1. Section 51 advice
  2. Advice in detail

Advice to Crispin Read Wilson

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Crispin Read Wilson
Date advice given
11 April 2013
Enquiry type
Email

I am writing to express my opposition to the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal on a number of grounds.

  1. I am not against offshore wind energy. However, I object to I the proposed siting of this particular wind farm because of its proximity to two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and England's only natural World Heritage site. Not only will it severely deface the visual beauty of this largely unspoilt coastline; it is also likely to have a destructive impact on tourism, which is the lifeblood of the economy in the area.

  2. As you are aware, the Department for Energy and Climate Change has written in its 2011 Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment 2 (OESEA2) report, "Major development of offshore wind farms in nearshore waters could result in significant effects on landscape/seascape. The siting of offshore wind farms at well away from the coast is consistent with what is occurring in other European countries, and the potential use of alternative foundation types would facilitate OWF siting in deeper waters. Reflecting the previous OESEA and the relative sensitivity of multiple receptors in coastal waters, OESEA2 recommends that the bulk of new OWF generation capacity should be sited away from the coast, generally outside 12 nautical miles. [ie outside the equivalent of 22.2382 km] The environmental sensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and in certain cases new offshore wind farm projects may be acceptable closer to the coast. Conversely, siting beyond 12nm may be justified for some areas/developments."

This environmental assessment is clear and unambiguous. The bulk of windfarms should be sited outside 12 nautical miles off the coast. In areas of high environmental sensitivity, siting beyond 12 nautical miles may be justified. However: (a) 85% of this proposal is inside 12 nautical miles (b) it lies 7.5 nm from one AONB and 7.7 nm from another - in full view from both (c) it lies in an area of intense marine leisure activity (d) it would be sited on an important international bird migration route (e) not only would the turbines be highly visible by day, the lights would also be highly visible by night.

  1. As a sailor, I am very concerned about the hazard to navigation. I attach a paper that I have written on the subject.

  2. The core of my objection is the positioning of this proposed windfarm. It sits like a wedge in the arc of Poole Bay and the Isle of Wight. This means it is within clear sight of a huge length of coastline - a coastline which happens to be spectacularly beautiful. Moreover, it acts as a blockage or obstruction to the approach to two highly important ports of refuge - Poole Harbour to the West and the Solent leading to Yarmouth, Lymington and Southampton to the East. In adverse weather, this is bound to be a dangerous hazard to navigation.

  3. I believe that you, NBDL, the developer, has been disingenuous and misleading in the consultation process. In particular, the visuals shown to the public give no true impression of the impact the windfarm will have on the human eye. Moreover, you claim to have 'moved' the windfarm, and this is just not true. What you have done is slice a section off so as not to obstruct the approach to the Hurst light; this not moving it.

I would like to know from NBDL when your own Environmental Impact Assessment will be published and whether members of the public will be able to read it before the next round of public consultation.

To summarise, this is a bad plan in the wrong place and breaches government recommendations. If government recommendations had been followed, both by the Crown Estate and by the developer, this proposal would never have got to this stage.

Advice given

As no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Farm scheme is at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.

Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. In this instance I note you have already contacted the developer and as such at this stage of the Planning Act 2008 process I would encourage you to continue to correspond directly with them.

Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ?Interested Party? with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period.

The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/ . In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.