Navitus Bay Wind Park

Representations received regarding Navitus Bay Wind Park

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Navitus Bay Wind Park and their relevant representations. Subsequent detailed written representations and other submissions can be accessed via the documents page.

Filter by content:
Previouspage 1 of 266Next
Items per page:
Representation - click on an item to see more details
Angela Neale
"I am a Poole resident who supports the proposal. I believe that we need to develop low-carbon energy if we are to have any hope of bequeathing a stable climate to our children and grandchildren. If we continue to rely on fossil fuels to generate our electricity, sea levels will rise at a faster rate, winter storms will become more intense, and we can expect much more coastal erosion and flooding. Our beautiful local environment is especially vulnerable to these damaging effects of climate disruption. And these threats, in my view, would be much more damaging to the quality of our lives than would having to adapt to the sight of wind turbines on the horizon."
Lyn Thomas
"Effect on local area Poor. Return on investment by taxpayers In effectiveness of wind farm technology"
Charles Wynn-Evans
"I consider that the Navitus Bay proposal is misconceived and inappropriate in terms of its size, scale, location and adverse consequences to the local economy and amenity of the area as a UNESCO world heritage site."
Mrs Fay Symes
"Possible loss of World Heritage status for Jurassic coast. Loss of tourism. Damage to birds and marine life including protected species. Detrimental mini-climate over tourist beaches. Unacceptable noise levels. Increased accidents for shipping and tourist sailing and interference with rescue services. Unforseen effect on tides and coastal erosion nullifying the Enviroment Agency's 50/100 year plan for coastal erosion. Cost to councils of ongoing cleaning of beaches for detritus during construction and bird strikes when operational. Loss of approximately 7,000 mature trees along cable route."
Anthony Dix
"Please register me as an interested party. My concerns include - The visual impact of such a large development in this area of outstanding natural beauty, most of which is located closer to shore than the Government's recommended 12 nautical mile limit. The motion of the blades will distract the eye and make them more even prominent than their sheer size would suggest. - The predicted noise levels in Bournemouth which at around 40db will exceed Government recommendations. - The noise levels during the construction work. - The threat to tourism and the local economy. Unlike many seaside resorts, Bournemouth is not currently in decline and I would like it to remain that way - The threat to the World Heritage status of the Jurassic coast. - The damage to the New Forest as a result of the cabling work."
Angela Pooley
"Why I am supporting the Navitus Bay Windfarm Proposals. Cleaner Energy Recent storms and floods in Britain are almost certainly caused by the effects of climate change – and all the world’s major climate scientists agree that this change is the result of human actions. One of the main causes of Global Warming is the use of coal, oil and gas – much of it in power stations. The Government accepts that electricity generated from wind power has one of the lowest carbon footprints compared with other forms of electricity generation (Dept for Energy and Climate Change - DECC). Affordable Energy Like all sources of energy, the Government encourages private firms to invest in wind energy. The subsidies for wind power amount to about £6 per household per year (DECC); the cost of cleaning up Britain’s nuclear waste currently costs about £100 per household and this figure continues to rise! (Guardian) The 2014 storms in Britain have already costs at least £130 million in storm relief, £460 million in insurance claims, and huge costs to transport and electricity firms to repair the damage. These costs are effectively subsidies to oil and gas companies to continue using polluting fuels. Investing in wind power and other sustainable renewable energy sources makes sense in a world where energy prices are rising (because oil and gas are getting more expensive). Oil and gas from fracking can be just as polluting, and will not be any cheaper (BP). Secure Energy Nuclear power is not only more expensive that wind energy, it is also potentially less safe. Wind farms are quicker and cheaper to build, and do not leave permanent pollution in the landscape."
Glenigan Ltd
"I work for a company called Glenigan Ltd, a market intelligence company reporting on forthcoming projects throughout the UK. I'm also interested in the jobs market which I hae a personnal opinion on, as I don't feel this will effect tourism to the degree the opposition suggests."
Wessex Astronomical Society
"Light pollution of the night sky. Wessex Astronomical Society has a permanent observatory on the cliffs adjacent to Durlston Castle. The Society is concerned that the aviation and marine lighting marking the turbines will intrude on the visible night sky. The Isle of Wight television transmitter towers are further away, Rowridge 43km from Durlston, Chillerton Down 45km, lit by steady red, and are very evident from Durlston Head. The aeronautical obstruction lights at the top of the turbine towers and those lower down for marine purposes would become very prominent at night. This would be worsened if some or all are caused to flash Morse letter sequences. It might become necessary to find an alternative dark sky location somewhere in Dorset and relocate the Wessex observatory."
Allison Robinson
"I make this representation as an interested person who has holidayed each year in Swanage, Dorset for the past 46 years, enjoying the walks along the coastal paths and the community's hospitality. I have two children who have also looked forward each year, for the past 20 years or so, to their seaside holidays. Having looked at Navitus Bay's proposals for the wind farm, and after taking into consideration the points raised at the consultation meetings held in relation to this matter I am sceptical at Navitus Bay's stated economic and employment benefits of the wind farm for this particular town, indeed even though the wind farm is set to be "x" number of miles from the beach front it can still be viewed from the coastal path. Bearing in mind the historical geological importance of this coastline, the nature reserves which have sprung up as a result of it, and the marine and wildlife conservation efforts made to preserve it, I wonder at the Planning Inspectorate's lack of sensitivity in allowing this matter to proceed in this particular region. What is the reasoning behind this exact location - is this merely a case of local and central government attempting to stamp it's authority irrespective of the consequences?"
Michael Sanderson
"Objections to the Navitus Bay Wind Farm proposal - summary Visual Impact - Government general guidelines of a 12 nm buffer zone have been ignored by The Crown Estate and Navitus Bay Development Ltd (NBDL), consequently the area proposed for development is well inside the 12 nm zone and less that 8 nm from Swanage and the Jurassic / World Heritage Coast. The visualisations do not represent a realistic view of the proposed approx. 200 metre tall turbines and are misleading. Negative effect on local economy and tourism The local economy of the area is heavily dependent on tourism. It is estimated billions of pounds will be lost. Piling noise during construction To date NBDL will not answer questions regarding piling noise and vibrations during construction and the effects on the local communities and the World Heritage Coast. Environmental impacts Birds Zone 7 is in the middle of main southerly migratory bird routes. This is a major UK area for bird life with Poole Harbour, Brownsea Island and Arne within 12 miles of the proposed wind farm. Local bird sanctuaries together with national bird migration would mean that this wind farm could not be better positioned to act as the UK’s supreme killing field for birds. Sea Mammals It is well know that Durlston is one of the best spots in the UK to see dolphins and over two hundred dolphins were reported in over seventy sightings on their website last year. As NBDL have detected “very few sea mammals” I can only suggest that their method of detection is poor due to limited C-POD range. Seabed The Wight Barfluer Reef ( a S.A.C) is on the southern boundary of the wind farm. I have not seen any information on the effect of sediment drift on the reef during pile driving / drilling. Commercial shipping and leisure craft The wind farm would be perfectly positioned to cause maximum impact / disruption / safety hazard to commercial shipping and leisure craft activity in the area. Oil pollution risk Oil storage in the control towers and turbines pose a huge pollution risk for the World Heritage Coast, Isle of Wight AONB and the Wight Barleur Reef in case of fire or collision with commercial / leisure shipping. Lights on Turbines and Control Towers This will mean the end of the Durlston Dark Skies area and as this lighting is compulsory there can be no means of mitigation apart from moving the wind farm to another area or far enough out to sea o that it cannot be seen. Misleading Consultation Process Numerous examples of misleading information provided by NBDL. Conclusions The zone 7 designation by The Crown Estate was a huge mistake contravening Government and their own guidelines about the siting of offshore energy. NBDL have chosen the most damaging area within Zone 7 to propose their windfarm in arguably the most sensitive environment in the UK."