012.

Each business was contacted and those who responded were questioned over the telephone or via an online survey questionnaire to understand their existing business context and the potential impacts they envisaged the Project would have on their business.

A total of 1,242 businesses were identified and contacted, with 304 responding to the questionnaire, giving a 24% response rate.

This study was undertaken using the PEI3 Turbine Area boundary. It has not been updated in light of the announcement in February 2014 to reduce the size of the Turbine Area, as the study takes a worst case assessment and the conclusions of the Visual Calibration Study show that visitors’ perception of the wind park would not substantially differ between the PEI3 boundary and the



Application Boundary.

Design Visual Calibration Study (refer to Appendix 3.7)

The purpose of this study was to assess whether people would perceive a difference between the visuals used to assess the original realistic worst case scenario layout (original Turbine Area) on which the Summer 2012 Visitor Survey was based and the realistic worst case scenario layout post the boundary change in December 2012 (PEI3 Turbine Area) on which the Spring 2013 Visitor Survey was based.

The respondents for this research were recruited by trained interviewers working to the Market Research Society Code of Conduct.

Four group discussions were convened amongst people who had travelled to the local area of Swanage/Studland, Isle of Wight, Poole/Sandbanks, Bournemouth, Christchurch Bay and Milford on Sea/Hurst Castle within the last 5 years and did not reject the idea of returning to the area. All had previously travelled there for leisure for various reasons. The sessions were held on 14 and 19 March 2013, each session lasting approximately 1.5 hrs.

This study was not updated in response to the boundary change in February 2014, as it was a tool to compare the change in visuals used to support the Summer 2012 and Spring 2013 Visitor Surveys.

Design Visual Calibration Study 2014 (refer to Appendix 3.8)

The purpose of this study was to assess any perceived differences between the realistic worst case scenario layout associated with the December 2012 boundary change (PEI3 Turbine Area) and that related to the February 2014 boundary change (Application Turbine area).

The sessions were held on 3 and 6 February 2014, each session lasting approximately 1.5 hrs.

The Visual Calibration Study concluded that visitors’ perception of the wind park would not substantially differ between the PEI3 Turbine Area and the Application Turbine Area.




b) Socio-economic context

i Population and skills

3.4.6 Population of the supply chain study area (defined in Figure 3.2 above) was

2.6 million in 2011 (2011 Census). Since 2001 all areas in the supply chain

study area have seen population growth, with average growth of 6.9%

compared to a GB average of 7%. The Isle of Wight, Southampton and

Portsmouth experienced growth higher than the national average.

3.4.7 The working age population (16-65) is 62% of the total, below the GB

average (64.1%). Poole, Isle of Wight, Dorset and Hampshire all have a

relatively low working age population (62.1%, 59.6%, 58.4% and 62.8%

respectively) and a high dependency ratio, compared to the supply chain

study area and national averages. Bournemouth, Southampton and

Portsmouth have a notably low dependency ratio and those of working age

represent a greater part of the population (66.8%, 69.3% and 68.2%

respectively). These are the three main concentrations of population in the

supply chain study area and are therefore more likely to draw people

looking for work. Since 2001 the proportion of people of working age

relative to the population as a whole has risen at a much higher rate in

these three areas (7%, 3% and 4% respectively) compared to the wider

supply chain study area (-2%) and GB (1%) averages.

3.4.8 The average proportion of people achieving the highest level of qualification

(HND, Degree and Higher Degree level qualifications) in the supply chain

study area is slightly below the GB average (i.e. 33.9% compared to

34.4%), with the exception of Dorset and Hampshire which report

attainment levels of 35.8% and 37.4% respectively. Attainment at this level

is particularly low in Poole and the Isle of Wight at 26.9% and 27.4%

respectively. However, the proportion achieving some sort of qualification is

relatively high across the supply chain study area (92.3%) compared to the

GB average of 90.3%. The percentage of those with no qualifications is

lower, 6.6% compared with the GB average of 9.1%.

3.4.9 Relative to the GB average, the supply chain study area has a similar

proportion of highly skilled workers (as reflected in Standard Occupational

Categories (SOC) 1-3, highly skilled, and 4-5 skilled), 45.7% compared with

43.7%. Every area apart from Southampton and Hampshire has a higher

proportion of skilled workers than the GB average of 30.4%. Southampton

has a particularly high level of unskilled workers (31.6%) compared with

the supply chain study area average (23.8%) and the GB average (25.3%).

3.4.10 Further detail is provided in the Socio-economic and Tourism Baseline

Technical Report (Appendix 3.3, Project Wide Technical Appendices)).

ii Economic profile

3.4.11 The supply chain study area has a higher economic activity rate (81.3%)

than the GB average (76.9%), as well as lower unemployment rates (5.7%

compared to 7.9%) and claimant rates under Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)

(2.5% compared to 3.8%). The supply chain study area also has higher

proportions of employees (64.8%) and the self-employed (11.4%)

compared to GB averages of 60.6% and 9.6% respectively. At a local

authority level all areas exhibit economic activity rates close to the GB

average.

3.4.12 Manufacturing jobs (key manufacturing businesses) make up 9.9% of jobs

within the supply chain study area, compared to 10.2% for the GB average.

This compares to 4.5% of jobs in the construction sector for the supply

chain study area, compared to 4.8% for the GB average. Poole has a strong

manufacturing base, equating to 15.8%, compared to the average for the

supply chain study area and GB.

3.4.13 84.6% of supply chain study area employment is in the services sector,

higher than the GB average of 83.5%. Tourism comprises one element of

the services sector, accounting for 8.7% of jobs in the supply chain study

area, compared with the GB average of 8.2%. Bournemouth has a

particularly high concentration of service sector jobs (93.1%), particularly in

the distribution, hotel and restaurant sector (28.9%). Tourism is also an

important sector in the Isle of Wight (15%), Portsmouth (9.5%) and Dorset

(10.2%), each with a greater proportion of tourism-related employment

compared to the supply chain study area as whole and the GB average.

3.4.14 Southampton also has a high proportion of service-related jobs (91.4%),

with particular concentrations in finance, IT, other business activities

(25.9%) and the public administration, education and health (32.5%)

sectors.

3.4.15 The job densities for Poole (88%) and Portsmouth (88%) are higher than

the averages for the supply chain study area (79%) and GB (78%). This

also applies to Dorset and Hampshire, equating to 80% and 81%




respectively. However, employment density in Bournemouth (70%), the Isle

of Wight (72%) and Southampton (72%) is lower than the average for the

supply chain study area and GB.

3.4.16 Average gross weekly pay for residents and full time workers in the supply

chain study area is slightly lower than the GB average, £483.29 compared

to £508.

3.4.17 In summary, the data shows:

Bournemouth has an increasing population, a high proportion of which

are of working age. It has an economic activity rate comparable to the

GB average. Service and tourism related employment is important in the

area. Educational attainment levels are high. However, average earnings

in the area are below the GB average.

Poole has an economic activity rate above the GB average and a strong

manufacturing base. Its employment structure is characterised by an

above average proportion of skilled labour. The area has relatively low

levels of people achieving the highest levels of qualification and its

average wages are comparatively low.

the Isle of Wight is characterised by a low working age population, a

below average economic activity rate and relatively low educational

attainment levels. The service sector is an important source of

employment in the area. There are an above average proportion of

unskilled workers in the area. Average weekly pay is low.

Southampton has a high working age population with an economic

activity rate lower than the GB average. Service related employment

accounts for the majority of the jobs in the area, particularly in the public

sector. It has an above average proportion of unskilled workers.

Educational attainment levels are low compared to national averages.

GVA growth in the area has been relatively low.

Portsmouth has an increasing population with a high economic activity

rate. Tourism related employment is important. The area has an above

average proportion of unskilled workers and is characterised by a low

proportion of people achieving the highest levels of qualifications. GVA

growth between 2001 and 2011 has been at a rate greater than the GB

average.

Dorset has a high working age population with an above average

economic activity rate. Employment densities are also higher than the GB

average. There are above average proportions of highly skilled and

skilled workers in the area. While educational attainment levels are

relatively high, average earnings are below average.

Hampshire has an increasing population with a high economic activity

rate. The area’s job density is high. There is a higher than average

proportion of highly skilled workers and a high proportion of people

achieving the highest qualification levels and workers receiving above

average weekly wages. It has a similar level of employment in

manufacturing (10.2% and 11.9% respectively) and construction (5%

and 5.3% respectively) compared to the GB average (10.2% and 4.8%).

By contrast, Bournemouth’s economy is much more strongly related to

service industries and tourism. Therefore the proportion of people

involved in the manufacturing and construction sectors are lower than

the GB average, at 3.2%. The baseline shows Bournemouth, Dorset and

Hampshire have a construction and manufacturing base with the

potential to deliver construction and electrical engineering products and

services. There is also an economically active, skilled and semi-skilled

workforce in Bournemouth, Dorset and Hampshire which has the capacity

to form a labour market resource (some of whom may require retraining)

to support the Project. Having regard to the skills in the local area, it is

considered that there would be greater capacity in the existing workforce

and supply chain to support the onshore elements of the Project,

compared to the offshore elements, particularly during the construction

phase. Furthermore, businesses and those seeking work across the UK

would have the potential to compete for work.

there are courses available in the local area that can help facilitate the

training of people within the renewables sector, who can take advantage

of the opportunities arising from the construction phase. For example,

Bournemouth and Poole College offers construction courses. There are

also other providers in the area (such as Eastleigh College, A Plus Safety

& Training Services in Bournemouth and Poole, Highbury College in

Portsmouth and City College, Southampton). Bournemouth University

also provides a variety of engineering degree courses as well as a HNC in

Electrical Technology. Additionally, Southampton University and




Portsmouth University provide a range of undergraduate and

postgraduate courses in relevant engineering fields.

the baseline above provides the context for the broad supply chain study

area. The socio-economic profile of individual ports and substation

catchments is shown in Table 3.12 and Table 3.13.

Table 3.12 – Drive time Key Socio-economic data

South

am

pto

n

Port

sm

outh

Port

land

Poole

Yarm

outh

30 Minute Drive time

Economically active (16-74 yrs)

418,582 460,640 30,371 200,875 29,921

Potentially available labour pool

17,585 20,689 1,168 10,658 2,319

Manufacturing & construction workforce

67,463 76,120 4,254 28,987 3,556



850,480 723,156 50,396 274,359 71,465

Potentially available labour pool

35,109 29,834 1,559 12,265 5,879


132,626 113,676 7,278 40,442 8,498



1,213,507 1,115,240 100,134 539,459 126,683

Potentially available 48,856 41,799 2,737 23,287 7,249

Table 3.12 – Drive time Key Socio-economic data

South

am

pto

n

Port

sm

outh

Port

land

Poole

Yarm

outh

labour pool


180,107 166,919 16,975 79,347 18,263

Table 3.13 – Substation drive-time baseline characteristics

Group 60 minute drive time GB total

Economically active and inactive

All people 1,737,656 60,837,196

Economically active 851,783 29,815,408

Economically active - unemployed

35,726 2,015,110

Manufacturing and construction employment

All people aged 16-74 in employment

778,642 26,582,634

Manufacturing 9.7% 9.8%

Construction 5.7% 5.6%

Educational attainment

Education % Level 4 (Degree or higher)

27.5 26.8

Education % Level 3 (HND, HNC, RSA Higher Diploma)

13.7 32.3

Apprenticeship 4.5 13.0

Skills in the workforce

% highly skilled (jobs: 24.3 22.7




Table 3.13 – Substation drive-time baseline characteristics

Group 60 minute drive time GB total

high/intermediate managerial/admin/professional)

% skilled managerial (jobs: supervisory/clerical/junior managerial/admin/professional)

32.2 30.8

% skilled manual jobs (jobs: skilled manual jobs)

21.7 20.8

% unskilled 21.7 25.7

c) Supply chain

3.4.18 As described, manufacturing jobs account for 9.9% of supply chain study

area employment, which compares to a GB average of 10.2%. Poole has a

particularly important manufacturing base, accounting for 15.8% of

employment in the area. Across the Study Area, with the exception of

Bournemouth and Southampton, manufacturing continues to employ a

greater proportion of people than the supply chain study area and GB

average. Areas such as Poole and the Isle of Wight therefore have the

potential to deliver products and services to the offshore wind industry.

However, there are other locations within the UK which are also competing

for this economic activity. For example, it is acknowledged that the

Government is seeking to boost supply chain growth through the creation of

“enterprise zones”, which have been created on the Tyne, the Tees, the

Humber, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. Furthermore, there are ports and

harbours in the supply chain study area with the potential and aspiration to

provide facilities and services for construction and OMS for Navitus Bay,

although some of this can only be realised with investment.

3.4.19 The population and skills baseline identifies an economically active, skilled

and semi-skilled workforce in the supply chain study area, with the

capability for retraining and up-skilling to form a labour market resource,

from which the Project can draw its construction, operation and

maintenance and decommissioning requirements. However, existing

education and skills development capacity targeted at renewables in the

area is limited, which may constrain the labour market’s ability to respond

to opportunities.

3.4.20 As mentioned previously the availability of relevant courses in the area

would facilitate employment in the renewables sector.

3.4.21 Training provision is relatively well established in mainstream construction

and engineering sectors. For example, Bournemouth and Poole College

offers construction courses. There are also other providers in the area (such

as Eastleigh College, A Plus Safety & Training Services in Bournemouth and

Poole, Highbury College in Portsmouth and City College, Southampton).

Bournemouth University also provides a variety of engineering degree

courses as well as a HNC in Electrical Technology. Additionally,

Southampton University and Portsmouth University provide a range of

undergraduate and postgraduate courses in relevant engineering fields.

3.4.22 Opportunities for supply chain economic benefits in the study area are

partly dependent on the capacity and capability of ports and harbours as

construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning bases. The

supply chain analysis has examined the suitability of the different ports and

harbours to provide these functions and concluded that while there are

opportunities in the supply chain study area, investment is required, for

example:

Southampton and Portsmouth are major ports with deep water and

extensive quayside;

suitable pre-installation port facilities are available in Portland, Poole,

Southampton and Portsmouth;

turbine installation requires larger vessels and large areas of land to

store components. Therefore, the port at Yarmouth is not considered to

have the land or water depth to handle such an operation. The port at

Portland has suitable deep water quayside and is developing its capacity

for component storage. The port of Poole has an approved masterplan to

develop an installation base with suitable quayside, storage land and

breakwater;

concrete foundations may be produced on a large site or on barges in

deep water. It is understood that Portland would be able to

accommodate a supplier using the barge production method, although

the ports of Yarmouth and the proposed new quay at Poole would not

have suitable water depth.




3.4.23 It is noted that businesses and those seeking work across the UK would

have the potential to compete for work.

d) Commercial shipping

3.4.24 The commercial shipping socio-economic baseline draws from the

assessment in respect of Commercial Shipping (refer to Volume B, Chapter

16).

3.4.25 Studies have identified 15 main commercial vessel routes in proximity to

the Offshore Development Area. These include regular ferry service routes

as well as other cargo and tanker vessels.

3.4.26 Regular ferries operate on routes from Poole to the Channel Islands. The

ports serving routes in proximity to the Offshore Development Area are

important parts of their respective areas’ economies.

e) Commercial fisheries

3.4.27 The commercial fisheries socio-economic baseline draws on the assessment

of Commercial Fisheries (refer to Volume B, Chapter 17).

3.4.28 The number of registered UK fishing vessels has decreased significantly in

recent decades as a result of decommissioning exercises operated by UK

fisheries administrations, as well as the challenging financial environment

facing UK fishing vessels. In 2011, the UK fishing industry had 6,444

registered fishing vessels compared with 7,721 in 2001.

3.4.29 The administrative port closest to the commercial fisheries study area is

Poole where 482 vessels and 847 fishermen (full-time and part-time) were

registered in 2011. After Newlyn (west Cornwall), Poole is the second most

important port in terms of the number of vessels and fishermen along the

UK’s south coast.

3.4.30 The local harbours within the commercial fisheries study area are, from

west to east, Swanage, Poole, Mudeford (Christchurch in MMO records),

Keyhaven and Lymington. Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight falls within the

commercial fisheries study area, but the vessels are not reported to fish

with the footprint of the Offshore Development Area, relying instead

primarily on potting grounds south-west and south-east of the island. The

fishing grounds in and around the Offshore Development Area have also

been subject to sporadic fishing activity undertaken by nomadic vessels

originating from ports in Sussex, Devon, Cornwall, Wales and continental

Europe. These nomadic vessels have not been regular visitors to the local

grounds in recent years, with the exception of mainland European vessels in

the southerly waters of the commercial fisheries study area.

3.4.31 Several commercial fishing vessels and charter-angling vessels are regularly

active at fishing grounds in the vicinity of the Export Cable Route and

Turbine Area. Relatively few vessels obtain a significant proportion of

earnings from within the Offshore Development Area (i.e. the Turbine Area).

Based on interviews with fishermen using the area it was identified that:

most of the vessels (83%) are 10 m or under and most of these typically

have a crew of 1-3;

vessels over 10 m typically have a crew of 3-4;

all of the fishermen are employed full time;

the average turnover of vessels varies, from less than £25,000 to up to

£300,000 per annum.

3.4.32 In terms of vessel numbers, the majority of the commercial fishing in the

study area is undertaken in the inshore waters between the coast and the

northern part of the Turbine Area, spanning the Export Cable Corridor route.

f) Tourism

3.4.33 This section Chapter briefly reports the broad tourism context within which

the Project is set.

3.4.34 The wider tourism study area is noted in Figure 3.2.

i Visitor numbers

3.4.35 There are approximately 3.5 million staying trips each year by UK residents

to the districts and unitary authorities in the study area defined as

comprising Purbeck, Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset, New

Forest and Isle of Wight (3.4% of all such trips in England). Of these,

around 1 million are staying trips in Bournemouth, 0.4 million in Poole, 0.2

million in Christchurch and East Dorset and 0.6 million in New Forest

District. These generate £637 million of visitor spend annually.

3.4.36 Table 3.14 identifies the number of domestic visits, the average number of

related nights and the average annual spend by these visitors to Hampshire,

Dorset and Bournemouth, compared to those of the local area and the

South West and South East regions.




Table 3.14 – Number of domestic trips, nights and spend 2009-2011

Area Average annual

Trips (000s) Nights (000s) Spend (£m)

Hampshire 3,522 10,036 457

Dorset 3,208 11,298 563

Bournemouth 965 2,858 173

Local Area 3,508 13,042 637

South West 19,608 74,254 3,730

South East 17,363 48,674 2,451

Source: GBTS Analysis 2007-2011 (VisitEngland, 2011)

ii Tourism employment

3.4.37 The tourism sector in the local area (defined as including Isle of Wight,

Christchurch, Bournemouth, Poole and Purbeck) accounts for approximately

26,700 jobs. The proportion of employment accounted for by tourism varies

between 8% in Poole, 12% in Bournemouth, 15% in Purbeck and the Isle of

Wight, and 10% in Christchurch. Table 3.15 details the average proportion

of tourism related jobs within the wider county area, compared to the

average for the local area and the GB average.

Table 3.15 – Tourism employment

Area % total employment

Dorset 10.2

Hampshire 7.7

Local area average 12.0

GB average 8.2

Isle of Wight

3.4.38 Around 2.4 million visitors are attracted annually, with particular events

attracting large numbers of people during certain periods. For example, the

Isle of Wight Walking Festival attracts approximately 24,000 people over a

two week period in May.

3.4.39 Annual visitor numbers decreased between 2008/12 (-6.8%), which

comprised a 7.3% fall in domestic visitors, but a 3.2% rise in overseas

visitors.

3.4.40 The value of tourism to the area equates to approximately £258 million, of

which £24 million is generated by day visitors, £220 million by domestic

staying visitors and £14 million by overseas visitors.

3.4.41 Of those visitors staying overnight, 16% of domestic and 26% of overseas

visitors were using the visit as their main holiday, whilst 27% of domestic

and 16% of overseas visitors were there for a secondary holiday or leisure.

For those visitors saying for one day, 19% of domestic visitors travelled that

day from home, whilst 6% of domestic and 35% of overseas visitors

travelled for the day as part of a holiday.

3.4.42 Key tourism aspects include the attractive natural environment, with an

extensive cycle path network and coastal paths, as well as a number of well

used beaches, plus high profile music and sailing events. Domestic visits

account for around 9 out of 10 visits. The most common origins of staying

visitors are Hampshire (14%), London (12%) and Surrey (10%), whilst the

most common origin of domestic day visitors are Hampshire (50%), West

Sussex (6%) and Surrey (6%). The most common origins of overseas

visitors are Netherlands (11%), USA (11%) and Australia (11%).

3.4.43 The Isle of Wight has a high level of repeat visits (86%) particularly from

visitors who returned within the last 12 months (54%).

3.4.44 Staying with friends and relatives is the most commonly used form of

accommodation (34%), followed by hotels (21%) and self-catering (10%).

New Forest

3.4.45 In 2010, some 7.4 million day trips were made to New Forest District and

almost 900,000 overnight trips, a rise of 3.2% in visitor numbers since

2008.

3.4.46 The value of tourism to the area is approximately £450 million, £286 million

of which is generated by day visitors, £138 million by domestic staying

visitors and £26 million by overseas visitors.

3.4.47 Tourism is linked heavily to the New Forest National Park and as a result the

strongest tourism images are the attractive inland natural environment and

forest towns. There are also coastal resorts, albeit smaller in scale than

Bournemouth or Poole.




3.4.48 The day visitor market is worth almost two thirds (63%) of the New Forest’s

overall visitor market; overnight domestic market is worth around a third

(31%). The overnight overseas tourism market is worth 6% in total.

3.4.49 The most commonly used accommodation types are caravans and camping

(41%) serviced accommodation (27%) and staying with friends and

relatives (24%).

Dorset

3.4.50 Dorset (including Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch) has a strong

coastal visitor appeal; visiting beaches and staying with friends and

relatives are the main attractions for domestic and overseas tourists. Dorset

accounts for just over 16% of the South West of England region’s domestic

tourism and value. Within Dorset, Bournemouth is the most visited

destination for both staying and day trips, followed by Poole, East Dorset

and Christchurch.

3.4.51 Domestic tourism in Dorset has remained generally stable, albeit there have

been small reductions in average annual trips (-2%), nights (-4%) and

spend (-2%) between the 2007 to 2009 and 2009 to 2011 periods.

3.4.52 Events such as the Bournemouth Air Show, Poole Quay fireworks and Coles

Miller Dream Machine also support levels of tourism activity. Purbeck

includes the eastern end of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site as well as

high profile coastal locations such as Old Harry Rocks and Durdle Door. One

of the major attractions in Dorset is Moors Valley Country Park, which lies

close to the proposed substation at Three Legged Cross. Moors Valley

Country Park is estimated to attract over 832,000 visitors per year, making

it the most visited facility in the local and wider tourism study areas. Poole

was also awarded the hosting of the European Maritime Day 2017 on 4th

July 2013. The two day event is intended to highlight the importance of the

sea to the economies of coastal communities and landlocked areas across

Europe and is usually accompanied by a maritime festival that would see

Poole Harbour filled with flotillas of tall ships, racing events and other

activities.

3.4.53 Bournemouth is the most popular domestic tourism destination in Dorset,

with 30% of the County’s annual trips and spend directed to it. Despite its

popularity, between 2007-09 and 2009-11, Bournemouth saw a reduction in

the number of visitor trips (-2%) and bednights (-4%).

3.4.54 In other parts of Dorset, Weymouth and Portland attracted 16%of visits,

West Dorset 13% and Purbeck 12%.

3.4.55 Over half (57%) of domestic visitors are from the immediate South East and

South West area. London and the West Midlands account for 9% and 8%

respectively. Visitors from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only

account for 6% of all domestic visits. Visitors from Germany and Holland

make up the largest share of the area’s overseas visitors (19% and 18%

respectively). Ireland also accounts for a notable share (9%).

3.4.56 The main reasons for visiting the area vary. 20% of domestic and 10% of

overseas visitors wanted to return following a previous visit; while 19% of

domestic and 35% of overseas visitors were visiting friends or relatives.

Other reasons cited included a wish to visit somewhere not been before; the

seaside, beaches and coast; scenery and countryside; recommended by

friends; local visitor attractions; and ease of access.

3.4.57 There are an estimated 664 tourism-related businesses in Bournemouth, of

which 45% are either restaurants or cafes and more than 20% are hotels or

similar accommodation providers. There are also a number of pubs and

bars, as well as a variety of businesses which provide sporting activities,

such as sailing and leisure centres. Other activities include paintballing and

ten-pin bowling.

3.4.58 Conferences and language schools are important subsets of the

Bournemouth and Poole visitor sector:

conferences are estimated to account for up to 0.4 million trips. The

conference market includes the purpose built Bournemouth International

Centre, which hosts major national conferences, including political parties

and national associations. In addition, there are a number of other,

smaller venues capable of accommodating meetings of different sizes

including hotels and other locations across the offshore tourism study

area.

29 language schools were identified as part of the research, most of

which were in Bournemouth. Dorset attracted an estimated 38,000

language study trips in 2008, with an average length of stay of 36

nights. These account for 35% of overseas tourism trips to the wider

Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset area (higher than the 1% average of

overseas staying trips across the UK), and 1% of all staying trips. Of

these trips, 30,000 (79%) were to Bournemouth, with Christchurch and




Purbeck also hosting related visits. While the volume of language school

trips is low compared to the overall levels of tourism, the long average

length of stay (36 nights) increases its importance.

3.4.59 The offshore tourism study area hosts a range of events, including walking

festivals in Swanage and the Isle of Wight, triathlon and cycle sport events,

fireworks, family fun events, sailing events, music festivals and an air show.

The highest profile events include: sailing events associated with the Isle of

Wight; the Bournemouth Air Show and Bestival, although many of the

others draw visitors from large catchments. For example, Bestival attracts

festival goers from across the UK and the Bournemouth Air Show has also

played a role in generating visits to the town. 74% of people interviewed

indicated that it was their primary reason for visiting Bournemouth on that

day. Other, lower profile events primarily serve visitors who are in that

location anyway and play an ancillary role. While such events reinforce

decisions to visit, they are also dependent on the wider ability of the

location to attract visitor footfall. The Dorset Visitor Survey 2009 indicated

that an event or festival was the main reason for 8% of visitors and a

general motivation for 21%.

Hampshire

3.4.60 Hampshire makes up approximately 20% of the South East region’s

domestic tourism and value. As with Dorset, the area’s performance has

remained relatively consistent, with small percentage decreases recorded in

average trips, nights and spend between the reporting periods of 2007-09

and 2009-11.

3.4.61 The New Forest is within Hampshire and is strongly associated with the New

Forest National Park. Key attractions of the National Park include: the

Beaulieu National Motor Museum; parks and gardens, such as Exbury

Gardens; historic buildings, such as Beaulieu Abbey and wildlife and nature,

such as the Liberty's Owl Raptor and Reptile Centre and The New Forest

Wildlife Park.

3.4.62 On the southern edge of the New Forest District there are a number of small

seaside villages, such as Barton-on-Sea and Milford on Sea, which offer

views to the Isle of Wight.

iii Reasons for visiting the area

3.4.63 Based on feedback to the Summer 2012 and Spring 2013 visitor surveys

(Appendices 3.1 and 3.4), access to the coast and sea views are important

drivers for visits to the area. In the summer over half of all visitors reported

that the main motivation for visiting the area was for its seaside, beaches &

coast (53%); while a quarter reported this to be a secondary factor. Sea

views were the main reason quoted for 8% of summer visitors but a

secondary reason for 48%. In the Spring the importance of seaside,

beaches and coast was lower although the importance of sea views

increased (from 8% to 48%).

from the visitor surveys, most summer visitors categorised the main

theme of their visit as either a ‘Seaside resort visit’ (40%) or a ‘Rest and

relaxation visit’ (35%), followed by exploring the area (17%). In the

spring, ‘Rest and relaxation visit’ was the main theme (48%, followed by

‘Seaside resort visit’ (28%).

when visitors were asked to rate the importance of a list of seaside

related factors, those aspects which scored the highest were views out to

sea and along the coast for summer respondents; and beach cleanliness

for spring respondents.

3.4.64 The Dorset Visitor Survey (2009) confirms that visiting the seaside, beaches

and coastal area are the main motivations for domestic trips to Dorset,

Bournemouth and Poole.

3.4.65 The tourism business survey confirmed the findings of the Summer 2012

and Spring 2013 Visitor Surveys (Appendices 3.1 and 3.4 Project Wide

Technical Appendices), concluding that the seaside, beaches and coast were

the most important factors for almost all of their visitors. Sea views,

attractions, cultural landscape and heritage were also cited as important.

3.4.66 Businesses reported that going to the seaside was the most popular activity

for their visitors. Other popular activities included walking and participating

in marine activities/sports.

3.4.67 There were a variety of factors affecting trade including the recession

(noted by 62% of businesses), petrol prices (18%) and the trend towards

“staycation” (i.e. holidays in the UK – 27%). The main local factors affecting

trading were the weather (47%), the area’s reputation (36%); neighbouring




facilities (13%); while business factors included price/value (38%);

marketing (26%); and the product offered (23%).

iv Tourism businesses

3.4.68 The localised business area includes the offshore and onshore tourism study

areas.

3.4.69 The Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) 2008 identifies some 2,034 tourism

related businesses in the combined offshore and onshore tourism study

areas (comprising the 10 km buffer area and 2 km route corridor buffer). Of

these, 1,980 are in the 10 km coastal buffer, with 225 identified within the

buffer zone of the onshore cable and substation. 171 businesses are in both

areas.

3.4.70 Bars and restaurants account for over 60% of these related businesses;

hotels and other accommodation providers account for between 12% and

7%, sporting activities account for 13%, and other recreational activities

account for 7%. As with other sectors, tourism businesses have supply

chain linkages with other businesses providing goods and services.

3.4.71 In terms of the specific areas:

Bournemouth: There are an estimated 664 tourism-related businesses,

of which 45% are either restaurants or cafes and more than 20% are

hotels or similar accommodation providers. There are also a number of

pubs and bars as well as a variety of businesses which provide sporting

activities such as sailing and leisure centres. Other activities include

paintballing and ten-pin bowling.

Poole: Of the estimated 294 tourism businesses approximately 50% are

restaurants and cafes. There are also over 60 pubs and bars and

accommodation providers such as holiday parks, bed and breakfast

establishments (bed & breakfasts) and guesthouses. There are a number

of maritime related businesses such as those which provide boat trips

and jet-ski experiences.

Christchurch: Of the estimated 135 tourism businesses, the majority are

restaurants and cafes. The area has a wide range of accommodation

providers, from traditional hotels to camping parks. Pubs and bars are

also well represented. Other attractions in the area include historic Grade

I listed buildings and children’s theme parks.

Swanage: Of the estimated 99 tourism businesses, approximately 35%

of those businesses are accommodation providers that include holiday

and caravan parks, bed and breakfasts and guesthouses. There are more

than 25 restaurants and cafes. Other activities include amusements, a

country park and museums.

3.4.72 Table 3.16 identifies the number of tourism related businesses in the

onshore buffer and within 10 km of the coast.

Table 3.16 – Tourism business density (% businesses in the area)

Geographic area

Hotel, camping & other

accommodation

Restaurants & Bars

Sporting & other

recreational activities

Total

Cable Route Buffer 46 (20%) 125 (56%) 54 (24%) 225

10 km Coastal Area 389 (20%) 1,209 (61%) 382 (19%) 1980

Combined Study Area 396 (20%) 1,245 (61%) 393 (19%) 20342

v Tourism impacts at operational offshore wind farm

3.4.73 A review of tourism impacts during the construction, operation and

maintenance phases of operational offshore wind farms elsewhere in the UK

has been prepared, using data on domestic tourism trips and bed-nights

from Visit England, Visit Wales and Visit Scotland.

3.4.74 This assessment includes offshore wind farms closest to shore (i.e. 15 km or

less from shore), to ensure comparability with this Project (Table 3.17).

Projects further from the coast were excluded to avoid distorting the

analysis (as it unlikely they would be visible from shore). As data is not yet

available for the Teeside offshore wind farm (operational from July 2013) it

has been excluded from the analysis.

2 Some businesses lie with both the cable route buffer and 10km coastal area




Table 3.17 – Operational offshore windfarms (<15 km from shore) (2013 data)

Wind Farm

Operational from

(mm/yy)

Installed capacity (MW)

Distance offshore (km)

Onshore tourism district or focus

Robin Rigg 09/09 180 11.0-11.5 Dumfries & Galloway,

North Cumbria

Barrow 03/06 90 7.5-12.8 Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria

Burbo Bank

07/07 90 6.4-8.0 Wirral

Rhyl Flats 12/09 90 8.0-10.7 Colwyn Bay and Rhyl

Kentish Flats

06/05 90 8.5-9.8 Herne Bay, Kent

Lynn 03/09 97.2 5.0-6.9 South Lincolnshire

Inner Dowsing

03/09 97.2 5.0-6.3 South Lincolnshire

Scroby Sands

07/04 60 2.3-3.5 Norfolk, East Anglia

Thanet 09/10 300 12-17.5 Thanet, Kent

Walney 1 & 2

01/11 183.6 14-19.4 Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria

Gunfleet Sands 1 & 2

01/09 172.8 7-7.4 Tendring

3.4.75 In summary the analysis found:

Robin Rigg: Domestic tourist trips rose in Allerdale and Cumbria during

the pre-construction phase; and continued to increase through the

construction and operational stages. The proceeding paragraphs provide

a summary of the findings, with further details provided in Appendix 3.3

of the Project Wide Technical Appendices.

Dumfries & Galloway saw a decline in domestic tourism trips during the

pre-construction and construction phases and the first 2 years of the

operational phase. However, trips increased significantly in 2011.

Barrow: Tourist trips increased in Barrow following the construction

phase. This was accompanied by a significant increase in bed-nights

(32.9%), indicating extended visitor stays.

Burbo Bank, The Wirral: Trip numbers fell by 19% during the

construction phase, before subsequently rising, peaking in 2009-11.

Rhyl Flats, North Wales: The number of trips to North Wales varied

during the pre-construction period and fell slightly during construction.

Following construction, trips and bed-nights increased to their highest

level in the period covered.

Thanet and Kentish Flats, Herne Bay/Whitstable: Data is restricted to the

Thanet area and to the post-construction period. It indicates that visitor

trips and nights fell after construction. The Thanet Local Plan indicates

that visitor numbers were have been in decline for some time linked to

trends in seaside tourism

Scroby Sands, Great Yarmouth: Data is restricted to post-construction.

Since the wind farm became operational, trips to Great Yarmouth have

increased while visitor nights fell. In general, trip numbers to Great

Yarmouth increased between 2006 and 2011, while the number of bed-

nights fell. The Scroby Sands Visitor Centre has become a tourist

attraction, attracting circa 35,000 visits per annum.

Walney 1 and 2 (as for Barrow above). Given that Barrow wind farm is

closer to shore and would not appear to have had a detrimental effect on

tourism, it is considered unlikely that Walney wind farm has had a

negative impact on tourism in the area.

Gunfleet Sands One and Two, Tendring, Essex: The number of trips to

Tendring fell during the pre-construction phase. In Tendring, trips and

nights increased post construction, although the wider county (Essex)

saw falls against both measures throughout the period.

3.4.76 The analysis does not show that the various offshore wind projects have

had a consistent pattern of adverse impacts on tourism trips and nights by

domestic tourists from offshore wind projects.

3.4.77 At Robin Rigg and Rhyl Flats, trip numbers rose following construction,

indicating that people are not discouraged from visiting these areas by the

presence and visibility of a wind farm. In addition the Scroby Sands Visitor

Centre in Great Yarmouth has become a tourist attraction.




3.4.78 Where trips or bed-nights have fallen post construction, it is often

attributable to external factors such as the health of the wider economy or

the weather. External factors are likely to be the greatest influence on

changes in trip volumes.

3.4.79 There is a distinct lack of monitoring work conducted by local authorities

and Chambers of Commerce, indicating that tourism impacts have not been

considered a significant issue. The views suggest that in most cases wind

farms have not had a negative effect on tourism figures. Some respondents

noted an increasingly negative perception of wind farms and the impacts

they can have on tourism. This, in part, is related to the increasing number

of negative press stories. However, some felt these concerns were

unfounded as there has been no discernible decline in tourism which can be

specifically attributed to the offshore wind farms.

3.4.80 Elsewhere, the Scottish Government Economy, Energy and Tourism

Committee (2012) concluded there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate

that tourism in Scotland would be adversely affected by onshore and

offshore wind. The Committee noted it had only been provided with opinion,

rather than any supporting evidence, to show that tourism is negatively

affected by renewable energy developments.

3.5 Impact Assessment

a) Assessment parameters

3.5.1 Project parameters have been used to define the ‘Design Envelope’ and to

describe the potential realistic worst case scenarios for each potential

impact on Socio-economic and Tourism receptors (refer to Table 3.18 and

Table 3.19 for details).




Table 3.18 – Design Envelope parameters relevant to the socio-economic impact assessment

Potential effect Realistic worst case scenario Rationale

Construction

Effects on manufacturing and construction labour force and employment

Maximum of 194 x 5MW turbines

Maximum three offshore substations platform (‘OSP’)

Maximum one meteorological mast (‘met mast’)

These parameters determine the scale of potential manufacturing, construction and maintenance work required.

Different labour market effects would be anticipated, depending on the location of the port(s) selected for construction and maintenance activity.

Maximum 194 piled turbine foundations

Maximum three piled OSP, using jacket structures, each with four pin piles.

Maximum one piled met mast, using a 4 m monopole

3 cables to be installed Requires the least amount of manpower/ancillary equipment and time to install. Therefore there would be reduced take up of labour force and goods/ service supply.

Cable length is 1200 m for 100% of the cable route

Results in the least amount of jointing bays and uses less manpower/ancillary equipment and time to install. Therefore there would be less take up of labour force and goods/service supply.

Least amount of ancillary systems, e.g. sustainable drainage systems

Requires the least amount of manpower/ancillary equipment and time to install. Therefore there would be less take up of labour force and goods/ service supply.

HDD operations take shortest time at the landfall

Manpower and ancillary equipment are in use for the shortest time. Therefore there would be the least amount of input into the labour market.

O&M

Effects on O&M labour force and employment


Maximum three OSPs

Potential employment effects are assessed against these parameters. Labour market impacts are related to the ports selected to accommodate O&M operations.

Minimum programmed number of maintenance trips to the substation

Requires the least amount of manpower/ancillary equipment, therefore there would be less take up of labour force and goods/service supply.

Decommissioning

Effects on construction labour force and employment

Removal of the maximum number of structures above the seabed associated with the Project including: 218 foundations, towers and nacelles, 3 x OSP (foundation and tower) and 1 x met mast (foundation and tower).

Maximum number of decommissioning vessels required.

Maximum decommissioning programme

Maximum number of structures would result in the maximum decommissioning activities and maximum vessel numbers required.

A full decommissioning plan would be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees prior to any decommissioning works taking place. At present, it is assumed that all structures above the seabed would be removed while cables would remain in-situ.




Table 3.18 – Design Envelope parameters relevant to the socio-economic impact assessment


Effects on manufacturing and decommissioning labour force and employment

Three cables in place (which require cutting at the decommissioning phase)

Requires the least amount of cutting at decommissioning, therefore requires fewer personnel or ancillary equipment and time to decommission; hence, there would be less take up of labour force and goods/service supply.

Cable length is 700 m for 100% of the cable route

Requires the least amount of removal and in-fill at jointing bays (as number of jointing bays are minimised) at decommissioning, therefore requires fewer personnel or ancillary equipment and time to decommission; hence, there would be less take up of labour force and goods/service supply.

Indirect effects – assessed through results from other chapters:

Volume B, Chapter 17, Shipping and Navigation – Obstruction impacts to commercial shipping

Volume B, Chapter 18 Commercial Fisheries – Impacts on commercial fishing activity

Table 3.19 – Design Envelope parameters relating to the tourism impact assessment


Construction

Obstruction of access to tourism related businesses.

Disturbance (noise, air quality, visual.) to tourism related customer base.

Lower activity in the tourism economy from reduced use of tourism-related businesses and tourist attractions in the onshore and offshore tourism study areas.


Maximum three offshore substations platform (‘OSP’)

Maximum one meteorological mast (‘met mast’)

Maximum 194 piled turbine foundations

Maximum three piled OSP, using jacket structures, each with four pin piles.

Maximum one piled met mast, using a 4 m monopole

Requires the greatest amount of manpower/ancillary equipment and time to install. For tourism businesses, there would be a greater level of obstruction (as turbine area and cable corridor width would be greater), disturbance levels in terms of volume and duration.

Rolling Safety Zone of 500 m to be applied around each of the wind turbines, substations, met mast and construction vessels and partially completed structures during 4.5 years of construction activity, in three installation phases of 30 months each.

Rolling patrolled Avoidance Zone of 2km and Diver Startle Reaction Zone of 3.3km.

Maximum number of heavy vessel movements over total construction period is estimated as 1,141 comprising approximately:

3 x Foundation installation vessels (400 vessel movements);

3 x Wind turbine installation vessels (200 vessel

This assumes a maximum construction schedule of 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a maximum construction period of 4.5 years.

Similarly, the maximum estimated number of vessel movements required would cause the greatest interference with recreation activities.






movements);

2 x Substation installation vessels (18 vessel movements);

2 x Inter array cable laying vessels (100 vessel movements);

1 x Export cable laying vessel (18 vessel movements);

2 x Met mast installation vessels (5 vessel movements);

1 x Scour protection vessel (400 vessel movements).

Maximum number of light vessel movements over total construction period is 6,300 comprising:

300 towing and anchoring vessels movements;

2,500 crew transfer vessel movements;

2,500 commissioning vessel movements;

1,000 guard vessel movements.

6 cables 275 kV capacity to be installed

Cable length is 700 m for 100% of the cable route Results in the greatest amount of jointing bays to be installed. Consequently this would cause the greatest use of manpower/ancillary equipment and therefore would cause the greatest disturbance in terms of volume and duration. Also causes the greatest level of obstruction to access along the cable route. These factors then lead to the worst case effect upon the tourism economy.

Greatest amount of ancillary systems, e.g. sustainable drainage systems

Requires the greatest amount of manpower/ancillary equipment and time to install. Therefore there would be greater potential obstruction to access (volume of area affected and duration). This also leads to the greatest level of disturbance from additional installation of supporting works and ultimately, the greatest effect upon the overall tourism economy.

Open cutting is used for all minor roads Leads to the greatest level of obstruction to access; roads would remain open where this is possible, but traffic management systems (e.g. use of temporary traffic lights, diversions) may lead to delays. Results in greatest level of disturbance. Ultimately would cause the greatest level of effect upon the tourism economy.

HDD operations take longest time at the landfall Duration of obstruction and disturbance effects are maximised causing the greatest effect upon tourism economy.

Maximum size of site equipment used at the landfall.

The largest equipment would lead to the greatest area to cause an obstruction to access and the greatest level of disturbance (primarily visual). Ultimately it would lead to the greatest level of effect upon the tourism economy.







Volume B, Chapter 14 and Volume C, Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual - Visual effects upon recreation users;

Volume C, Chapter 14, Traffic and Transport – Impacts from construction traffic

O&M

Disturbance (noise, air quality, visual) to tourism related customer base.

Lower activity in the tourism economy from reduced use of tourism-related businesses and tourist attractions in the onshore and offshore tourism study areas.


Maximum three OSPs

Consideration of the potential visual impacts on the area’s attraction to visitors. This would lead to greatest visual disturbance

Substation is maximum height of 14 m This would lead to greatest visual disturbance in relation to tourism related businesses and ultimately the overall effect on the tourism economy.

Maximum number of programmed maintenance trips to the substation

Greatest level of disturbance from visits to site and presence of maintenance workers/vehicles/equipment. Ultimately this would cause the greatest effect upon the tourism economy.

Maximum number of abnormal load deliveries (4) for high voltage transformers

Greatest level of obstruction to access and disturbance from use of heavy vehicles. Ultimately this would cause the greatest effect upon the tourism economy.


Volume B, Chapter 14 and Volume C, Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual - Visual effects on tourism and tourism related businesses.

Volume B, Chapter 8 and Volume C, Chapter 9 Noise and Vibration – Disturbance impacts on tourism businesses from onshore and offshore in-air noise

Decommissioning

Obstruction of access to tourism related businesses.

Disturbance (noise, air quality, visual) to tourism related customer base.

Lower activity in the tourism economy from reduced use of tourism-related businesses and tourist attractions in the offshore and onshore study areas


Maximum three OSPs

Removal of turbines & OSPs, and cutting of cables at decommissioning requires the greatest amount of personnel or ancillary equipment and leads to the longest duration. This would result in the highest level of disturbance and obstruction to access and potentially have the greatest effect on the tourism economy. 6 cables of 132 kV to be installed

Cable length is 700 m for 100% of the cable route Requires the greatest amount of removal and in-fill at jointing bays (as number of jointing bays are maximised) at decommissioning. Therefore this requires a greater volume of personnel or ancillary equipment and would lead to a longer duration. Consequently this would result in the greatest level of disturbance and obstruction to access and ultimately causes the greatest effect upon the tourism economy.




3.5.2 This Chapter identifies the potential impacts arising from each phase of the

Project, detailing the sensitivity and magnitude of effect and the predicted

level of impact and significance.

3.5.3 The Project does not include changes to local infrastructure, education and

visitor facilities.

3.5.4 The assessment focuses on the following impact categories:

supply chain: Direct, indirect and induced economic impacts; jobs and

GVA directly related to the construction, operation and maintenance and

decommissioning phases; jobs and GVA generated in the economy in the

chain of suppliers of goods and services to the direct activities; induced

economic impacts; jobs and GVA created by direct and indirect

employees’ spending in the supply chain study area or in the wider

economy; labour market effects.

commercial shipping: Effects on commercial shipping (increased costs

and related employment effects) associated with the offshore elements

of the Project due to changes to established routes and extended

routing. Refer to Volume B, Chapter 16 for further details.

commercial fishing: Effects on commercial fishing businesses (the size of

the local fleet and related employment) associated with the offshore

elements of the Project due to a combination of restricted access to

traditional fishing grounds and/or disruption to fish stocks. Refer to

Volume B, Chapter 17 for further details.

tourism: Effects on tourism businesses; business turnover change; and

related employment effects caused by changes in the number or profile

of visitors due to the Project.

b) Supply chain

i Construction impacts – offshore elements

3.5.5 During the construction stage, employment and labour market impacts in

the supply chain would be generated at several stages, including turbine

manufacture, balance of plant manufacture, installation and commissioning,

generating demand for related labour, of which a proportion would be in the

drive-time study area. If it is of sufficient size, the construction workforce

may generate other impacts, for example in the accommodation sector

through demand for accommodation.

National

3.5.6 The probable UK content of Navitus Bay construction investment is 40%,

which represents £1 billion of the total project capital expenditure. This

expenditure is estimated to directly support 4,092 Full-time Equivalent

(FTE) job years in the UK. Based on Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) data which shows that average job tenure is

about 10 years, this is assumed to be equivalent to 409 FTE jobs.

Investment in components and services would produce further rounds of

economic effects, through spend by businesses on goods and services and

through expenditure by employees, known as multiplier impacts. Taking

into account multiplier impacts, 981 direct and indirect UK FTEs are

expected to be supported by construction of the Project. Maximum

employment impacts are expected to arise in 2019 when 1,300 FTE job

years would be directly supported in the UK. The key effects of Project

construction would be temporary, for the duration of the construction

period, although there would be some legacy effects in terms of up-skilling

of the labour force and investment in plant that can be used elsewhere.

Drive-time study areas

3.5.7 Following analysis of its characteristics, the subsequent paragraphs identify

the labour market sensitivity as low. This assessment draws from the GB

analysis and the Project assumptions. It predicts the relative scale of

impacts along with the capacity of the area to absorb the economic

opportunities, using data from the baseline information gathered. The

Project’s maximum effect on employment and on the labour market would

be expected during the peak construction stage. The impact assessment

therefore compares peak employment impacts (estimated to be 14% of

total construction FTE years in 2019) for the drive time catchments for the

ports and harbours identified in the supply chain analysis.

3.5.8 The pool of potentially available labour is an important consideration. Where

it has a low skilled profile there may not be the capacity to benefit from

opportunities provided by wind farm construction. However, with a

programme of re-skilling and re-training the workforce may be in a position

to offer the necessary skills and attributes. Impacts of 10% or more above

the baseline are indicated in red text in Table 3.22 as it is likely that at this




level the local labour market may not be able to provide the necessary

workforce.

3.5.9 The conclusion drawn is that only the high impact scenario would produce

potential construction employment impacts which may be constrained by

potential labour market availability. This is most apparent in Portland and

Yarmouth, where the potential impacts represent 62% and 23%

respectively of the labour pool potentially available within an hour’s drive

time.

3.5.10 However, the substantial manufacturing and construction base in

Southampton, Portsmouth and Poole means that the resources needed for

the Project would be a relatively small proportion of total employment in

these sectors, increasing the likelihood that the Project would be part of on-

going workstreams rather than stifling or displacing other economic activity.

3.5.11 It is clear the Project would require some specialist skills which may be

drawn from a wider area across the UK, irrespective of any local labour

market pressures. It is possible that a proportion of the individuals with

these skills would remain in the area, providing a resource for the local

economy in the future.

3.5.12 The baseline indicates study area average weekly full time earnings of

£483.29, below the GB average of £508. The supply chain analysis

undertaken estimates average weekly full-time earnings of £770

(£40,000pa) for construction workers on the Project. This would bring

employment earnings in the area closer to the GB average, a positive

benefit from the Project.

3.5.13 The various scenarios generate different types and scales of impact. The low

impact scenario is unlikely to significantly alter the skills capacity in the area

as most of the technical work is based outside the study area. The medium

impact scenario includes considerably more managerial and technical

employment, while the high impact scenario includes more manufacturing,

which is characterised by higher value added positive benefits from the

Project.

3.5.14 84.6% of supply chain study area employment is in the services sector,

higher than the GB average of 83.5%. Tourism comprises one element of

the services sector, accounting for 8.7% of jobs in the supply chain study

area (the GB average is 8.2%). Bournemouth has a particularly high

concentration of service sector jobs (93.1%), particularly in the distribution,

hotel and restaurant sector (28.9%). Tourism is also an important sector in

the Isle of Wight (15%), Portsmouth (9.5%) and Dorset (10.2%), each with

a greater proportion of tourism-related employment compared to the supply

chain study area as whole and the GB average.

3.5.15 Under the low local impact and medium local impact scenarios, labour

market capacity should be sufficient to take advantage of the economic

opportunities, with between 1,100 and 21,000 people in the potentially

available labour pool within 30 minutes’ drive. Therefore the magnitude of

effect for the low local impact and medium local impact scenarios is

considered to be low to medium as peak construction employment effects

are 55 FTEs and 200 FTEs respectively. These impacts concern the peak of

the construction phase only (the construction phase is four and a half years

from 2017, peaking in 2019). Taking account of the sensitivity of this

receptor and the magnitude of effect, the impact is considered to be minor

beneficial. For the low local impact and medium local impact supply chain

scenarios the overall level of significance is Not Significant.

3.5.16 However, under the high local impact scenario the employment impacts are

great and without accommodating them through training and other

initiatives may strain study area labour market capacity. Peak construction

employment magnitude of effect under the high local impact scenario

(1,700 FTEs in 2019) is assessed as high, reflecting the scale of

employment created. The impact is considered to be moderate beneficial.

The level of impact for the high local impact scenario is therefore moderate

significant reflecting the scale of employment created. The overall level of

significance is therefore Significant.

3.5.17 Although there are significant impacts under the high local impact scenario,

these are temporary and restricted to the peak construction year. Given the

flexibility in the area’s wider labour market, there is not anticipated to be a

major influx of workers and consequently no changes in local infrastructure

would be required.




Table 3.20 – Peak construction employment scenarios – Low Scenario

South

am

pto

n

Port

sm

outh

Port

land

Poole

Yarm

outh

Low Scenario Peak Construction annual FTEs


As % economically active 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

As % potentially available labour pool 0% 0% 5% 1% 2%

As % Manufacturing & construction workforce

0% 0% 1% 0% 2%





0% 0% 1% 0% 1%





0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 3.21 – Peak construction employment scenarios – Medium Scenario

South

am

pto

n

Port

sm

outh

Port

land

Poole

Yarm

outh

Medium Scenario Peak Construction annual FTEs





0% 0% 2% 0% 3%





0% 0% 1% 0% 1%





0% 0% 1% 0% 0%




Table 3.22 – Peak construction employment scenarios – High Scenario

South

am

pto

n

Port

sm

outh

Port

land

Poole

Yarm

outh

High Scenario Peak Construction annual FTEs





3% 2% 40% 6% 48%





1% 1% 23% 4% 20%





1% 1% 10% 2% 9%

ii Construction impacts – onshore elements

3.5.18 The supply chain analysis indicates that impacts on potential construction

employment would only be constrained by labour market availability under

the high scenario. However, this data has limited application to the onshore

study area in relation to the Onshore Cable Corridor and Onshore

Substation. Therefore, a number of other indicators have been used to

inform the impact assessment.

3.5.19 The data presented in the baseline indicates the capacity of the drive-time

areas to absorb economic opportunities. The comparison uses the gross and

net onshore construction peak employment assumptions, i.e. 244 jobs

during cable construction, 58 jobs during installation and an average of 40

posts involved in construction of the substation. This is examined against

the drive time catchments centred on the location of the Onshore

Substation.

3.5.20 The conclusion drawn from this component of the analysis is that the

construction of the onshore components of the Project would not result in

adverse workforce employment impacts. The number of net additional jobs

per annum is less than 1% of the total construction workforce within a 30

minute drive time and around 1% of the potentially available labour pool.

This would not result in any local constraints, as there is a readily available

labour force.

3.5.21 It is noted that the potential pool of construction labour often has a low

skilled profile and currently may not possess the capacity to benefit from

opportunities provided by the cable route and substation construction.

However, with a programme of re-skilling and/or re-training, the workforce

may be in a position to offer the necessary skills and attributes appropriate

to Project requirements. The effects of this in respect of the provision of

new, skilled employees with construction and/or electrical engineering skills

are likely to be slight but beneficial.

3.5.22 The substation 60 minute drive-time catchment has a marginally lower

proportion of manufacturing jobs (9.7% compared to 9.8% GB average) but

a slightly higher proportion of construction jobs (5.7% compared to 5.6%

GB average). The labour market also exhibits a notably lower proportion of

available labour (4.2% compared to 6.8% GB average).

3.5.23 The proportion of highly skilled and skilled workers in the 60-minute

substation drive-time area is higher than the GB average. The proportion of

the population achieving the highest level of educational attainment (i.e.

HND, Degree and Higher Degree level qualifications) within the 60-minute

drive-time catchment is notably higher than the GB average (27.5%

compared to 26.8%). The proportion of people holding Level 3 qualifications

and involved with apprenticeship programmes is, however, considerably

lower than the GB average. Therefore the sensitivity of the workforce is

considered to be low.

3.5.24 While there may be a requirement for up to 244 workers at peak

construction, the number of net additional construction jobs created by the

onshore element is estimated to be 24 FTEs. While the duration of onshore




construction is projected to be 4 years (and 1 year pre-construction

activities), the level of employment varies according to the activity required.

3.5.25 A conservative approach has been taken in view of the fact that the effect is

beneficial. Therefore, the magnitude of effect is considered to be low.

3.5.26 The level of impact is considered to be minor beneficial and the level of

significance is Not Significant.

iii Operation and maintenance – offshore elements

National

3.5.27 The probable UK content of Navitus Bay OMS expenditure is 85%, which

represents just over £0.9 million at discounted values. This expenditure is

estimated to directly support 4,743 FTE job years in the UK, which is

equivalent to 190 FTE jobs. (FTE years have been factored by the length of

the operational phase to estimate FTE impacts). Taking account of multiplier

effects, the OMS is estimated to support 11,373 FTE job years, equivalent

to 455 FTE jobs.

Supply Chain study area

3.5.28 Using the three local impact scenarios it is possible to estimate the likely

local supply chain operational impacts. Again, the local estimates take

account of leakage (both outside the UK and outside the study area);

deadweight (again negligible as the effects are unlikely to occur without the

project) and displacement (as the process is unlikely to displace other wind

farm operation and maintenance activities).

3.5.29 The operational and maintenance impacts from the three scenarios are:

low local impact - 435 local FTE years (170 FTEs) with local GVA

estimated at £91 million;

medium local impact – 4,628 local FTE years (185 FTEs) with local GVA


high local impact – 5,928 local FTE years (237 FTEs) with local GVA

estimated at £972 million.

Drive time study area

3.5.30 Labour market receptor sensitivity is considered to be low as skill levels in

the labour market would be as defined for construction, albeit with the

caveat that at the outset of operation work, the requirement would coincide

with significant construction employment requirements because operation

would begin before construction is complete.

3.5.31 Unlike construction jobs, there is a greater lead time for operational jobs,

and the longer term nature of the roles allows the labour market more time

and a clearer incentive to respond to opportunities. The overall magnitude

of employment impacts is lower than high local impact scenario peak

construction impacts. The operational phase would begin when construction

activity under the high local impact scenario is on-going (although under

half of the peak), which may provide the opportunity for some construction

staff to develop and deploy operational skills.

3.5.32 Under the high local impact scenario, operational employment is 1% of the

potentially available labour pool and less than 1% of the study area’s

economically active population and manufacturing and construction

workforce. Required employment under the medium local impact and high

local impact scenarios are more than 10% of the potentially available labour

force within a 30-minute drive of Portland and Yarmouth, although

insignificant from the other ports.

3.5.33 During the life of the Project there is also the possibility of switching

between supply chain scenarios as local capacity grows.

3.5.34 The baseline shows the study area has average weekly full time earnings of

£483.29, below the GB average of £508. The separate supply chain analysis

estimates that construction would generate average weekly full time

earnings of £961 (£50,000 pa) for construction. This would bring

employment earnings in the area closer to the national average, a positive

benefit from the Project.

3.5.35 Therefore the employment generated during operation would be positive

under all three scenarios, and long term in duration. For the Low local

impact scenario the magnitude of effect would be low; and the impact is

considered to be negligible and the level of significance is Not

Significant. For the Medium local impact scenario the impact is considered

to be minor beneficial and the level of significance is Not Significant. For

the High local impact scenario the impact is considered to be moderate

beneficial and the level of significance is Significant.

3.5.36 Although there are significant impacts under the High local impact scenario,

the flexibility in the area’s labour market is such that there should be no

major influx of workers sufficient to require changes in local infrastructure.




iv Operation and maintenance – onshore elements

3.5.37 The sensitivity of the labour market, based on current data, is determined

to be low.

3.5.38 The number of jobs created during the operational and maintenance phase

is likely to be less than during the construction and (potentially)

decommissioning phases. The Onshore Cable Corridor would be subject to

inspections throughout the life of the Project, both planned and unplanned.

There are no specific employment estimates for undertaking cable testing

and it has been assumed that the employment effects of the cable operation

would be minimal.

3.5.39 Furthermore, the Onshore Substation is likely to be unmanned during the

operation and maintenance phase, requiring infrequent visits for routine

inspection and maintenance procedures. There are no specific employment

estimates for undertaking the substation inspection and maintenance; it has

therefore been assumed that job creation would be minimal.

3.5.40 Based upon this information, it is considered that a beneficial magnitude of

effect would be low. The level of impact is considered to be minor

beneficial and the level of significance is Not Significant.

v Decommissioning – offshore elements

National

3.5.41 The cost of decommissioning the onshore and offshore elements is

estimated to be £0.41 billion of the total £5.4 billion undiscounted cost.

Applying a time discount to the capital expenditure gives a discounted

investment of £0.1 billion. The probable UK content of decommissioning

expenditure is 40%, which represents around £0.05 billion at discounted

values. This expenditure is estimated to directly support 465 FTE job years

in the UK, which is equivalent to 47 FTE jobs (with 10 decommissioning FTE

years taken as equivalent to 1 FTE job). Taking account of multiplier effects,

decommissioning is estimated to support 1,115 FTE job years, equivalent to

1112 FTE jobs. The employment impacts would be temporary for the

duration of the decommissioning.

Supply Chain area

3.5.42 Using the three local impact scenarios it is possible to estimate likely local

impacts. Labour market receptor sensitivity is considered to remain low as

the skills profile and capacity of the labour market is likely to remain the

same as for previous construction and operational and maintenance phases.

This assessment is conditional on the population and economic profile

remaining comparable and assumes no large scale change (positive or

negative) in skills provision.

3.5.43 The supply chain impacts from the three scenarios discussed in the

assumptions are:

low local impact scenario – this scenario directly and indirectly produces

83 local decommissioning FTE years (8 FTEs) with local GVA estimated at

£8 million;

medium local impact scenario – this scenario directly and indirectly

produces 208 local decommissioning FTE years (21 FTEs) with local GVA


high local impact scenario – this scenario directly and indirectly produces

228 local decommissioning FTE years (23 FTEs) with local GVA estimated

at £32 million.

3.5.44 The scale of employment impacts is relatively low under all scenarios and

the long lead time suggests that the local labour market would be aware of

the opportunities for some time. Impacts would be temporary for the

duration of the decommissioning phase.

3.5.45 The employment generated during decommissioning would have negligible

effects under the Low local impact scenario, and low under the Medium and

High local impact scenarios. Therefore, the impact is considered to be

minor beneficial and the level of significance is Not Significant.

vi Decommissioning – onshore elements

3.5.46 The sensitivity of the labour market receptor is considered to be low.

3.5.47 The magnitude of effect is considered to be comparable to the construction

phase due to the similarity of works, albeit the works would be of a notably

smaller scale as cables would be cut and remain in situ and only the above

ground works would be removed. Therefore, in relation to potential job

creation, it is considered that a medium rating is appropriate. No staffing

estimates are available for decommissioning, although there would be some

employment impacts and these would be beneficial.




3.5.48 It is unlikely that any such impacts would be subject to any labour market

constraints, particularly as there is the opportunity to arrange the work

some time in advance of the actual decommissioning activities taking place.

3.5.49 Duration is also considered to be comparable to the construction phase.

Therefore this would indicate a magnitude of effect rating of low. The level

of impact is considered to be minor beneficial and the level of significance

is Not Significant.

c) Commercial fishing – changes in activity

i Construction impacts

3.5.50 Experience with 10 m and under fishing fleets operating in coastal waters in

the UK suggests the margins most vessels operate are tight, thus a modest

reduction in earnings could have financial implications.

3.5.51 Several commercial fishing vessels regularly fish at grounds within the

Offshore Development Area and therefore could be affected. However, the

number of vessels that obtain a significant proportion of earnings from

within this area is considered to be low. These vessels represent less than

10% of the vessels registered in the nearest administrative port (Poole) and

less than 20% of the vessels with active fishing permits operating from local

harbours.

3.5.52 Some sectors of the fishing fleet are able to vary where they fish if access

to their first choice of fisheries is restricted. However, if vessels are obliged

to pursue their second choice of fisheries, these are likely to produce a

lesser return and may require further investment or operational expense.

Where this flexibility would result in other fisheries being pursued, there is

the possibility of impacts on other vessels already pursuing this fishery. The

sensitivity of the receptor is assessed as medium, having regard to the

flexibility of the fishing fleet.

3.5.53 The Commercial Fisheries assessment (Volume B, Chapter 17) identifies a

loss of fishing grounds during construction as the realistic worst case

scenario. Based on the restriction of fishing vessels from within the Offshore

Development Area during construction (four and a half years), the

magnitude of effect ranges from medium (for individual vessels) to low

(for the fleet as a whole). For the purposes of this assessment, the focus is

on the magnitude of effect on the set of individual vessels using this area.

3.5.54 The socio-economic magnitude of impacts is assessed as medium, based

on the availability and accessibility of alternative grounds in the area and

the temporary duration of the impact. Therefore, the impact is considered

to be moderate adverse and the level of significance is Significant.

ii Operation and maintenance

3.5.55 The sensitivity of the commercial fishing industry is considered to be

medium for the reasons set out above.

3.5.56 Disruption could occur as a result of temporary or permanent loss of fishing

grounds, changes to the abundance and distribution of target species and a

reduction in the efficiency of fishing operations. Fishing and other vessels

would be allowed to operate within the Turbine Area during the operational

phase and, given the small area occupied by seabed structures in

comparison to the Turbine Area and the nature of commercial fisheries

currently operating in the Turbine Area, these fisheries are likely be able to

maintain earnings.

3.5.57 The Commercial Fisheries assessment identifies the magnitude of

operational impacts as low to medium on fishing activity as a whole,

although individual vessels would experience a greater impact. The impact

on individual vessels is medium to high adverse (depending on the fishery

pursued), based on loss of access to traditional fishing grounds and

interference by cabling.

3.5.58 Some sectors of the fishing fleet (i.e. those able to operate different gear

types depending on season and the availability of target species) would be

able to offset any impacts caused by the offshore elements. For vessels that

are specialised in operating with one gear type (e.g. whelk potting vessels)

the likelihood of impacts (as defined in Volume B, Chapter 16) persisting in

the operation and maintenance phase is low, as the area occupied by

seabed structures would be small and fishing would continue within the

Turbine Area. The socio-economic magnitude of effect is assessed as low.

Therefore, the impact is considered to be minor adverse and the level of


iii Decommissioning

3.5.59 Commercial fishing is expected to continue to operate on tight margins

during the decommissioning phase, with receptor sensitivity assessed as

medium.




3.5.60 The realistic worst case scenario in the Commercial Fisheries assessment

identifies a loss and/or reduction of fishing grounds during

decommissioning. For the duration of decommissioning, the magnitude of

effect ranges from medium (for individual vessels) to low (for the fleet as a

whole). Therefore, the magnitude of effect based on exclusion from the area

is assessed as medium, based on the availability and accessibility of

alternative grounds in the area and the duration of impacts. Therefore, the

impact is considered to be moderate adverse and the level of significance

is Significant.

d) Commercial shipping – changes in activity

i Construction

3.5.61 In socio-economic terms the impact relates to changes in commercial

activity at sea and in the ports serving the vessels concerned.

3.5.62 The Shipping and Navigation (Volume B, Chapter 16) assessment identifies

that marine traffic across the area is unregulated due to the lack of routing

measures and relatively unrestricted water depths. During construction

some vessels would need to be re-routed around the Turbine Area,

particularly those running east-west.

3.5.63 During construction, deviations are likely to vary in conjunction with the

500 m rolling Safety Zones in place. Ferry operators have indicated they

would revise their passage plans as necessary, to ensure a safe passing

distance is planned before commencing each voyage. Discussions are

ongoing with operators; and communication would be on going during the

construction phase to ensure that all operators, including regular ferry

operators, are kept informed of the progress on construction activities.

3.5.64 The commercial shipping receptors are sensitive to change as commercial

margins are tight; therefore the use of the existing routes is important for

commercial viability. Sensitivity is therefore assessed as medium.

3.5.65 As in the construction stage, the magnitude of the socio-economic effects

from operation is considered to be low as additional journey times are low

and not all routes would be affected. Therefore the impact is considered to

be minor adverse and the level of significance is Not Significant.

ii Operational and maintenance

3.5.66 In socio-economic terms, the operation impacts would be similar to those

experienced during construction. For example, some vessels would be

required to be re-routed around the Turbine Area particularly those running

east-west, although not all routes would be affected. Therefore, the

sensitivity is therefore assessed as medium.

3.5.67 The magnitude of effects is considered low, for the reasons set out in

relation to the construction phase. Therefore, the impact is considered to be

minor adverse and the level of significance is Not Significant.

iii Decommissioning

3.5.68 In socio-economic terms, the decommissioning impacts would be similar to

those experienced during construction. For example, some vessels would be

required to be re-routed around the Turbine Area particularly those running

east-west, although not all routes would be affected. Therefore, the

sensitivity is therefore assessed as medium.

3.5.69 The magnitude of effects are considered to be low. Therefore, the impact is

considered to be minor adverse and the level of significance is Not

Significant.

e) Tourism

3.5.70 The assessment of tourism impacts has included:

baseline analysis to establish the context for the assessment;

visitor surveys and business surveys to identify perceived impacts from

visitors’ and business’ perspectives;

comparison with similar projects elsewhere, acknowledging limited direct

experience of this type of infrastructure in the area.

3.5.71 The tourism business survey sought information of whether the Project

would have an impact on businesses. It also asked businesses if they

anticipated any effects, when they expected them to start. Full details of the

methodology of the visitor survey and tourism business survey are found in

Technical Appendices 3.1, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8.

3.5.72 Some care does need to be taken in interpreting the findings of the visitor

and business surveys, particularly in areas with no previous experience of

the installation of large offshore infrastructure projects. In this context, the




answers provide respondents perceptions of what would happen, rather

than a view based on direct or comparable experience. Responses are

therefore based on the broad range of information provided including: the

developer’s supporting information; representations put into the public

domain by various interest groups; and any media coverage of the

proposed development

3.5.73 Related research on the subject indicates the majority of the population in

general, and visitors specifically, are not opposed to wind farms. For

example, recent 2012 Northern Ireland based research3 demonstrated that

the presence of wind turbines had relatively little impact on residents’

perception of their neighbourhood. It was found that those respondents

where there was an operational wind farm were more accepting than those

where there was not an operational wind farm, possible through experience

of living adjacent to them. This research was based in an area of particular

sensitivity where the wind farm site was located next to an Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, an Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI),

and Special Protected Areas (SPA).

3.5.74 The results of the surveys have therefore been set in context and

considered alongside other research and analysis, including the research set

out in Appendix 3.3 of the Project wide Technical Appendices and

summarised in section 3.4 of this Chapter.

i Construction impacts

Impacts on tourism receptors

3.5.75 The visitor surveys undertaken as part of this assessment found that 20%

of summer and 10% of Spring visitors stated that they were likely or very

likely to visit somewhere else during the construction phase. The comments

collected as part of the surveys show the reasons for not visiting during the

construction phase were mainly linked to concerns over disruption to beach

activity, pollution in the sea caused by construction activity and noise.

These comments suggested that changes in behaviour would be conditional

on the Project causing disturbance or pollution, with the implication that

should this not occur then behaviour would not change. Some 51 visitors,

3 ‘Living with Wind Turbines: An investigation into public perceptions and experiences of affected communities’ - University of Ulster

and the Chartered institute of Environmental Health NI (June 2012) - http://www.cieh-nireland.org/assets/0/72/130/234/264/2c5b43d7-

6149-4bb0-a0d7-83609c88bab1.pdf

3% of the summer sample and 52 visitors, representing 10% of the spring

sample mentioned these concerns.

Offshore elements

3.5.76 In respect of the tourism business survey, of those able to state when

effects might commence, 9% thought they would start from the

announcement of the Project and 13% from the start of construction.

3.5.77 72% of business respondents anticipated no impacts, positive impacts or

low adverse impacts from the development of the wind park, whereas 28%

considered impacts would be either medium or high adverse. For those

expecting adverse effects the average turnover reduction anticipated was

22%; for those predicting beneficial impacts, the average anticipated

increase in turnover was 15%. While a third of businesses thought impacts

(positive and negative) would be generated for the duration of the Project,

only 7% of respondents specifically identified any impacts in the short term

whether positive or negative (which would cover the initial construction

period).

3.5.78 Those businesses anticipating beneficial impacts on trading and the local

economy attributed this to workers coming to the area during the

construction period. This was mentioned by a number of accommodation

providers who felt they would receive increased custom as a result.

3.5.79 Common reasons for citing adverse economic impacts were predicted visual

impacts which could deter people from visiting the area. Some respondents

raised concerns in respect of the potential noise impacts from the project.

Others were concerned about the ‘industrialisation’ of the seascape and the

potential view of numerous vessels in the water during construction.

3.5.80 No specific issues about construction were raised in the discussions with

language schools or events organisers, while 2 of the 16 conference venues

considered there might be positive impacts from additional meeting room

demand.

3.5.81 The assumptions regarding water quality predict minor effects on water

quality at Blue Flag beaches, (refer to Volume B, Chapter 6 Offshore Water

Quality). The analysis of construction noise indicates there would be no

effects from Turbine Area construction noise (refer to Volume B, Chapter 8

In-air Noise) and minor effects from cable Landfall construction noise on

receptors within 300 m (refer to Volume C, Chapter 9 Onshore Noise). The

http://www.cieh-nireland.org/assets/0/72/130/234/264/2c5b43d7-6149-4bb0-a0d7-83609c88bab1.pdf

http://www.cieh-nireland.org/assets/0/72/130/234/264/2c5b43d7-6149-4bb0-a0d7-83609c88bab1.pdf




proposed construction programme reviewed in the assumptions does not

include any physical obstruction to beach activities due to proximity to the

cable Landfall. While the beach at Taddiford Gap, Barton-on-Sea is not

obstructed there would be proximity to temporary construction activity at

this location. The beach at Taddiford Gap, Barton-on-Sea has lower levels of

use compared to other beaches in the offshore study area (including those

between Hengistbury Head and Sandbanks and at Swanage).

3.5.82 Taking account of the limited extent of predicted disturbance, pollution and

noise impacts, there is little connection between the effects of the

construction phase and the concerns of visitors or businesses. However

there may be effects on visitors due to concern about these issues, whether

or not these are realised in practice.

3.5.83 Based on the Commercial Fisheries assessment (Volume B, Chapter 17

Commercial Fisheries), the impact of construction on charter angling boats

is assessed as medium due to temporary loss of access to traditional fishing

grounds and potential changes to the distribution and abundance of target

species.

Onshore elements

3.5.84 Of the 52 tourism businesses in the onshore area identified and contacted,

22 responded to the survey. Of these, six (27%) thought the Onshore Cable

Corridor would have an adverse impact of some degree on their business,

although two were of the view that any impact would be temporary. While

just 3 of the 6 businesses quantified their estimated loss of business, the

average predicted turnover reduction was 18.3% (which would represent a

high adverse impact)

3.5.85 The large majority of businesses in the area, 73%, anticipated no adverse

impact.

3.5.86 Some respondents felt that the countryside would be affected, with one

respondent noting the cable would ‘scar’ the landscape and that the Hurn

Forest would be effectively ‘sterilised’ so that no trees can be planted in the

future. Direct obstruction to property access and increased traffic (which

could represent an obstruction to access) were raised as concerns by

respondents. Others had concerns that construction traffic would cause road

delays and discourage tourists from coming to the area.

3.5.87 The findings of the survey indicated that businesses are subject to a variety

of influences, some of which were wider factors outside individual

businesses’ control (e.g. the recession, petrol prices and the trend towards

staycation (i.e. a period in which an individual or group stays home and

participates in leisure activities without leaving the UK)) and others related

to the context of the business and the way it is run (e.g. the area’s

reputation and neighbouring facilities, business factors to include

price/value, marketing and the product offered).

3.5.88 In respect of magnitude of effect, 28% of responding tourism businesses

reported that the onshore components of the Project would have an adverse

impact of some degree on their business. Of these, 50% provided a

quantifiable answer in relation to percentage impact upon turnover. On

average, these respondents predicted a reduction in turnover of 18.3%,

which represents a high adverse impact (i.e. greater than 15% effect on

turnover). Direct obstruction to property access and increased traffic (which

could represent an obstruction to access) were raised as concerns by

respondents.

3.5.89 Reasons given by businesses predicting adverse impact of some kind due to

onshore construction, related solely to landscape and visual concerns;

specifically, ground disturbance and associated potential visual impact and

the potential removal of trees in forested areas during cabling activity. No

concerns were expressed regarding the substation in relation to

disturbance.

3.5.90 Noise and vibration, air quality and landscape and visual disturbance effects

have been considered (despite not all being raised by tourism business

survey respondents). The noise and vibration impact assessment for the

construction phase has identified that there would be no significant impacts

on receptors arising from the onshore components of the Project (i.e.

originating from construction noise, construction vibration, and construction

vehicle noise)(Volume C, Chapter 9 Onshore Noise). The air quality

assessment has identified that there would be no significant impact on

receptors within 20 m, or between 50 m and 100 m of the works (Volume

C, Chapter 8 Onshore Air Quality). The landscape and visual assessment

has identified that there would be no significant impacts in relation to the

Onshore Cable Corridor, and an impact to one resident who would have a

direct view of the Onshore Substation (Volume C, Chapter 12 Landscape

and Visual).




3.5.91 It is anticipated that the onshore construction works would take place over

5 years. However, in relation to access concerns, cabling activity affecting

access and tourism business operational routes over a given area would be

temporary, as the works are transient. The works to both the Onshore

Substation and the cable Landfall would be undertaken within a dedicated

construction site. Therefore, access to business is not likely to be affected.

ii Tourism receptors: Assessment of sensitivity and magnitude

during construction

Overall tourism economy

3.5.92 Tourism-related socio-economic impacts relate to the potential effects on

the number of visitors to the area and their expenditure in local businesses.

3.5.93 The coast attracts visits to the area for its natural and man-made

landscape, cleanliness and ease of access. Sea views are one of several

factors. Other factors at a business, local and national level affect business

performance including the state of the economy, the area’s reputation as a

place to visit as well as business marketing, pricing and product offering.

3.5.94 Visitor expenditure is an important input into the area’s economy. The

baseline has indicated the high importance of tourism to the area. Tourism

is a substantial activity in absolute numbers, is clearly a notable proportion

of the drive-time study area economy and is a measurable proportion of

tourism in England. Sensitivity is therefore assessed as high.

3.5.95 The impact assessment above indicates it is unlikely that the construction

phase for the combined on- and offshore project would produce significant

impacts across the tourism sector as a whole in the study area.

3.5.96 The magnitude of effect is therefore assessed as low. The impact is


Significant.

Coastal tourism economy

3.5.97 The coast is an important component of overall tourism activity. 1,980

tourism related businesses are estimated by ABI to be in the offshore

tourism study area.

3.5.98 At a local level, some areas are less dependent on the coast, particularly the

New Forest District where the National Park gives the inland countryside a

stronger role. In Poole, the Quay with its urban setting and events is less

dependent on views out to sea, although visitors to the Quay are likely to

also use the main beaches nearby in the offshore tourism study area.

Purbeck also has some high profile inland locations, particularly Corfe

Castle, although again, visitors to these inland locations are also likely to

visit the coast. Sensitivity is assessed as high.

3.5.99 The impact assessment shows potential impacts on visitor numbers as a

result of concerns about construction-related pollution and disturbance

would be most likely to arise on the coast and its businesses (as well as the

separate impacts on charter angling boats). However, the responses to the

business survey indicated that most businesses anticipated no or limited

impacts during construction. The findings of other Chapters also show that

impacts related to noise, disturbance and visual impacts would be limited.

3.5.100 The magnitude of effect is therefore assessed as low. The impact is


Significant.

Inland tourism economy

3.5.101 While much of the area’s tourism sector is focussed in the immediate

coastal area, where it accounts for a higher proportion of businesses and

employment, the broader study area includes a number of tourism

receptors. In the business survey, tourism-related businesses in the

onshore cable and substation corridor reported that 50% of the customer

base was drawn from outside the region (from overseas or from other parts

of the UK i.e. excluding the South West and South East). This would

indicate a high sensitivity based on the criteria in Table 3.6. 34% of the

customer base comes from the South West and South East regions.

However, it is not possible to make a determination as to how much of this

is trade from residents who live close to the onshore study area or further

afield (but within the South East or South West regions).

3.5.102 The other criterion for establishing sensitivity is the level of performance, as

businesses with a better level of current performance are considered to

have a greater tolerance to potential adverse impacts. Within the onshore

area, there was a 50% response rate to this question in the business

survey. Approximately 64% indicated current performance was good, some

27% stated it was fair, while approximately 9% reported current

performance as poor. This would suggest a sensitivity rating of low.




3.5.103 Obstruction to access, construction noise and vibration, air quality and

visual impact are potential features of the construction phase which may

affect inland tourism businesses. While onshore cable route and design

would seek to avoid places of business where possible, inland tourism

sensitivity is considered to be medium, reflecting the temporary nature of

the construction works and the possibility of direct effects on a limited

number of businesses.

3.5.104 The indicators used to determine tourism sensitivity have resulted in a high

and low rating. With equal weighting assigned to both criteria, and

reflecting the level of sensitivity to access and other factors discussed

above, the overall sensitivity of inland tourism is considered to be medium.

3.5.105 There is little indication that inland tourism businesses in the offshore study

area would be directly affected by construction of the offshore elements of

the Project, although they would be susceptible to changes in the overall

number of visitors to the area. However, as this is assessed as being

unlikely to change substantially as a result of the construction phase the

magnitude of effect is assessed as very low. The impact is considered to be

negligible and the level of significance is Not Significant.

3.5.106 Regarding potential impacts attributable to the onshore cable and

substation works, in considering all responses to the business survey

(including those who reported impacts and those who did not) the

magnitude of effect is considered to be low. Consideration of the overall

duration of construction against the temporary nature of works also

indicates a magnitude of effect of low. Both criteria used to make this

determination provide the same rating, therefore the magnitude of effect is

considered to be low.

3.5.107 For onshore receptors, the sensitivity and magnitude of effect ratings are

considered to provide an overall minor adverse impact and the level of


3.5.108 Conferences, Language Schools and Festivals and Events also attract people

to the area and the impacts in these sectors are considered below.

Conferences

3.5.109 Conferences are an important part of the study area’s tourism sector.

Organisers seek suitable venues and compare locations across much of the

UK, with the combination of conference venue availability, accommodation,

and cost the prime factors. Access, supporting facilities and image also play

a role, determined by the transport connections, the spread of supporting

businesses (e.g. restaurants) and the destination’s ‘brand’. While in relative

terms, this is a small part of the overall tourism sector, the study area and

Bournemouth in particular has an important function as a conference

destination and receives some national conferences. Sensitivity is therefore

assessed as high.

3.5.110 As indicated in the impact analysis, conference businesses in the offshore

study area would not be directly affected by construction of the Project The



Language schools

3.5.111 Visits to Language schools are driven by the supply of accredited language

schools in an area, together with the supporting network of host

accommodation. Location is also a factor. London for example, is an

internationally recognised destination for trips of all kinds including study.

Across the UK there is a wide choice of locations including the major cities

and other south coast resorts, where the structural changes in domestic

tourism have released former hotels and other buildings for new uses. The

study area and particularly Bournemouth has an important function as a

language school destination, with a higher than average proportion of

overseas visitors to the area attending language schools. While the scale of

this activity is small relative to the tourism sector as a whole, Bournemouth

is at least a regionally significant provider of language schools and related

courses. Sensitivity is assessed as high.

3.5.112 The assessment indicates the key reasons for using language schools in the

offshore study area would remain. While there may potentially be changes

in the area’s reputation linked to concerns over construction activity, no

specific issues were raised in discussions with language school operators on

construction stage impacts.

3.5.113 The magnitude of effect is assessed as low. The impact is considered to be


Festivals and events

3.5.114 Festivals and events, both international and national, in the study area

attract visitors and support wider tourism activity. There is a mix of high




and low profile events. Sensitivity is assessed as high, reflecting the

international and national status of some of the festivals and events.

3.5.115 Discussions with event organisers indicate the attractiveness of events in

the study area would not be directly affected by the construction phase

(excluding participants in sailing events, which are assessed separately in

Volume D, Chapter 4 Recreation).

3.5.116 The magnitude of effect is assessed as very low. The impact is considered

to be negligible and the level of significance is Not Significant.

iii Operational and maintenance impacts

Impacts on tourism receptors

3.5.117 Potential impacts during the operational and maintenance phase would be

largely restricted to the infrastructure associated with the Turbine Area.

3.5.118 Concerns have been raised from stakeholders that the visual impact of the

Turbine Area may dissuade tourists from visiting the area, particularly the

coast. If this were to occur businesses may receive less revenue as a result

and employment in these businesses may reduce. Further effects may then

be experienced in other parts of the economy through linkages with other

business and reduced wages. Concerns about pollution, water quality and

disturbance were not raised in relation to the operation and maintenance

phase.

3.5.119 The assessment of impacts takes account of the visitor and business

surveys as well as evidence from other locations with offshore wind farms.

These provide an indication of the way in which tourism may change as a

result of visual impact and the corresponding effects on tourism businesses.

3.5.120 A survey of tourism businesses in the coastal area (up to 10 km from the

coast) was undertaken, with 302 businesses responding out of 1,127

identified, a 27% response. This used a system of categorising impacts

based on business sensitivity to turnover change with low impact defined as

up to 10%, medium impact 10%-14% and high impact 15% or greater. It is

acknowledged that the level of resilience to changes in trading conditions

can vary widely between individual businesses depending on a range of

factors including ownership, levels of borrowing, working capital and others.

However, in tourism related business surveys across the UK, respondents’

answers suggest that turnover fluctuations of 10% or less can generally be

absorbed within the flexibility businesses allow to respond to changes in

trading conditions. Reductions of between 10% and 15% represent a

moderate impact capable of being recouped through marketing, cost saving

and similar market responses. In general, considerations of ongoing

business sustainability can start to become critical after turnover is reduced

by 15% or more.

3.5.121 The survey indicated that:

the majority of businesses (54%) considered it would have no impact on

their business, while a further 12% expected it to have a low or minimal

impact. The main reasons given related to: the Project being considered

to be too far away from the business to affect them directly; that visitors

would still want to come to the area regardless of the Project; and that

people are now becoming more used to the sight of wind farms.

a small proportion of businesses (7%) expected the Project would have

beneficial impacts on business trading to varying degrees. They viewed

the Project as potentially having a beneficial impact on the local economy

with workers coming to the area during the construction period. In

particular a number of accommodation providers felt they would receive

increased custom from accommodating construction workers. Some also

felt the Project would act as a new visitor attraction and bring additional

visitors to the area.

28% of businesses considered the Project would have either a medium or

high adverse impact on their business. These responses came from

businesses including accommodation providers, visitor attractions,

restaurants, bars/pubs, diving schools/centres, golf clubs and leisure

centres. Reasons cited include:

visual impacts coastal views from nearby towns, beaches and

countryside. Specifically it was thought views from Bournemouth,

Swanage Bay, the Isle of Wight and the Hills of Purbeck could be

affected;

impacts on the Jurassic Coast/World Heritage Site and AONB;

fears that the area would change from a natural beauty spot to

become more industrialised;

noise impacts would affect the peace and tranquillity of the area;

light pollution at night;

negative publicity surrounding the Project would dissuade people from

coming to the area;




tourists may not want to come back to the area once they see the

Project, as people prefer unspoilt coastlines;

there would be fewer sailing visitors as the Project may be a

navigation hazard;

there would be route diversions on passages;

the Project may create a microclimate, including sea fog, which would

reduce the number of visitors to the beach;

diving locations would be affected, particularly during the construction

phase;

environmental impacts on birds and other forms of wildlife.

3.5.122 Businesses were also asked to quantify how much negative change in

turnover would be experienced as a result of the Project. Some businesses

cited losses between 70%-75%. However, on average a 22% loss in

turnover was predicted by businesses that deemed that the Project would

negatively affect turnover.

3.5.123 Table 3.23 sets out the tourism business survey predicted impact of the

Project on business prospects, by location. It shows that businesses in

mainland resort locations predict very similar impacts to the survey

average, while businesses in Purbeck predict a much greater negative

impact. In contrast, tourism businesses on the Isle of Wight are less likely

to predict large negative impacts, and more likely to predict medium or low

adverse impacts, no impact or high positive impacts. Table 3.23 also shows

that businesses with a sea view were more concerned about their business

prospects, with higher proportions predicting medium or high adverse

impacts. However, even among those businesses with sea views, some

predicted positive impacts from the Project.

Table 3.23 – Predicted impact of Navitus Bay on business prospects, by location – Tourism Business Survey 2013

Impact Overall Purbeck

Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset, New Forest

Isle of Wight

Sea view No sea view

High positive >15%

1% 0% 1% 4% 3% 1%

Medium positive 10%-14%

1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Low positive <10%

4% 3% 4% 0% 5% 6%

No impact 54% 20% 58% 60% 24% 44%

Low adverse <10%

12% 18% 11% 14% 17% 18%

Medium adverse 10%-14%

10% 12% 9% 14% 18% 8%

High adverse >15%

18% 47% 16% 8% 33% 23%

Please note that only a subset of respondents chose to answer the sea view question. Therefore any impact projections will not correspond directly with the overall impact analysis which is based on a larger number of respondents.

3.5.124 Businesses were also asked to indicate what they expect the impact may be

on general tourism in the wider area. Again, the majority (55%) considered

that the Project would have either no impact or a low impact on tourism. A

medium adverse effect was expected by 13% and a further 24% felt it

would have a high adverse impact on wider tourism (more than the

proportion who thought there would be a high adverse impact). For the

reasons cited above, a number of respondents felt that potential visitors

would be deterred from coming to the area and instead choose coastal




areas which retain their natural views and vistas. 7% of respondents felt the

Project could have a potential positive impact on tourism, with the Project

acting as an attraction and becoming an interesting addition to the

coastline.

3.5.125 While these findings by themselves suggest a medium level of impact

magnitude, they are based solely on business perceptions of the Project and

its impacts. As mentioned above these perceptions may be prone to bias in

regard to the perceived negativity associated with wind farm developments.

3.5.126 Other sources of information and research have been considered to inform

the magnitude of effect rating.

3.5.127 The visitor surveys showed that visitors to the area are not necessarily

avoiding trips to locations with wind farms:

57% of summer visitors and 63% of spring visitors had visited or

considered a destination with a wind farm, either onshore or offshore.

when asked if the presence of the wind farm had influenced their

decision to visit the area, 80% of visitors interviewed during the summer

and 96% of visitors interviewed during the spring period reported that

the presence of an onshore wind farm had no bearing on their decision.

3.5.128 People therefore visited, or planned to visit, those locations regardless of

whether a wind farm was present.

3.5.129 Survey respondents were shown photomontages of the proposed

operational scheme. In summary:

the main finding was that most visitors would not be put off visiting the

area because of the Project – 79% of summer visitors and 86% of spring

visitors disagreed with the statement that ‘the wind farm is likely to put

me off visiting the area, I'm likely to visit elsewhere’. Similar proportions

disagreed with the statement that ‘the wind farm is likely to shorten the

amount of time I would want to spend in the area’. However, 14% of

summer visitors and 6% of spring visitors agreed that ‘the wind farm is

likely to put me off visiting the area, I'm likely to visit elsewhere’.

the proportion of summer visitors who considered that the Project would

enhance the area and increase interest in visiting was 3% of summer

visitors and 9% of spring visitors - less than the summer proportion but

more than the spring proportion that would be dissuaded by the Project.

the survey scored reactions according to whether the wind farm would:

put people off visiting the area; enhance the appeal of the area; or alter

the time they spent in the area. Analysis of this scoring concluded that

visitors disagreed with both the positive and negative statements about

the Project, which indicates some indifference to the Project. However, of

those that offered comments, relatively few were completely indifferent

(4% of summer visitors and 3% of spring visitors), while 5% of summer

visitors and 13% of spring visitors raised some concerns about the

Project that fell short of opposition. Of those that offered comments,

there were more positive comments about the Project than negative,

with 27% of summer visitors and 41% of spring visitors presenting

supportive comments, compared to 27% of summer visitors and 33% of

spring visitors with negative comments (related to visual impact,

disagreement with wind power, and general dislike of the Project). A few

of the respondents who supported wind farms appeared to perceive that

there are negative aspects associated with them, but that on balance the

benefits outweigh these.

3.5.130 Overall, the visitor survey results indicate that for both the summer and

spring visitors, the presence of the operational wind farm is unlikely to have

a major bearing on whether or not visitors decide to visit the area again,

even though some disagreed with wind power and/or considered that there

would be a negative visual impact. This should be read in the context of an

independent opinion poll by the Mail on Sunday which showed that 70% of

people surveyed backed wind farms being built near them, compared to

30% who would not be. Similar polls commissioned by NBDL have shown

that consistently over 62% of those surveyed support the Project. Refer to

the Consultation Report (Document 5.1) for further details.

3.5.131 Alongside the quantitative surveys, the findings of focus groups provided a

greater depth of understanding (acknowledging that they were from a small

number of people (36 across the four groups)). While the purpose of the

focus groups was to explore reactions to any differences between the

visuals used in the two quantitative surveys, the focus groups also gave

insight into the potential impact of the Project on tourism. Participants

expressed a variety of views but whatever their opinion of the Project, all

felt they would be likely to return to this area as a tourist. Even the

respondents who had expressed the most negative comments felt they

would return to the area because they had reasons to visit and that the




view out to sea was only one component of a trip to this area. The majority

opinion was that people would adapt to the change in scenery.

3.5.132 In terms of experiences from other projects, the assessment of standard

VisitBritain data in areas where there are existing Round 1 offshore wind

farms indicates that people are not being discouraged from visiting areas

with offshore wind farms, and a small survey relating to North Hoyle

suggests the same. The 2008 research undertaken on behalf of the Scottish

Government also indicates that people are not put off visiting areas with

wind farms and that 93%-99% of respondents who had seen an onshore

wind farm suggested that there would be no change in the likelihood of their

visiting the area.

3.5.133 From the visitor and business surveys, as well as the review of offshore

wind farms elsewhere, there are some diverging themes:

visitor and business surveys both suggest that while the majority of

tourism activity would be unaffected by the visual impact of the Project,

albeit there may be a very small impact on a few visitors to the area. If

this were to occur, then there would be corresponding impacts on

business revenue and resulting changes to employment and the tourism

supply chain.

the business surveys identified concerns of some local businesses,

particularly those with sea views and those in Purbeck – although the

majority of businesses still believe there would be little or no impact and

some expect positive impacts from the Project.

the visitor survey along with the smaller scale focus groups suggest that

while visitors may be aware of the visual change, they may be indifferent

to it or it may have little bearing on their choice of where to visit.

the review of other locations demonstrates that it is unlikely that there

would be significant adverse impacts and that there may be some

tourism opportunities.

3.5.134 The comparative experience and the views expressed by visitors (in the

local area and elsewhere) suggest that concerns expressed by local

businesses are unlikely to be realised. The initial findings of the noise

assessment show there would not be significant noise pollution, albeit there

would be a visual presence.

3.5.135 In considering the concerns expressed by tourism businesses, the concept

of risk is useful; many tourism businesses operate with tight margins in a

trading environment over which they have little direct control – such as the

effect of recession, exchange rates or fuel prices on visitor behaviour. As

such, while business owners may consider the likelihood of negative impacts

to be slight, any change to the underlying attributes that attract people to

the destination(s) represents a risk that business owners would prefer not

to have to take.

3.5.136 Taking these factors into consideration, it is possible there may be some

small change in visitor numbers as a result of the Project although

conflicting evidence makes it difficult to assess scale:

the visitor and business survey findings relate specifically to the Project

area and comparative research may not replicate all of its

characteristics;

the visitor and business survey findings represent views about future

change, while the research from other locations records actual change.

3.5.137 In addition, and as noted earlier, the Turbine Area has reduced in size

twice. As the Business Survey was carried out in 2013, responses were

based on the realistic worst case scenario for the December 2012 boundary

change (PEI3 Turbine Area), which anticipated up to 136 8 MW turbines.

The February 2014 boundary change further reduced the extent of the

Turbine Area, increased the distance of the Turbine Area from the coast

from a number of locations, reduced the horizontal extent of the Turbine

Area (from most viewpoints) and reduced the number of turbines.

3.5.138 The February 2014 Design Visual Calibration Study (Appendix 3.8) indicated

that visitor focus groups perceived little difference between photomontages

of the PEI3 and the Application Turbine Area. Therefore, the conclusions of

the business and visitor surveys remain valid.

iv Tourism receptors: assessment of sensitivity and magnitude

during operation

3.5.139 Where tourism receptors are based on appreciation of the landscape or

seascape there is a high sensitivity to development within that landscape or

seascape. However, the sensitivity of receptors to changes in the landscape

does not necessarily imply that behaviour would change as a result, as

landscape is one of many factors influencing behaviour.




3.5.140 The factors determining the sensitivity of tourism receptors remain and the

ascribed sensitivity is as for the construction phase.

3.5.141 Taking the various factors into account the potential adverse impact on

those businesses that might be affected is assessed as a reduction in

business performance of up to 5%. This reflects comparative experience

and the strength and diversity of the local tourism economy in the area.

This is most likely to be focussed on locations in proximity to the coast

rather than the overall area.


3.5.142 Tourism would continue to be a notable proportion of the overall study area

economy and sensitivity is assessed as high. It is unlikely that the Project

would produce major effects on the tourism sector as a whole and therefore

the magnitude of effect is assessed as low. The impact is considered to be


Coastal tourism economy

3.5.143 Much of the area’s tourism sector would continue to be focussed in the

immediate coastal area, where it accounts for a higher proportion of

businesses and employment. Sensitivity is assessed as high.

3.5.144 Where impacts would occur, these would occur on the coast and its

businesses. Most of the businesses responding to the survey were located

within 5 km of the coast. While businesses own assessment indicated a

“medium adverse impact”, this is balanced by other research and

comparative evidence which indicates a lower scale of impact has been

realised in relation to other Projects. The magnitude of effect is therefore

assessed as low. The impact is considered to be minor adverse and the

level of significance is Not Significant.

Inland tourism economy

3.5.145 Much of the area’s tourism sector would continue to be focussed in the

immediate coastal area, with less activity and tourism status to inland

areas, with the clear exception of the New Forest National Park. The

sensitivity rating of tourism businesses to disturbance is considered to be

the same during the operation and maintenance phase as it is during the

construction phase, as the indicators remain the same (customer base and

business performance). Therefore the sensitivity is considered to be

medium.

3.5.146 Inland tourism businesses in the offshore study area are unlikely to be

directly affected by the offshore components, although they would be

susceptible to any change in the overall visitor numbers. However, as this is

unlikely to be subject to major change from project operation, the



3.5.147 For the onshore infrastructure, the receptor sensitivity rating of tourism

businesses in the Onshore Cable Corridor and Onshore Substation would be

the same for the operation and maintenance phase as it is for the

construction phase, as the indicators remain the same (customer base and

business performance). Sensitivity to these elements is considered to be

medium.

3.5.148 The onshore cable would be buried and substation infrastructure screened in

the operation and maintenance phases. In respect of the magnitude of

effect, an adverse impact was only predicted by one respondent to the

tourism business survey in relation to the effects of the onshore elements of

the Project. In addition, disturbance factors are considered to be reduced

during O&M phase; the air quality assessment scoped out the O&M phase

(Refer to Volume C, Chapter 8 Onshore Air Quality). Visual impacts during

O&M phase are reported to be not significant for all but one residential

receptor (refer to volume C, Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual). Following

mitigation measures, the operational noise impacts of the substation were

reduced to a rating of Not Significant.

3.5.149 The magnitude of effect on businesses therefore has a rating of very low.

The impact is considered to be negligible and the level of significance is

Not Significant.

Conferences

3.5.150 The study area, and in particular Bournemouth, is likely to continue to have

an important function as a conference destination. Its sensitivity is assessed

as high.

3.5.151 Twelve of the 16 conference organisers contacted as part of the research

were unable to identify any likely impacts; one was unsure whether there

would be an impact; one stated that there would be a positive impact; and

one anticipated an adverse impact. Perceived negative impacts were

attributable to the potential visual impact of the Project and the possibility

of dissuading visitors.




3.5.152 Overall there is little indication that conference businesses in the tourism

study area for the offshore elements would be directly affected by operation

of the offshore components and the magnitude of effect is assessed as very

low. The impact is considered to be negligible and the level of significance

is Not Significant.

Language schools

3.5.153 The study area is likely to continue to have an important function as a

language school destination. The sensitivity is assessed as high.

3.5.154 Language schools had mixed views of the extent to which the Project would

affect their ability to attract students, with views divided between those who

considered that learning English was the main priority, in which case a wind

farm would not prevent this; and those who felt that the area’s image could

be damaged and that this would dissuade students.

3.5.155 While most of the key reasons for using language schools in the offshore

study area remain, there potentially would be changes in the area’s

reputation as a result of the operational activity. The magnitude of effect is

therefore assessed as low. The impact is considered to be minor adverse

and the level of significance is Not Significant.

Events

3.5.156 The study area is likely to continue to have a mix of high and low profile

events for tourism with the same role of attracting people to the area and

supporting the wider level of visitor activity. The sensitivity of events is

assessed as high.

3.5.157 None of the event organisers contacted identified any impacts during

operation (note that there is a separate assessment of the impacts on

recreational sailing in Volume D, Chapter 4, Recreation). The major events

are able to attract visitors on the strength of their own profile and are

arguably less dependent on the image of the location.

3.5.158 There is little suggestion that events in the offshore study area would be

directly affected by operation of the offshore elements (excluding the

participants in sailing events).

3.5.159 The magnitude of effect is assessed as very low. The impact is considered

to be negligible and the level of significance is Not Significant.

v Decommissioning

3.5.160 The level of impact is likely to be similar during decommissioning as they

would be during the construction phase.

3.5.161 The sensitivity of receptors is not anticipated to change relative to the

construction and O&M phases.

3.5.162 The potential effects of decommissioning would be similar to those for

construction, although some of the piling and trenching activity would not

be necessary and therefore the process would be smaller in scale. It is

reasonable to assume that some of the concerns about construction raised

by tourism visitors and businesses would also apply to the decommissioning

phase (e.g. concerns over disruption to beach activity, pollution in the sea

caused by construction activity and noise).

3.5.163 The information on water quality effects indicates there would be minor

effects on water quality at Blue Flag beaches during decommissioning (Refer

to Volume B, Chapter 6 Offshore Water Quality). The information about

decommissioning noise indicates there would be no effects from Turbine

Area noise (refer to Volume B, Chapter 8 In-air Noise) and minor effects

from landfall construction noise on receptors within 300 m (refer to Volume

C, Chapter 9 Onshore Noise). The proposed decommissioning programme

does not include any physical obstruction effects on beach activities.

However there may be effects on visitors due to concern about these issues,

whether or not these are substantiated.

3.5.164 The impact of decommissioning on charter angling boats is assessed in the

Commercial Fisheries assessment (Volume B, Chapter 17 Commercial

fisheries).

3.5.165 With regard to the onshore infrastructure, obstruction during the

decommissioning phase would be minimal in comparison to the construction

phase, given that the cables would remain in situ or in some instances be

cut. Obstruction to access would therefore be likely to arise predominantly

at the locations of the jointing pits (which would be in-filled) and at

locations around the substation.

3.5.166 Taking these factors into consideration, the magnitude of effect on tourism

receptors is as follows:

Overall tourism economy – it is unlikely that the Project would produce

any significant impacts on the tourism sector as a whole and therefore




the magnitude of effect is assessed as low. The impact is considered to

be minor adverse and the level of significance is Not Significant.

Coastal resort tourism economy – where there are impacts on visitor

numbers as a result of concerns from decommissioning-related pollution

and disturbance, these would occur on the coast and its businesses, and

there are separate medium effects on charter angling boats. As with the

construction phase, few businesses identified particular impacts

associated with decommissioning. Magnitude of effect is therefore

assessed as low. The impact is considered to be minor adverse and the

level of significance is Not Significant.

Inland tourism economy– as in previous stages, inland tourism

businesses in the offshore study area are unlikely to be directly affected

by the Project, although they would be susceptible to any change in

overall visitor numbers in the area. However, as this is considered

unlikely to change as a result of project decommissioning the magnitude

of effect is assessed as very low. The impact is considered to be

negligible. While potential obstruction to access and related effects would

be lower than those experienced during construction, the magnitude of

effect criteria are considered to be comparable with construction.

Magnitude of effect is therefore considered to be low. Receptor

sensitivity and magnitude of effect ratings are considered to provide an

overall adverse impact of minor adverse. The level of significance is

Not Significant.

The potential for disturbance to tourism businesses, and consequent

decrease in custom, are considered to be similar during the

decommissioning phase as for construction. However, the magnitude of

effect would be minimised given the far smaller scale of work to be

undertaken and the lesser level of ground disturbance. The magnitude of

effect is considered to be low. This gives an impact of minor adverse.

The level of significance is Not Significant.

No predictions were made in relation to potential impacts in the offshore

study area during the decommissioning phase by respondents to the

tourism business survey. In other assessments, there were no significant

impacts in relation to air quality or noise and vibration. In relation to

visual impacts, the landscape and visual assessment found one

residential viewpoint to be significantly impacted, whilst the remainder of

impacts on viewpoints were found to be Not Significant. In relation to the

probability of disturbance effects, following consideration of the findings

of other assessments and the lack of response provided by tourism

related businesses in relation to the decommissioning phase, likelihood is

therefore considered to be low. Therefore the overall impact is reduced.

The impact is considered to be negligible. The level of significance is

Not Significant.

Conference market – in discussions, conference businesses have not

identified any direct impacts from decommissioning of the Project and

the magnitude of effect is assessed as very low. The impact is

considered to be negligible and the level of significance is Not

Significant.

Language Schools – while most of the key reasons for using language

schools in the offshore study area remain, there may be changes in the

area’s reputation as a result of concerns about decommissioning activity.

The magnitude of effect is therefore assessed as low. The impact is


Significant.

Events – there is little to suggest that events in the offshore study area

would be directly affected by decommissioning of the Project (excluding

the participants in sailing events, assessed separately in the offshore

recreation assessment) and the magnitude of effect is assessed as very

low. The impact is considered to be negligible and the level of


3.6 Mitigation of Impacts and Residual Impact Assessment

a) Supply chain

3.6.1 The assessment indicates beneficial impacts at each phase of the Project.

However, to ensure opportunities for the local supply chain are maximised

at each phase of the Project, NBDL will develop a strategy with relevant

stakeholders which would seek to:

maximise the opportunity for local businesses to bid for contracts;

maximise local employment opportunities;

assess local training needs and delivery mechanisms.




b) Commercial fisheries

3.6.2 The impact assessment identifies a number of effects that may be

significant for commercial fisheries receptors. Significant effects are

associated with individual vessels including static gear, whelk pots and

other gear (i.e. rod and line fishing) and charter anglers. Effects may be

significant for individual operators within these receptor categories, as they

obtain a proportion of earnings from fishing grounds within the Turbine Area

or Export Cable Corridor and have less flexibility to offset any reduction in

target species.

3.6.3 Where significant impacts are identified, appropriate mitigation has been

developed in close consultation with the fishing community, to ensure

impacts are minimised. In summary, the measures include:

A project-specific fisheries liaison programme, to establish a formal

system of communication between the Project and fisheries stakeholders;

Commercial discussions with individual vessels owners: NBDL has entered

into advanced discussions with individual commercial fishing vessel and

charter boat owners identified as likely to experience a material

disruption due to the construction of the Turbine Area and/or cable laying

activities.

Use of fishing vessels with appropriate certification may be contracted as

guard vessels or to undertake surveys.

3.6.4 Refer to Volume B, Chapter 17 Commercial Fisheries for details.

c) Commercial shipping

3.6.5 The impact assessment concludes that no risks have been identified as

unacceptable (refer to Volume B, Chapter 16 Shipping and Navigation). A

number of receptors have been identified as subject to Tolerable risk during

the construction, operational and maintenance phases and during the

installation of the Offshore Export Cable. Additional mitigation, over and

above best practice, would be applied to minimise these risks, including:

advanced dissemination of information enabling vessels to plan their

passage and effectively and safely navigate around the Turbine Area and

Offshore Export Cable Corridor;

use of temporary aids to navigation to mark hazards during the

construction and decommissioning phases and significant periods of

maintenance;

work planned and coordinated with full consideration for marine safety;

use of the route planning for wind farm associated vessels;

continued consultation with stakeholders;

further consultation with ferry operators;

contracting emergency towing vessels.

d) Tourism

3.6.6 Navitus Bay is only the second major offshore wind project proposed on the

South Coast (Rampion being the other). None have yet been constructed.

With limited experience among local businesses of this type of

infrastructure, there is understandable concern among tourism stakeholders

over the potential impacts of the Project on the tourism sector locally.

3.6.7 While the predicted impacts are assessed as Not Significant, NBDL proposes

to respond to concerns of local stakeholders and any potential impacts by

providing resources to relevant stakeholders to deliver measures to enhance

the tourism sector during the construction phase. Measures currently under

discussion with local planning authorities are:

provision of a visitor centre in the local area;

fund being made available to deliver measures that would promote local

tourism, e.g. marketing.

3.6.8 In addition, the communications protocol will disseminate information to

relevant stakeholders during the construction and decommissioning phases

of the Project.

3.7 Cumulative Impacts

a) Project wide

3.7.1 There are no project-wide cumulative impacts identified in relation to this

Socio-economics and Tourism assessment.




b) Offshore elements

3.7.2 The Offshore Infrastructure assessment (Volume B, Chapter 19) notes that

the offshore study area includes an area of seabed surrounding the site that

is allocated for use by the marine aggregates industry and there are marine

aggregate extraction allocations north and north east of the turbine area.

The closest actively dredged area is approximately 4.7 km from the

Offshore Development Area at its closest point. There are six areas under

new application directly to the east of the turbine area. Aggregates are

landed at Poole, Isle of Wight and Southampton. Demand for aggregates is

linked to population growth and construction and will not be affected by the

Project.

3.7.3 The proposed Alderney Renewable Energy Ltd cabling may introduce EMF

effects that could impact on local availability of fish for recreational angling.

These are predicted to be localised and minor. Logically the same order of

effects might result from the other telecoms and subsea cabling, within

minor localised cumulative impacts at some distance from the Project.

However, the developers of these projects will be subject to appropriate

mitigation requirements to address these potential impacts. The additional

cumulative effects are therefore expected to be minimal.

c) Onshore elements

3.7.4 There are a number of proposed developments scheduled in the onshore

study area. These developments may generate noise and traffic effects on

tourism receptors although the activities proposed are within normal

construction activity and are unlikely to create particular traffic effects.

These developments therefore assessed as having very low effects on the

tourism receptors affected by the Onshore Substation or Onshore Cable

Corridor. Similarly, there are a number of proposed developments that

would have a landscape and visual impact, although the cumulative impact

would be no greater than the impact that would arise from this Project.

3.8 Summary Tables

3.8.1 The following table presents a summary of the impact assessment

undertaken for this Chapter. It summarises the nature and extent of the

likely significant effects of the Project identified at each stage (construction,

operation and maintenance, and decommissioning, where applicable), and

includes the assessment of cumulative impacts. It identifies the receptor/s

likely to be impacted and their sensitivity, and the resulting significance of

the effect on the receptor/s. Appropriate mitigation measures are outlined,

followed by the resulting residual impact assessment.




Table 3.24 – Summary of impacts

Receptor Nature of impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of

impact Mitigation

Residual significance

Significant or Not Significant

Construction

Labour market in the drive-time study area – low impact scenario

Additional manufacturing and construction activity and employment

Low Low Minor (beneficial) Supply chain strategy

Minor (beneficial) Not Significant

Labour market in the drive-time study area – medium impact scenario


Low Medium Minor (beneficial) Supply chain strategy

Minor (beneficial) Not Significant

Labour market in the drive-time study area – high impact scenario


Low High Moderate (beneficial)

Supply chain strategy

Moderate (beneficial)

Significant

Fishing vessels registered at Poole pursuing fisheries in the offshore project site area

Loss of revenue from fishing and corresponding changes in fishing employment

Medium Medium Moderate

Refer to the Commercial Fisheries Chapter (Volume B, Chapter 17) for details

Commercial shipping activity - affected by changes to routeing

Additional costs and longer journey time

Medium Low Minor

Refer to the Shipping and Navigation Chapter (Volume B, Chapter 16) for details


Concern about construction pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area

High Low Minor Communications protocol and measures to support local tourism

Negligible Not Significant

Coastal resort tourism economy

Concern about visual impacts, construction pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area


Minor Not Significant

Inland tourism economy Concern about construction pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area

Medium Very low Negligible Communications protocol and measures to support local tourism


Conference market Concern about High Very low Negligible Communications Negligible Not Significant






impact Mitigation



construction pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area

protocol and measures to support local tourism

Language Schools Concern about construction pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area


Minor Not Significant

Events Concern about construction pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area

High Very low Negligible Communications protocol and measures to support local tourism


Operation and Maintenance



Low Low Negligible None proposed Minor (beneficial) Not Significant



Low Medium Minor (beneficial) None proposed Minor (beneficial) Not Significant



Low High Moderate (beneficial)

None proposed Moderate (beneficial)

Significant



Medium Low Minor Refer to the Commercial Fisheries Chapter (Volume B, Chapter 17) for details

Commercial shipping activity - affected by changes to routeing


Medium Low Minor Refer to the Shipping and Navigation Chapter (Volume B, Chapter 16) for details


Visual impact affecting visitor numbers attracted

High Low Minor None proposed Minor Not Significant






impact Mitigation



to the area


Visual impact affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area


Inland tourism economy tourism economy

Visual impact affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area

Medium Very low Negligible None proposed Negligible Not Significant

Conference market Visual impact affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area

High Very low Negligible None proposed Negligible Not Significant

Language Schools Visual impact affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area


Events Visual impact affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area


Decommissioning



Low Very low Negligible None proposed Minor (beneficial) Not Significant



Low Low Minor (beneficial) None proposed Minor (beneficial) Not Significant



Low Low Minor (beneficial) None proposed Moderate (beneficial)

Significant



Medium Medium Moderate Refer to the Commercial Fisheries Chapter (Volume B, Chapter 17) for details

Commercial shipping activity – affected by changes to routeing


Medium Low Minor Refer to the Shipping and Navigation Chapter (Volume B, Chapter 16) for details






impact Mitigation




Concern about decommissioning pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area





Inland tourism economy tourism economy


Medium Very low Negligible None proposed Negligible Not Significant

Conference market Concern about decommissioning pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area


Language Schools Concern about decommissioning pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area


Events Concern about decommissioning pollution and disturbance affecting visitor numbers attracted to the area





References

Atkins, 2011, Economic Impact of the Port of Southampton

Bournemouth Borough Council (2006) Bournemouth Green Space Strategy, 2007 –

2011. Bournemouth Borough Council

Bournemouth Borough Council (2012) Bournemouth Core Strategy (Adopted).

Bournemouth Borough Council

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Economic Partnership (2005) Raising the Game –

Building a More Competitive Economy in Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole 2005

– 2016. Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Economic Partnership

Bournemouth University, 2008, Town Centre Master Vision Evaluation of the Effect of

an Evening Event in the town on business levels and customer perceptions

Bournemouth University, 2010, Dorset Visitors Survey 2009 http://www.visit-

dorset.com/dbimgs/Dorset%20Visitors%20Survey%20report%202009%20fin

al.pdf

BP, 2003, Asset Portfolio Wytch Farm

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/d

ownloads/U/uk_asset_wytch_farm.pdf

Christchurch Borough Council and East Dorset District Council (2010) Christchurch

and East Dorset Tourism Key Issue Paper. Christchurch Borough Council and

East Dorset District Council

Christchurch and East Dorset Councils (2012) Christchurch and East Dorset Core

Strategy (Pre-Submission). Christchurch and East Dorset Councils

DECC (2011a) Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Ref:

11D/711. Department for Energy and Climate Change

DECC (2011b) National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

Department for Energy and Climate Change

DECC (2011c) National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-

5). Department for Energy and Climate Change

DEFRA, 2011, Marine Policy Statement

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb3654-marine-policy-statement-

110316.pdf

Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2009, Research to improve the

assessment of additionality http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/economics-

and-statistics/docs/09-1302-bis-occasional-paper-01

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2009 Guidance for using Additionality

Benchmarks in Appraisal http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file54063.pdf HM

Government Treasury, 2003, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government,

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf

Dorset and East Coast Council (2009). Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage

Site Management Plan 2009 – 2014

Dorset Economic Partnership (2011) Dorset Local Economic Partnership: Prospectus

2011. Dorset Economic Partnership

Dorset Energy Group (2010) Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy

Strategy to 2020. Dorset Energy Group

HM Government, 2009, Marine and Coastal Access Act

ICF GHK and Warwick Economics and Development (2012) Enterprise M3 – Strategy

for Growth Discussion Document 2012. Enterprise M3

IEMA (2004) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment

Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as

amended, 2012), Statutory Instrument 2009/2263. HMSO

IPC, (2011) Navitus Bay Scoping Opinion

Isle of Wight Council (2005) The Isle of Wight 2020 Vision for Tourism – Working

Smarter Towards a Sustainable Future. Isle of Wight Council

Isle of Wight Council (2008) Isle of Wight Economic Strategy 2008 – 2020. Isle of

Wight Council

Isle of Wight Council (2011) Isle of Wight Economic Development Plan 2011/12 –

2013/14. Isle of Wight Council

Isle of Wight Council (2012) Isle of Wight Core Strategy (Adopted). Isle of Wight

Council

Isle of Wight Council and Island Strategic Partnership (2008) – The Isle of Wight

Community Strategy. Isle of Wight Council and Island Strategic Partnership

Isle of Wight Council (2011). Isle of Wight Island Tourism Strategy Discussion Paper.

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/




Knight, Kavanagh and Page (2008) Bournemouth and Poole: Sport and Recreation

Built Facilities Strategy and Action Plan. Bournemouth and Poole Councils

Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund, 2009, Quantifying and Valuing the

Impacts of Marine Aggregate Extraction on Ecosystem Goods and Services

http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/462458/mepf-08-p77-final-report.pdf

New Forest District Council (2006). Economic Strategy for New Forest District.

New Forest District and National Park Authority (2009). Our Future Together II –

Tourism Strategy

New Forest District Council and New Forest National Park (2010) Renewable Energy

Potential Assessment in the New Forest District. New Forest District Council

and New Forest National Park

New Forest National Park (2010) New Forest National Park Core Strategy (Adopted).

New Forest National Park

New Forest National Park (2010) Recreation Management Strategy, 2010 – 2030.

New Forest National Park Recreation Management Strategy, 2010 – 2030

OECD, 2011, Job Tenure Statistics – which shows that an average job duration is 9.3

years http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=TENURE_AVE

Poole Borough Council (2009) Poole Core Strategy (Adopted). Poole Borough Council

Poole Harbour Commissioners, 2012, Draft Master Plan Version Two

http://www.phc.co.uk/masterplan/_downloads/phc-masterplan.pdf

Purbeck District Council (2008) A Tourism Strategy for Purbeck 2008-2013. Purbeck

District Council

Purbeck District Council (2012) Planning Purbeck’s Future Purbeck Local Plan Part 1

(Adopted). Purbeck District Council

Scottish Government, 2008, The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish

Tourism – Chapter 13.4

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf

Scottish Government (2012). Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. 7th Report,

2012 (Session 4). Report on the achievability of the Scottish Government’s

renewable energy targets.

Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006, A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment

Appendix 5

Solent Local Economic Partnership (2012) Solent LEP Strategy for Growth 2012.

Solent Local Economic Partnership

South West Tourism and South West Regional Development Agency (2005) Towards

2015: Shaping Tomorrow’s Tourism. South West Tourism and South West

Regional Development Agency

South West Tourism/ SW Tourism Alliance, 2008, Value of Tourism 2008.

South West Tourism/ SW Tourism Alliance, 2008, Value of Tourism 2008.

Team Tourism Consulting (2008) Bournemouth and Poole Strategic Framework 2008

– 2010. Poole and Bournemouth Destination Management Partnership Co-

ordinating Group

The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) (2012a) Advice Note Seven: Environmental Impact

Assessment, screening and scoping.

The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) (2012b) Advice Note Nine: Using the Rochdale

Envelope.

Tourism South East, 2009, The Significance of Sailing to South Hampshire and the

Isle of Wight’s Visitor Economy

University of Portsmouth’s Centre for Economic Analysis and Policy, 2012, Local

Economic Assessment

http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/API_STR_JSNA_SEC_EMP_ECON_AREA

_AX2012.pdf

VisitBritain, 2013, Inbound Tourism – Updated April 2013

http://www.visitbritain.org/insightsandstatistics/inboundtourismfacts/

Written evidence to the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and

Skills, 2008,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/216/2

16we96.htm accessed May 2013 – Impact of North Hoyle

http://www/

http://stats/

http://www/

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf

http://www/

http://www/

http://www/




Glossary

Table 3.25 – Glossary

Term Definitions

Additionality Additionality is defined as ‘the extent to which

something happens as a result of an intervention that would not have occurred in the absence of the

intervention’ (Additionality Guide, Homes & Communities Agency, 4th edition 2014).

Deadweight Expenditure to promote a desired activity that would have in fact occurred without the expenditure (HM Treasury Green Book and the Department for Business Innovation & Skills Impact Assessment Toolkit (April 2010)).

Economic Activity Rates The economic activity rate measures the percentage of the population who are in employment or unemployed. The economic activity rate is therefore a useful measure of the labour market opportunities available to the people. A high proportion of economically active unemployed people represents and underutilised workforce that could contribute to the area’s economic performance.

FTE jobs A standard measure of staff size; with one full-time equivalent (FTE) equivalent to one employee working full time (or part of). This allows full time, part time and seasonal employment to be had regard to.

FTE job year This is calculated by establishing what proportion of the undiscounted expenditure would be spent on labour. This spend is then divided by an average cost per employee.

Gross Value Added (GVA) GVA consists of earnings, profit and investment in the area of benefit and is a standard economic measure of the value in £s of the goods and services produced in an area.

Job Density Job density measures the number of jobs (per resident aged 16-64) for every resident (also aged 16-64).

Tourism related employment Tourism-related includes the following sectors: SIC

Table 3.25 – Glossary

Term Definitions

551 Hotels; SIC 552; camping sites etc.; SIC 553 Restaurants; SIC 554 Bars; SIC 633 Activities of travel agencies etc.; SIC 925 Library, archives, museums etc.; SIC 926 Sporting activities; SIC 927 Other recreational activities




Abbreviations

Table 3.26 – Abbreviations

Term Definitions

ABI Annual Business Inquiry

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

ASSI Area of Special Scientific Interest

DCO Development Consent Order

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMF Electro-Magnetic Field effects

EN-1 NPS for Energy

EN-3 NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure

EN-5 NPS for Electricity Network Infrastructure

ES Environmental Statement

GB Great Britain

GBTS Great Britain Tourism Survey

GVA Gross value added – a true measure of the value to an economy

HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling

HNC Higher National Certificate

HND Higher National Diploma

JSA Job Seekers Allowance

IT Information Technology

MMO Marine Management Organisation

NBDL Navitus Bay Developments Ltd

NCN National Cycle Network

NM Nautical Mile

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

NPS National Policy Statement

O&M Operation and maintenance

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Table 3.26 – Abbreviations

Term Definitions

OMS Operational, Maintenance and Servicing

ONS Office for National Statistics

PDS Project Design Statement

PEI Preliminary Environmental Information

PRoW Public Rights of Way

RSA Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

SOC Standard Occupational Classification

SPA Special Protection Area

UK United Kingdom

USA United States of America

VAT Value Added Tax

ZOI Zone of Influence