15.8. Key Parameters for Assessment

The Maximum Design Scenarios (MDSs) identified in Table 15.8 Open ▸ are those expected to have the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. These scenarios have been selected from the details provided in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Array EIA Report. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Description (volume 1, chapter 3) (e.g. different infrastructure layout), to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.

15.9. Methodology for Assessment of Effects

The RYA Scotland’s Position on Offshore Renewable Energy Developments: Paper 1 (of 4) – Wind Energy, June 2019 (RYA, 2019b);
Assessment of Impact of Offshore Wind Energy Structures on the Marine Environment (Marine Institute, 2000);
Guidance on Environmental Impact Assessment of Offshore Renewable Energy Development on Surfing Resources and Recreation (Surfers Against Sewage (SAS), 2009);
European Subsea Cables Association (ESCA) Guideline No.6. The Proximity of Offshore Renewable Energy Installations and Submarine Cable Infrastructure in UK Waters (ESCA, 2016);
International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) recommendations (ICPC, 2021):

– Recommendation No. 2. Cable Routing and Reporting Criteria;

– Recommendation No. 3. Telecommunications Cable and Oil Pipeline/Power Cables Crossing Criteria; and

– Recommendation No. 13. The Proximity of Offshore Renewable Wind Energy Installations and Submarine Cable Infrastructure in National Waters.

TCE and Crown Estate Scotland (CES) Agreements and Oil and Gas Licences (NSTA, 2023a);
TCE Guidance: Submarine cables and offshore renewable energy installation – Proximity study (TCE, 2012); and
European Boating Association (EBA) Position Statement, Offshore Wind Farms (EBA, 2019).

The criteria for defining sensitivity in this chapter are outlined in Table 15.11 Open ▸ .

The magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receptor are combined when determining the significance of the effect upon infrastructure and other users. The particular method employed for this assessment is presented in Table 15.12 Open ▸ .
Where a range is suggested for the significance of effect, for example, minor to moderate, it is possible that this may span the significance threshold. The technical specialist’s professional judgement was applied to determine which outcome defines the most likely effect, which takes in to account the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of impact. Where professional judgement is applied to quantify final significance from a range, the assessment has set out the factors that result in the final assessment of significance. These factors may include the likelihood that an effect will occur, data certainty and relevant information about the wider environmental context.
For the purposes of this assessment:

a level of residual effect of moderate or more will be considered a ‘significant’ effect in terms of the EIA Regulations; and
a level of residual effect of minor or less will be considered ‘not significant’ in terms of the EIA Regulations.

Effects of moderate significance or above are therefore considered important in the decision-making process, whilst effects of minor significance or less warrant little, if any, weight in the decision-making process.

As part of the Array design process, a number of designed in measures have been proposed to reduce the potential for impacts on infrastructure and other users (see Table 15.13 Open ▸ ). They are considered inherently part of the design of the Array and, as there is a commitment to implementing these measures, these have been considered in the assessment presented in section 15.11 (i.e. the determination of magnitude and therefore significance assumes implementation of these measures). These designed in measures are considered standard industry practice for this type of development.