Representation by Constructive Heritage (Constructive Heritage)
- Date submitted
- 6 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
To whom it may concern I am a sound reinforcement engineer, operating equipment capable of generating significant sound pressure levels. I understand sound and acoustics and how high levels of it (and certain frequencies) can affect the body in various ways. The process of such is called psychoacoustics. Getting it wrong can be deadly, especially high sound pressure levels and certain resonant frequencies, such as high amplitude 7hz, understood to be the body’s resonant frequency The loudest sound recorded in nature was from the eruption of Mount Krakatoa in 1883, which burst the eardrums of half the crew of a naval vessel 40km away, registered at about 185db. There are many issues that have come to light since RWE proposed the Rampion 2 windfarm power station, but the most important to me are that RWE state that there will be negligible impacts on the environment. In conversation with Rampion’s spokesperson I was told the maximum dB would be a mitigated level of 160db during construction. I personally feel this is a bit low, using smaller previous references (such as Rampion 1), not taking into account that the 325m supported monopile is much larger than previously used, and have over compensated the mitigation measures such as use of ‘double bubble’ screens, which reduce some of the compression, maybe by about 30db (when they work). This makes an SPL of 190 plus dB. If so, the shock wave that would be created for the years during construction has the potential to damage organs and if much higher, destroy anything living underwater that can’t get away. The turbines need to be sited much farther from the shore to have less of an impact, namely respecting the OESEA guidelines and a minimum distance to be 20-25 miles offshore, not inshore, being 8-12 miles away. Most of our aquatic environment lives inshore in reefs etc. It is an offence to disturb any seahorse habitats. Local environmentalists and divers have revealed seahorse habitats all along the Sussex coast, from near Beachy Head, to Brighton and also Littlehampton harbour. Proposed piling mitigation such as a ‘soft start’ doesn’t remove all creatures from affected areas. They will not be able to get away in time or find safe refuge from the sonic blasting. We have reports of the compression generated underwater during the construction of Rampion 1, which ensured the relevant divers had to leave their survey areas quickly due to the intense pressure miles away. If Rampion 2 gets permission, we expect to lose a lot of our aquatic diversity through destructive construction measures. This is not a Net Gain for the environment or biodiversity. The visual receptors are another huge issue, largely ignored. I will leave other issues to relevant representatives, such as the risk to migrating birds, bats and insects but the OESEA guidelines recommend a minimum distance of 25 miles from the South Downs National Park. Already the random red flashing lights at night from Rampion 1 create a visual disturbance, that will be compounded by many miles of 325m high lighting, creating a feeling of being hemmed in by an electrical compound day and night. Somewhat reminiscent of being in a prison camp with high, electrified walls, destroying well being. There is a highly important kelp regeneration underway in the Sussex Bay, a perfect and natural carbon sequestration project happening inshore in our waters, since local authorities such as IFCA and environmentalists managed to get inshore beam trawling banned. This is nationally significant infrastructure and more is planned for the Sussex coast. The coastline that would be affected by Rampion 2 has now begun to regenerate the highly important kelp beds, aided by professionals who monitor our seas to regularly update our community on its progress. Kelp is one of the best sequesters of carbon, roughly absorbing carbon 5-6 times faster than a tree. This is our best opportunity for naturally reducing carbon emissions in our environment . At the Kelp Summit in 2022, it was evidenced that kelp thrived better in low sediment areas, indeed high amounts of sediment serve to stifle growth and in cases, retard growth. A number of interested parties asked how much drilling material and sediment will be created by RWE’s proposal and were told that they did not have the figures. However, the PEIR stated that 2.9 million cubic metres of drilling fluid and sediment will be released into the environment…. This would also release carbon through the benthic layer trapped in the sea bed. My opinion is that the Rampion 2 proposal has ignored or played down the genuine concerns of community members and will create a hugely negative impact on our environment, damage an already fragile but burgeoning ecosystem and reduce/delay the important kelp regrowth (something not only our community is very much supportive of, but also important enough for Sir David Attenborough and the BBC to document its importance). In my opinion Rampion 2 is ‘too big and too close’. Personally I would recommend a more efficient site, such as in an area of greater average wind capacity (Dogger Bank for example) and farther away (respecting the OESEA guidelines), to reduce the impact on our community and aquatic environment, something we are responsible for if we are to preserve and improve it going forward. No visual representation of what the turbines would look like along our coast were presented. Would have thought this was a fundamental aspect of the project, to share what changes the proposal will create. The Sussex coastline is as iconic as the White Cliffs of Dover, and is an archaeological treasure as well as an important visual receptor for those who live here and visit, to enjoy the undisturbed horizon, playing a big role in the well being of our community. I have lived and dived on this stretch of coastline for many years and am concerned for the long term damage on our community and environment. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely Mr Carlo Marogna