Thousands oppose plans for Navitus Bay off-shore windfarm

Daily Echo: Thousands oppose plans for off-shore windfarm Thousands oppose plans for off-shore windfarm

THE vast majority of the thousands of people who have registered to have their say on the Navitus Bay wind farm are opposing the plans.

The controversial proposals could see as many as 194 wind turbines as high as 200m placed off the coast and visible from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

The deadline to become an interested party with the Planning Inspectorate, which will make the decision on the plans, has now passed.

Around 2,700 registrations have been made, thought to be far higher than for any other offshore wind project, including the abandoned Atlantic Array off the south coast of Wales, and all are now available to view on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.

Roy Pointer, chairman of the Poole and Christchurch Bays Association, which represents a host of residents’ groups, said: “What is striking when you look at the comments is that the vast majority of businesses, individ-uals, MPs and NGOs are strongly against the project.

“Our analysis shows that 90 per cent of those who registered are opposed to this giant inshore industrial project for a variety of valid reasons.”

A wide range of organisation and individuals – including Bournemouth Borough Council and Borough of Poole – have raised worries over a raft of issues – including the visual impact, threats to boating and fishing and the potential impact on the area’s tourism industry.

But some of those registered are supporting the project, including East Dorset Friends of the Earth.

Angela Pooley, co-ordinator of East Dorset FoE, which is a member of BH Green, an umbrella group that includes the Green Party, Greenpeace, Poole Agenda 21, Transition Bournemouth, Transition Christchurch and Transition Poole, said it believed that the “negativity is misguided and based on anecdotal information and, sadly, a degree of ‘nimbyism’.”

She added: “The BH Green Group, including East Dorset FoE, believes that if we don’t move to more sustainable forms of energy, the negative effects of climate change will have a far greater impact locally and globally than the wind farm.

“Wind farms aren’t the total answer to providing sustainable energy, but they are part of the solution. Therefore we hope that Navitus Bay wind farm gets approval.”

And Christine Hanny, another supporter, said: “I am in favour of the windfarm as Dorset needs a source of local, green energy. It is 12 miles offshore into the Channel and will be barely visible to the naked eye.”

But Whitehall Hospitality, who operate two Bournemouth hotels and a tour company, said: “This proposal is too big, too close to shore and in the wrong location.

“There are many other locations where a wind farm could be located – why destroy a local tourist economy to make way for this one?”

And Jonathan Warner said: “The wind farm would be a terrible eyesore on the beautiful Jurassic Coast. This is a concept which would not even be considered in other countries.”

‘Consistent approach’

DORSET County Council has decided to cease negotiations with the developers of the Navitus Bay wind farm over a lease to enable cabling work for the project.

Officers had been in discussions with a view to granting a lease to enable cabling for the proposed offshore wind farm to run under the council-owned trailway at Avon Heath Country Park.

However, after the county council voiced its objections to the Navitus Bay scheme, members of its cabinet agreed that it would be inconsistent to continue with discussions regarding the enabling works.

Cabinet member for corporate resources Robert Gould said: “We are taking a consistent and coherent approach to Navitus Bay.

“It would not be appropriate in view of our stance on the scheme itself.”

Council leader Spencer Flower suggested that if the Navitus Bay scheme was successful the developers would have to look at the compulsory purchase route if they wished to pursue their plans for the cabling under the council-owned trailway.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:59am Thu 3 Jul 14

Richard 51 says...

What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station
What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station Richard 51
  • Score: 22

11:10am Thu 3 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Richard 51 wrote:
What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station
Why?
[quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station[/p][/quote]Why? forest hump
  • Score: -4

3:22pm Thu 3 Jul 14

The Wickham Man says...

Quite amusing to see FoE and Greenpeace tying themselves in knots with their inconsistent and confusing mixed messages. FoE would go ballistic at any plans to compromise the unique visual impact of the Jurassic coast, then next minute telling us that it's perfectly ok to appreciate the fossil and seismic history at Durdle Door with a massive windfarm whirling away behind it. WHy not build a yacht marina at Lulworth Cove while you're at it? Just for reference, SSE just cancelled a large windfarm expansion at Fairburn in Sutherland North Scotland because there was "no economic case" so how is it possible that it is uneconomic to extend an existing windfarm on cheap land at very low cost yet somehow it is profitable to built a new one plus masses of infrastructure 10 miles out to sea? The answer is the massive hidden subsidies that the taxpayer is footing but which Lib Dems, Greens, Navitus and others are desperately brushing under the carpet so we can't see them. I dare navitus to put out a full unrigged economic business case based on selling electricity competitively in an open market, not a rigged market that forces distributors to buy from them at guaranteed prices, and worse compensates and subsidises Navitus when they produce little or nothing at all! Thank you Chris Huhne, you massive lying corrupt idiot.
Quite amusing to see FoE and Greenpeace tying themselves in knots with their inconsistent and confusing mixed messages. FoE would go ballistic at any plans to compromise the unique visual impact of the Jurassic coast, then next minute telling us that it's perfectly ok to appreciate the fossil and seismic history at Durdle Door with a massive windfarm whirling away behind it. WHy not build a yacht marina at Lulworth Cove while you're at it? Just for reference, SSE just cancelled a large windfarm expansion at Fairburn in Sutherland North Scotland because there was "no economic case" so how is it possible that it is uneconomic to extend an existing windfarm on cheap land at very low cost yet somehow it is profitable to built a new one plus masses of infrastructure 10 miles out to sea? The answer is the massive hidden subsidies that the taxpayer is footing but which Lib Dems, Greens, Navitus and others are desperately brushing under the carpet so we can't see them. I dare navitus to put out a full unrigged economic business case based on selling electricity competitively in an open market, not a rigged market that forces distributors to buy from them at guaranteed prices, and worse compensates and subsidises Navitus when they produce little or nothing at all! Thank you Chris Huhne, you massive lying corrupt idiot. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Richard 51 says...

forest hump wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station
Why?
Because you children's children will be picking up the waste.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]Because you children's children will be picking up the waste. Richard 51
  • Score: 2

6:20pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

forest hump wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station
Why?
Because a nuclear power station provides far more power than a windfarm, it provides it cheaper than a windfarm, it is more reliable than a windfarm, it has no carbon footprint. like a windfarm, it needs only one set of grid and transformer connection infrastructure unlike an offshore windfarm, it works when the wind isn't blowing unlike a windfarm, National Grid planners can plan power station downtime maintenance because they can predict weeks in advance how much power it will deliver unlike a windfarm, and it is safer for birds which are killed by windmills in large numbers, it doesn't despoil the Jurasic Coast like a windfarm, even though WInfrith was the site of several reactors for many years, it didn't harm or spoil anybody's enjoyment of Dorset. And of course because windfarms are unreliable you have to have the nuclear power station anyway otherwise thousands of the poor, the weak the very old and the very young will die in the cold "green" blackouts....... Oh yes, and nuclear power stations have killed or harmed nobody in this country in over 50 years, just like a windfarm, so could RIchard explain why a windfarm is "better" than a nuclear power station?
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]Because a nuclear power station provides far more power than a windfarm, it provides it cheaper than a windfarm, it is more reliable than a windfarm, it has no carbon footprint. like a windfarm, it needs only one set of grid and transformer connection infrastructure unlike an offshore windfarm, it works when the wind isn't blowing unlike a windfarm, National Grid planners can plan power station downtime maintenance because they can predict weeks in advance how much power it will deliver unlike a windfarm, and it is safer for birds which are killed by windmills in large numbers, it doesn't despoil the Jurasic Coast like a windfarm, even though WInfrith was the site of several reactors for many years, it didn't harm or spoil anybody's enjoyment of Dorset. And of course because windfarms are unreliable you have to have the nuclear power station anyway otherwise thousands of the poor, the weak the very old and the very young will die in the cold "green" blackouts....... Oh yes, and nuclear power stations have killed or harmed nobody in this country in over 50 years, just like a windfarm, so could RIchard explain why a windfarm is "better" than a nuclear power station? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 1

8:34pm Thu 3 Jul 14

KSO16R says...

Nuclear it is then . . . Whereabouts in Dorset would be best?
Nuclear it is then . . . Whereabouts in Dorset would be best? KSO16R
  • Score: 1

8:56pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

KSO16R wrote:
Nuclear it is then . . . Whereabouts in Dorset would be best?
Winfrith of course. WHere the Atomic Energy Authority (of whom I was part) ran several reactors of several types for many years quite safely, creating many hundreds of high tech jobs for many years,
[quote][p][bold]KSO16R[/bold] wrote: Nuclear it is then . . . Whereabouts in Dorset would be best?[/p][/quote]Winfrith of course. WHere the Atomic Energy Authority (of whom I was part) ran several reactors of several types for many years quite safely, creating many hundreds of high tech jobs for many years, Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 1

12:09pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Beer Monster says...

Shame, we need a decent mixture of power generation across the UK, whether it be from nuclear, renewable or other sources, to replace the fossil fuel burning power stations that are being decommissioned. The more we can do this with the first two the better.

Would people rather have fracking going on underneath their homes, purely because the landscape wasn't being blighted to the naked eye?
Shame, we need a decent mixture of power generation across the UK, whether it be from nuclear, renewable or other sources, to replace the fossil fuel burning power stations that are being decommissioned. The more we can do this with the first two the better. Would people rather have fracking going on underneath their homes, purely because the landscape wasn't being blighted to the naked eye? Beer Monster
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Fri 4 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station
Why?
Because a nuclear power station provides far more power than a windfarm, it provides it cheaper than a windfarm, it is more reliable than a windfarm, it has no carbon footprint. like a windfarm, it needs only one set of grid and transformer connection infrastructure unlike an offshore windfarm, it works when the wind isn't blowing unlike a windfarm, National Grid planners can plan power station downtime maintenance because they can predict weeks in advance how much power it will deliver unlike a windfarm, and it is safer for birds which are killed by windmills in large numbers, it doesn't despoil the Jurasic Coast like a windfarm, even though WInfrith was the site of several reactors for many years, it didn't harm or spoil anybody's enjoyment of Dorset. And of course because windfarms are unreliable you have to have the nuclear power station anyway otherwise thousands of the poor, the weak the very old and the very young will die in the cold "green" blackouts....... Oh yes, and nuclear power stations have killed or harmed nobody in this country in over 50 years, just like a windfarm, so could RIchard explain why a windfarm is "better" than a nuclear power station?
Thanks Andy, totally understand and support your (as always) detailed, factual answer. Was sort of hoping Richard 51 would have provided, at least, some kind of argument!

Interesting that Denmark have a very high number of wind generators per-capita and have yet to decommission any traditional, reliable forms of generation!
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]Because a nuclear power station provides far more power than a windfarm, it provides it cheaper than a windfarm, it is more reliable than a windfarm, it has no carbon footprint. like a windfarm, it needs only one set of grid and transformer connection infrastructure unlike an offshore windfarm, it works when the wind isn't blowing unlike a windfarm, National Grid planners can plan power station downtime maintenance because they can predict weeks in advance how much power it will deliver unlike a windfarm, and it is safer for birds which are killed by windmills in large numbers, it doesn't despoil the Jurasic Coast like a windfarm, even though WInfrith was the site of several reactors for many years, it didn't harm or spoil anybody's enjoyment of Dorset. And of course because windfarms are unreliable you have to have the nuclear power station anyway otherwise thousands of the poor, the weak the very old and the very young will die in the cold "green" blackouts....... Oh yes, and nuclear power stations have killed or harmed nobody in this country in over 50 years, just like a windfarm, so could RIchard explain why a windfarm is "better" than a nuclear power station?[/p][/quote]Thanks Andy, totally understand and support your (as always) detailed, factual answer. Was sort of hoping Richard 51 would have provided, at least, some kind of argument! Interesting that Denmark have a very high number of wind generators per-capita and have yet to decommission any traditional, reliable forms of generation! forest hump
  • Score: 1

12:56pm Fri 4 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Also, it would be of interest to see how many people have objected on the basis of consistent source of power! Visual, tourism!, fishing, sailing seem to prevail!
Also, it would be of interest to see how many people have objected on the basis of consistent source of power! Visual, tourism!, fishing, sailing seem to prevail! forest hump
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Fri 4 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Richard 51 wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Richard 51 wrote:
What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station
Why?
Because you children's children will be picking up the waste.
You make not only an inaccurate statement about waste but also my family status. Please do some research before making assumptions.
[quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard 51[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with windmills, a lot better than a nuclear power station[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]Because you children's children will be picking up the waste.[/p][/quote]You make not only an inaccurate statement about waste but also my family status. Please do some research before making assumptions. forest hump
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree