15.12. Cumulative Effects Assessment

15.12.1. Methodology

  1. The CEA assesses the impact associated with the Array together with other relevant plans, projects and activities. Cumulative effects are defined as the combined effect of the Array in combination with the effects from a number of different projects, on the same receptor or resource. Further details on CEA methodology are provided in volume 1, chapter 6.
  2. The projects and plans selected as relevant to the CEA presented within this chapter are based upon the results of a screening exercise (see volume 3, appendix 6.4 of the Array EIA Report). Volume 3, appendix 6.4 further provides information regarding how information pertaining to other plans and projects is gained and applied to the assessment. Each project or plan has been considered on a case-by-case basis for screening in or out of this chapter’s assessment based upon data confidence, impact-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.
  3. In undertaking the CEA for the Array, it should be noted that other projects and plans under consideration will have differing potential for proceeding to an operational stage and hence a differing potential to ultimately contribute to a cumulative impact alongside the Array. Therefore, a tiered approach has been adopted which provides a framework for placing relative weight upon the potential for each project/plan to be included in the CEA to ultimately be realised, based upon the project/plan’s current stage of maturity and certainty in the projects’ parameters. The tiered approach which will be utilised within the Array CEA employs the following tiers:
  • tier 1 assessment – Array and the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s), Proposed onshore transmission infrastructure, and all plans/projects which became operational since baseline characterisation, those under construction, and those with consent and submitted but not yet determined;
  • tier 2 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 1, plus those projects with a Scoping Report; and
  • tier 3 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 2, which are reasonably foreseeable, plus those projects likely to come forward where an Agreement for Lease (AfL) has been granted.
  1. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for infrastructure and other users, are outlined in Table 15.14   Open ▸ and Figure 15.9   Open ▸ . For the infrastructure and other users study area, only the projects within 100 km of the Array have been included in the CEA assessment.
  2. The range of potential cumulative impacts that are identified and included in Table 15.14   Open ▸ , is a subset of those considered for the Array alone CEA assessment. This is because some of the potential impacts identified and assessed for the Array alone, are localised and temporary in nature. It is considered therefore, that these potential impacts have limited or no potential to interact with similar changes associated with other plans or projects. These have therefore not been taken forward for detailed assessment.
  3. Similarly, some of the potential impacts considered within the Array alone assessment are specific to a particular phase of development (e.g. construction, operation and maintenance, or decommissioning). Where the potential for cumulative effects with other plans or projects only have potential to occur where there is spatial or temporal overlap with the Array during certain phases of development, impacts associated with a certain phase may be omitted from further consideration where no plans or projects have been identified that have the potential for cumulative effects during this period.


Table 15.14:
List of Other Projects and Plans Considered within the CEA for Infrastructure and Other Users

Table 15.14: List of Other Projects and Plans Considered within the CEA for Infrastructure and Other Users

 

Figure 15.9:
Other Projects/Plans Screened into the Cumulative Effects Assessment for Infrastructure and Other Users

Figure 15.9: Other Projects/Plans Screened into the Cumulative Effects Assessment for Infrastructure and Other Users


15.12.2. Maximum Design Scenario

  1. The MDSs identified in Table 15.8   Open ▸ have been selected as those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. The cumulative effects presented and assessed in this section have been selected from the details provided in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Array EIA Report as well as the information available on other projects and plans (see volume 3, appendix 6.4), to inform a ‘maximum design scenario’. 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 wind turbine layout), to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.

 

Table 15.15:
Maximum Design Scenario Considered for Each Impact as part of the Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects on Infrastructure and Other Users

Table 15.15: Maximum Design Scenario Considered for Each Impact as part of the Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects on Infrastructure and Other Users

 

15.12.3. Cumulative Effects Assessment

  1. An assessment of the likely significance of the cumulative effects of the Array upon infrastructure and other users receptors arising from each identified impact is given below.
  2. The CEA for infrastructure and other users assesses cumulative effects for all infrastructure and other users receptors considered within the assessment of effects undertaken above. Only the displacement of recreational vessels and recreational activities and the restricted access to active hydrocarbon licence blocks (as per Table 15.17   Open ▸ ) has been taken forward for assessment at a cumulative level.

DISPLACEMENT OF RECREATIONAL SAILING AND MOTOR CRUISING, RECREATIONAL FISHING (BOAT ANGLING) AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES (DIVING VESSELS) due to safety zones and advisory safe Passing distances in the Array may result in a loss of recreational resource

                        Tier 1 and 2

                        Construction phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. The installation of Array infrastructure within the Array, together with the Tier 1 and 2 projects identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ , may displace recreational vessels and activities, resulting in a loss of recreational resource.
  2. Figure 15.9   Open ▸ provides an overview of the location of other projects screened into the cumulative assessment in relation to recreational interests. General sailing areas associated with ASYC and PSC are located 84 km and 90 km to the north-west of the infrastructure and other users study area – inner area, respectively. The closest general boating area is located at Montrose, approximately 97.1 km west of the infrastructure and other users study area – inner area (NMPi, 2023). Recreational fishing also occurs in the proximity of the Array. Extensive recreational boating occurs in the area of the sea between Berwick-upon-Tweed, Aberdeen and Peterhead, with tracks extending to the south-east towards the Array. Smaller levels of displacement may also occur due to site investigation activities associated with EGL2, Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, Seagreen 1A Project, Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm, Morven Offshore Wind Farm and and Muir Mhor Offshore Wind Farm. Additional displacement may also occur during maintenance activities undertaken at Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm, Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm, Hywind and Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm.
  3. The spatial extent of the impact on boating activities taking place along the east coast of Scotland will be relatively small in the context of the available sailing, boating and sea angling in the wider vicinity, with the potential for localised displacement of recreational craft from the individual safety zones and advisory safe passing distances around structures and vessels associated with each project. Safety zones in place during the construction phase will be temporary until each structure has been installed and commissioned, and advisory safe passing distances around vessels will be transient as the vessel progressively completes the relevant installation, maintenance, and survey activity. It is unlikely that the activities of all projects would temporally coincide to displace the same recreational vessel on multiple occasions.
  4. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the construction phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that recreational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other projects as standard practice.
  5. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of recreational activity that may be undertaken for a short to medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the construction phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that recreational boating and sea angling vessels will be able to alter their route or transit past installation and survey activities, given the adequate sea room in the vicinity of each project. There are other locations available for sailing and sea angling which are unlikely to be altered by multiple projects at the same time, such that alternatives are available.
  2. The receptor is deemed to be of low value to the local economy and recreational activities are not generally vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10) is not significant in EIA terms.
                        Operation and maintenance phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. The presence of the Array infrastructure and/or operation and maintenance activities within the Array, together with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ , may displace recreational vessel activities, resulting in a loss of recreational resource.
  2. It is understood that Seagreen 1A Project is currently under construction, Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm has been consented, Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm at the planning stage and EGL2 in the Marine Licence Application stage. Morven Offshore Wind Farm, Muir Mhor Offshore Wind Farm, Salamander Offshore Wind Farm and Cenos Offshore Wind Farm are at the Scoping stage. Therefore, it has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment, as a maximum design scenario, operation and maintenance phases for these projects may overlap with the operation and maintenance phase of the Array. However, due to the lack of project information at this stage, a qualitative assessment is provided below. For the purposes of this assessment, these projects are expected to include similar maintenance activities as those described for the Array, including similar types of vessels. Additional displacement may also occur during maintenance activities undertaken at Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm, Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm, Hywind and Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm.
  3. As described above, there are a number of recreational vessel activities taking place along the east coast of Scotland, with activity likely to be concentrated inshore of the projects considered in this cumulative assessment. Once the infrastructure have been installed for each project, only temporary and infrequent maintenance is likely to be required over the projects’ lifetimes, which is unlikely to take place concurrently at multiple project locations. Therefore, the potential for cumulative displacement of recreational vessel activities within the nearshore sea area is considered to be low. There is potential for recreational vessels undertaking long distance journeys further offshore to be displaced by the presence of infrastructure within each application area.
  4. The spatial extent of the impact on boating activities taking place along the east coast of Scotland will be relatively small in the context of the available sailing, boating and sea angling areas in the wider vicinity, with the potential for localised displacement of recreational craft from the individual safety zones and advisory safe passing distances around structures and vessels associated with major maintenance activities at each project. It is unlikely that maintenance activities at all projects would temporally coincide to displace the same recreational vessel on multiple occasions.
  5. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the lifetime of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that recreational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other offshore wind farm projects as standard practice.
  6. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline, leading to a reduction in the level of recreational activity that may be undertaken for a medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is of not reversible for the operation and maintenance phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that recreational boating and sea angling vessels will be able to alter their route or transit past installation and survey activities, given the adequate sea room in the vicinity of each project. There are other locations available for sailing and sea angling which are unlikely to be altered by multiple projects at the same time, such that alternatives are available.
  2. The receptor is deemed to be of low value to the local economy and recreational activities are not generally vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10 is not significant in EIA terms.
                        Decommissioning phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. The decommissioning of the infrastructure within the Array, together with the Tier 1 and 2 projects identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ , may displace recreational vessels, resulting in a loss of recreational resource.
  2. Figure 15.9   Open ▸ provides an overview of the location of other projects screened into the cumulative assessment in relation to recreational interests. General sailing areas associated with ASYC and PSC are located 84 km and 90 km to the north-west of the infrastructure and other users study area – inner area,, respectively. The closest general boating area is located at Montrose, approximately 97.1 km west of the infrastructure and other users study area – inner area (NMPi, 2023). Recreational fishing also occurs in the proximity of the Array. Extensive recreational boating occurs in the area of the sea between Berwick-upon-Tweed, Aberdeen and Peterhead, with tracks extending to the south-east towards the Array. Smaller levels of displacement may also occur due to site investigation activities associated with EGL2, Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, Seagreen 1A Project, Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm, Morven Offshore Wind Farm, Muir Mhor Offshore Wind Farm, Salamander and Cenos Offshore Wind Farms. Additional displacement may also occur during maintenance activities undertaken at Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm, Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm, Hywind and Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm.
  3. The spatial extent of the impact on boating activities taking place along the east coast of Scotland will be relatively small in the context of the available sailing, boating and sea angling in the wider vicinity, with the potential for localised displacement of recreational craft from the individual safety zones and advisory safe passing distances around structures and vessels associated with each project. Safety zones will be temporary until each structure has been installed and commissioned, and advisory safe passing distances around vessels will be transient as the vessel progressively completes the relevant installation, maintenance, and survey activity. It is unlikely that the activities of all projects would temporally coincide to displace the same recreational vessel on multiple occasions.
  4. At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all structures above the seabed or ground level will be completely removed where this is feasible and practicable. This will be kept under review depending on current legislation and guidance requirements, best practice and other options may be required including cutting structures below the seabed. It is proposed than an assessment will be undertaken on a maximum design scenario of removing all inter-array cables. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment.
  5. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the decommissioning phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that recreational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other offshore wind farm projects as standard practice.
  6. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of recreational activity that may be undertaken for a short to medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the decommissioning phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that recreational boating and sea angling vessels will be able to alter their route or transit past installation and survey activities, given the adequate sea room in the vicinity of each project. There are other locations available for sailing and sea angling which are unlikely to be altered by multiple projects at the same time, such that alternative are available.
  2. The receptor is deemed to be of low value to the local economy and recreational activities are not generally vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10 is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Tier 3

                        Construction phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. In addition to the installation of Array infrastructure within the Array and Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, Tier 3 projects have been identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ . These projects may displace recreational vessels and activities, resulting in a loss of recreational resource.
  2. As these are Tier 3 projects, there are no Scoping Reports in the public domain. Therefore, there is no information available on the impact that the construction of these Tier 3 projects may have on infrastructure and other user receptors. Displacement of recreational activities associated with these Tier 3 projects is expected to be similar in nature and extent to the Array. Furthermore, if the projects are approved, smaller levels of displacement may also occur due to site investigation activities associated with Bellrock Offshore Wind Farm, Bowdun Offshore Wind Farm, Campion Offshore Wind Farm, Cedar, Flora Floating Wind Farm and Aspen.
  3. The maximum duration of the offshore construction phase for the Array is up to eight years (2031 to 2038). There are currently no dates available for when the construction phase of the Tier 3 projects will commence and therefore there may be a minimal overlap between the site preparation and construction activities of the Array and that of Tier 3 projects ( Table 15.14   Open ▸ ). It should be noted that the various sites are of small scale (3 MW to 1,350 MW).
  4. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the construction phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that recreational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other projects as standard practice.
  5. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of recreational activity that may be undertaken for a short to medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the construction phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that recreational boating and sea angling vessels will be able to alter their route or transit past installation and survey activities, given the adequate sea room in the vicinity of each project. There are other locations available for sailing, sea angling and diving which are unlikely to be altered by multiple projects at the same time, such that alternative are available.
  2. The receptor is deemed to be of low value to the local economy and recreational activities are not generally vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10) is not significant in EIA terms.
                        Operation and maintenance phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. In addition to the presence of Array infrastructure and/or operation and maintenance activities within the Array and Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, Tier 3 projects been identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ . These projects may displace recreational vessels and activities, resulting in a loss of recreational resource.
  2. As these are Tier 3 projects, there are no Scoping Reports in the public domain. Therefore, there is no information available on the impact that these Tier 3 projects may have on infrastructure and other user receptors. If these projects are approved, it has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment, as a maximum design scenario, operation and maintenance phases for these projects may overlap with the operation and maintenance phase of the Array. However, due to the lack of project information at this stage, a qualitative assessment is provided below. For the purposes of this assessment, these projects are expected to include similar maintenance activities as those described for the Array, including similar types of vessels. It is unlikely that maintenance activities at all projects would temporally coincide to displace the same recreational vessel on multiple occasions.
  3. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the lifetime of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that recreational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other offshore wind farm projects as standard practice.
  4. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of recreational activity that may be undertaken for a short to medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the operation and maintenance phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that recreational boating and sea angling vessels will be able to alter their route or transit past installation and survey activities, given the adequate sea room in the vicinity of each project. There are other locations available for sailing, and sea angling which are unlikely to be altered by multiple projects at the same time, such that alternatives are available.
  2. The receptor is deemed to be of low value to the local economy and recreational activities are not generally vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1.                    No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10) is not significant in EIA terms.

Installation and presence of the wind turbines, ospS and inter-array/interconnector cabling within the array, including associated safety Zones and Advisory Asfe Passing distances, may affect or restrict access to active Hydrocarbon licence blocks by oil and gas operators either temporarily or long term

                        Tier 1 and 2

                        Construction phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. The installation of Array infrastructure within the Array, together with the Tier 1 and 2 projects identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ , may lead to the reduction or restriction of access to active hydrocarbon licence blocks by oil and gas operators.
  2. Figure 15.9   Open ▸ provides an overview of the location of other projects screened into the cumulative assessment in relation to accessibility for oil and gas operators. The infrastructure and other users study area – inner area overlaps active hydrocarbon licence Blocks 27/3, 27/9 and 27/10, which are operated by North Sea Natural Resources Ltd (Licence number: P2321). Further displacement may occur due to site investigation activities associated with associated with EGL2, Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, Seagreen 1A Project, Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm, Morven Offshore Wind Farm, Muir Mhor Offshore Wind Farm, Salamander Offshore Wind Farm and Cenos Offshore Wind Farm. Additional displacement may also occur during maintenance activities undertaken at Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm, Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm, Hywind and Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm.
  3. The spatial extent of the impact on accessibility to active hydrocarbon licence blocks in the vicinity of the Array, together with the Tier 1 and 2 projects will be relatively small. Any restriction of access with any safety zones or advisory safe passing distances placed around structures or individual vessels carrying out construction activities is expected to be temporary and it is unlikely that the activities of all projects would temporarily coincide to restrict the access to all the considered active hydrocarbon licence blocks. The greatest amount of the largest infrastructure and associated minimum spacing, and the greatest extent of safety zones over the longest construction phase represents the greatest potential for reduction or restriction of oil and gas exploration activities.
  4. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the construction phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that oil and gas operational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other projects as standard practice.
  5. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of oil and gas activity that may be undertaken for a short to medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is intermittent and the effect is non-reversible for the construction phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that oil and gas operators will be able to alter their route or transit past installation activities and associated safety zones and advisory safe passing distances, given the adequate sea room around the Array.
  2. Continued and regular communication with oil and gas operators in line with industry standard will ensure relevant parties are kept informed of planned activities in order to minimise spatial and temporal interactions between conflicting activities and maximise coexistence.
  3. The receptor is deemed to be of moderate value to the regional economy and oil and gas activities are somewhat vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is moderate to high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be medium.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10) is not significant in EIA terms.
                        Operation and maintenance phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. In addition to the presence of Array infrastructure and/or operation and maintenance activities within the Array and Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, Tier 3 projects been identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ which may lead to the reduction or restriction of access to active hydrocarbon licence blocks by oil and gas operators.
  2. It is understood that Seagreen 1A Project is currently under construction, Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm has been consented, Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm at the planning stage and EGL2 in the Marine Licence Application stage. Morven Offshore Wind Farm, Muir Mhor Offshore Wind Farm, Salamander Offshore Wind Farm and Cenos Offshore Wind Farm are at the Scoping stage. Therefore, it has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment, as a maximum design scenario, operation and maintenance phases for these projects may overlap with the operation and maintenance phase of the Array. However, due to the lack of project information at this stage, a qualitative assessment is provided below. For the purposes of this assessment, these projects are expected to include similar maintenance activities as those described for the Array, including similar types of vessels. Additional displacement may also occur during maintenance activities undertaken at Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm, Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm, Hywind and Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm.
  3. As described above, the infrastructure and other users study area – inner area overlaps active hydrocarbon Blocks 27/3, 27/9 and 27/10. Once the infrastructure has been installed for each project, only temporary and infrequent maintenance is likely to be required over the projects’ lifetimes, which is unlikely to take place concurrently at multiple project locations. Therefore, the potential for cumulative restriction of access for oil and gas operators is considered to be low. If an overlap occurs, the Applicant will seek to engage with oil and gas operators at the earliest opportunity to coordinate activities and facilitate coexistence.
  4. The spatial extent of the impact on accessibility to active hydrocarbon licence blocks in the vicinity of the Array, together with the Tier 1 and 2 projects will be relatively small. Any restriction of access with any safety zones or advisory safe passing distances placed around structures or individual vessels carrying out major maintenance activities is expected to be temporary and it is unlikely that the activities of all projects would temporarily coincide to restrict the access to all the considered active hydrocarbon licence blocks. The greatest amount of the largest infrastructure and associated minimum spacing, and the greatest extent of advisory safety zones over the longest construction phase represents the greatest potential for reduction or restriction of oil and gas exploration activities.
  5. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the operation and maintenance phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that oil and gas operational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other projects as standard practice.
  6. The impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline, leading to a reduction of access to active oil and gas blocks for a long term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the operation and maintenance phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that oil and gas operators will be able to alter their route or transit past maintenance activities and associated safety zones and advisory safe passing distances, given the adequate sea room around the Array.
  2. Continued and regular communication with oil and gas operators in line with industry standard will ensure relevant parties are kept informed of planned activities in order to minimise spatial and temporal interactions between conflicting activities and maximise coexistence.
  3. The receptor is deemed to be of moderate value to the regional economy and oil and gas activities are somewhat vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is moderate. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10 is not significant in EIA terms.
                        Decommissioning phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. The decommissioning of the infrastructure within the Array, together with the Tier 1 and 2 projects identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ may lead to the reduction or restriction of access to active hydrocarbon licence blocks by oil and gas operators.
  2. Figure 15.9   Open ▸ provides an overview of the location of other projects screened into the cumulative assessment in relation to accessibility for oil and gas operators. The infrastructure and other users study area – inner area overlaps active hydrocarbon licence Blocks 27/3, 27/9 and 27/10, which are operated by North Sea Natural Resources Ltd (Licence number: P2321). Smaller levels of displacement may also occur due to site investigation activities associated with EGL2, Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, Seagreen 1A Project, Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm, Morven Offshore Wind Farm, Muir Mhor Offshore Wind Farm, Salamander Offshore Wind Farm and Cenos Offshore Wind Farm. Additional displacement may also occur during maintenance activities undertaken at Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm, Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm, Hywind and Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm.
  3. The spatial extent of the impact on accessibility to active hydrocarbon licence blocks in the vicinity of the Array, together with the Tier 1 and 2 projects will be relatively small. Any restriction of access with any safety zones or advisory safe passing distances placed around individual vessels carrying out decommissioning activities is expected to be temporary and it is unlikely that the activities of all projects would temporarily coincide to restrict the access to all the considered active hydrocarbon licence blocks. The Applicant intend to communicate with other projects to limit temporal overlap of activities. The greatest amount of the largest infrastructure and associated minimum spacing, and the greatest extent of advisory safety zones over the longest decommissioning phase represents the greatest potential for reduction or restriction of oil and gas exploration activities.
  4. At the end of the operational lifetime of the Array, it is anticipated that all structures above the seabed or ground level will be completely removed where this is feasible and practicable. This will be kept under review depending on current legislation and guidance requirements, best practice and other options may be required including cutting structures below the seabed. It is proposed than an assessment will be undertaken on a maximum design scenario of removing all inter-array cables. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment.
  5. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the decommissioning phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that oil and gas operational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other projects as standard practice.
  6. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of recreational activity that may be undertaken for a short to medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the decommissioning phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that oil and gas operators will be able to alter their route or transit past decommissioning activities and associated safety zones and advisory safe passing distances, given the adequate sea room around the Array.
  2. Continued and regular communication with oil and gas operators in line with industry standard will ensure relevant parties are kept informed of planned activities in order to minimise spatial and temporal interactions between conflicting activities and maximise coexistence.
  3. The receptor is deemed to be of moderate value to the local economy oil and gas activities somewhat vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is moderate to high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be medium.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10 is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Tier 3

                        Construction phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. In addition to the installation of Array infrastructure within the Array and Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, Tier 3 projects have been identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ , which may lead to the reduction or restriction of access to active hydrocarbon licence blocks by oil and gas operators.
  2. As these are Tier 3 projects, there are no Scoping Reports in the public domain. Therefore, there is no information available on the impact that the construction of these Tier 3 projects may have on infrastructure and other user receptors. Reduction or restriction of access to active hydrocarbon licence blocks by oil and gas operators associated with these Tier 3 projects is expected to be similar in nature and extent to the Array. Furthermore, if the projects are approved, smaller levels of displacement may also occur due to site investigation activities associated with Bellrock Offshore Wind Farm, Bowdun Offshore Wind Farm, Campion Offshore Wind Farm, Cedar, Flora Floating Wind Farm and Aspen.
  3. The maximum duration of the offshore construction phase for the Array is up to eight years (2031 to 2038). There are currently no dates available for when the construction phase of the Tier 3 projects will commence and therefore there may be a minimal overlap between the site preparation and construction activities of the Array and that of Tier 3 projects ( Table 15.14   Open ▸ ). It should be noted that the various sites are of small scale (3 MW to 1,350 MW). The greatest amount of the largest infrastructure and associated minimum spacing, and the greatest extent of advisory safety zones over the longest construction phase represents the greatest potential for reduction or restriction of oil and gas exploration activities.
  4. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the construction phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that oil and gas operational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other projects as standard practice.
  5. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of oil and gas activity that may be undertaken for a short to medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the construction phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that oil and gas operators will be able to alter their route or transit past installation activities and associated safety zones and advisory safe passing distances, given the adequate sea room around the Array.
  2. The receptor is deemed to be of moderate value to the regional economy and oil and gas activities are somewhat vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is moderate to high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be medium.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10) is not significant in EIA terms.
                        Operation and maintenance phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. The presence of the Array infrastructure and/or operation and maintenance activities within the Array, together with the Tier 3 projects identified in Table 15.14   Open ▸ , may lead to the reduction or restriction of access to active hydrocarbon licence blocks by oil and gas operators.
  2. As these are Tier 3 projects, there are no Scoping Reports in the public domain. Therefore, there is no information available on the impact that these Tier 3 projects may have on infrastructure and other user receptors. If these projects are approved, it has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment, as a maximum design scenario, operation and maintenance phases for these projects may overlap with the operation and maintenance phase of the Array. However, due to the lack of project information at this stage, a qualitative assessment is provided below. For the purposes of this assessment, these projects are expected to include similar maintenance activities as those described for the Array, including similar types of vessels. It is unlikely that maintenance activities at all projects would temporally coincide to displace the same oil and gas operators on multiple occasions.
  3. As described in Table 15.13   Open ▸ , NtMs will be issued regularly during the operation and maintenance phase of the Array, advising of the location, nature and timing of activities, ensuring that oil and gas operational activities can be planned accordingly. Similar measures are likely to apply at the other projects as standard practice.
  4. The cumulative impact is predicted to cause a minor shift away from the baseline at a regional spatial extent, leading to a reduction in the level of oil and gas activity that may be undertaken for a medium term duration. The frequency of repetition is continuous and the effect is not reversible for the operation and maintenance phase. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. It is anticipated that oil and gas operators will be able to alter their route or transit past maintenance activities and associated safety zones and advisory safe passing distances, given the adequate sea room around the Array.
  2. The receptor is deemed to be of moderate value to the regional economy and oil and gas activities are somewhat vulnerable to impacts that may arise from the project and recoverability is moderate to high. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be medium.
Significance of effect
  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Further mitigation and residual effect
  1.                    No infrastructure and other users mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 15.10 is not significant in EIA terms.