Representation by Esther Patricia Ann Hedwig Graham
- Date submitted
- 28 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My comment is the Rampion 2 Application takes little account of the many adverse impacts on local residents living on the coastal strip along the populated Sussex Bay inshore from the western extent of the existing Rampion 1 installation to west of Bognor Regis. Living adjacent to the Littlehampton and Rustington border with a direct view of the sea we experienced the long days of construction and now the operation of Rampion 1. Our experience was: ? The excessive noise during construction operation was disturbing to the family - all the pile driving; ? We have loss of enjoyment and tranquillity of the natural seascape, knowing at the same time the turbine construction and operation is doing unimaginable harm to nature in the ecologically sensitive inshore. ? We now have spinning turbines with flashing lights disturbing sleep and transforming our visual enjoyment of the landscape and seascape. Day and night. ? I am also concerned about the negative impact on all wildlife - marine, animals, insects and birds. With up to 90 large wind turbines up to 325m tall on towers pile driven into the seabed close to shore the Rampion 2 scheme will be far taller, more visible and far more intrusive and transformative than Rampion 1 for many coastal residents including us here. What is perplexing to me is that installing these industrial scale Rampion 2 turbines so close to the shore does not respect the strategic environmental advice the UK government issued on visual buffers. That advice in effect suggests they need to be no less than 40km (25 statute miles) away to avoid harm to coastal communities and the environment. ? I, like other Littlehampton residents were first made aware of the Government’s strategic environmental guidance on visual buffer distances in Community-led meetings, not from the developer or Councils. ? In fact, the developer was totally dismissive of them in its on-line virtual engagements in formal consultations in 2021 and 2022. ? The Application document submitted now appears to remain equally silent and dismissive of the essential consideration of visual buffer. ? The guidelines exist to avoid well known and significant adverse impacts of construction and operation of wind machines on local residents, as provided in the Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (OESEA). I also believe the Rampion 2 Examination should look carefully at the experience with the Navitus Bay Wind Park proposal refused consent in late 2015. A range of likely adverse impacts on local residents were set out by Bournemouth Borough Council. It demonstrated 2 that the developer of that proposed scheme also downplayed the significance of adverse impact on both residents and tourism economy, as also seen in the Secretary of State Decision Letter refusing consent. Navitus Bay Wind Park, Local Impact Report Bournemouth Borough Council PINS Reference Number: EN010024, 6/10/2014 In related matters and for context: ? I, like many local residents, were quite disappointed to see the formal statutory consultations on Rampion 2 conducted virtually and digitally by the Applicant in 2021 - in a manner that limited local voice. None of the concerns we raised about that experience are in the Consultation Report submitted with the Application in August 2023. ? For many Littlehampton residents who live on, or close to our open seafront and in town, who enjoy the health and well-being benefits associated with the natural seascape and the many benefits to boost our visitor economy, it was particularly galling to be excluded by the 100m limit for mail drop notification of Rampion consultations. ? That compounded the many concerns residents had with the virtual-only consultation approach (even after Covid restrictions were lifted) and limitations that meant for local awareness and voice.. ? I can only assume that our local Council was distracted with other matters, as the Council was silent on this 100m limit issue despite the fact that residents raised it with them directly as input to preparation of the developer’s Statement of Community Consultation and with the developer directly. ? When formal statutory consultations were re-opened on the transmission route 2022-2023 through the South Downs National Park, the Applicant actively discouraged any further comment on the offshore elements. In fact, in January 2023 the Applicant announced they already fixed the offshore component for the Application. What we suggest you consider for the Rampion 2 Examination: For all these reasons and more, we argue that the adverse impacts on local residents have not been adequately addressed in the Rampion 2 Application. This impact and failing should be a principal issue in this Examination and given substantial weight. There should be a series of 3-4 topic-specific hearings along the coast where the impact on local residents is a prominent issue. The Millennium Chamber would be an appropriate venue for that in Littlehampton. There also needs to be an Examination of why the Applicant has not taken into account the visual buffer guidance for installing turbines of this scale in the government’s OESEA advice on visual buffers, as required in the National Policy Statements (EN-3). That should take evidence on why the OESEA should be interpreted and fully applied in the Rampion case.