Plans for huge Navitus Bay windfarm of the Hampshire coast scaled back

Daily Echo: Plans for huge windfarm scaled back Plans for huge windfarm scaled back

PLANS to build a wind farm off the coast of Hampshire have been scaled back, it has been announced today.

Developers behind the scheme have revealed that the Navitus Bay project will be smaller in order to reduce its visual impact.

But critics of the scheme have described the changes as like “Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”

Navitus Bay Development Ltd said they will remove the northernmost part of the development - the 'top triangle' - which will move the site up to 3.8km further away from the shore.

Philip Dewhurst, Poole and Christchurch Bays Association spokesman, said: “Even with these tweaks, Navitus will still be too big, too visible from our shores and too damaging to our tourism and boating economies.

“We will carry on the fight in the hope that sanity prevails and this hugely expensive white elephant is scrapped.”

Daily Echo: A map showing how the boundaries have changed

The move comes in response to feedback received from the public and statutory consultees during the final round of consultation last year The firm said the latest change, when combined with the previous scaling back of the site in December 2012, will significantly reduce the visual impact of the development from all viewpoints along the coast in Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

It means in locations such as the Isle of Wight, Lymington and Christchurch, the turbines will be further away from the shore.

The project will now cover an area of 155km2 compared to the 175km2 under the previous boundary with the number of turbines falling from 218 to 194.

It means that if the application is approved the wind farm will generate enough energy to power 710,000 - 80,000 fewer than the original proposal.

Mike Unsworth, Project Director at Navitus Bay, said: “We have always listened to and acted upon the feedback we receive from our public consultations and our statutory consultees.

“We hope that local residents and statutory consultees who have expressed concern about the wind park will welcome today's announcement. The boundary change is significant, and balances the need to reduce visual impact while ensuring that the project continues to make an important contribution to sustainable energy generation in the UK and to the local economy in the shape of jobs and investment.”

Dr Andrew Langley of Challenge Navitus campaign group described the changes as “marginal”

He said: “We are still awaiting full details, but the changes to the plan appear to be marginal and go nowhere near far enough to convince people that this disastrous proposal won't have the damaging impacts that so many fear.

“The proposal would need a far more radical rethink to address the issues raised in consultation, and it remains a bad plan in completely the wrong area.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:27pm Thu 6 Feb 14

hulla baloo says...

Only scaled back? That plan should be totally scuppered, Absolute eyesores, every one of them.
Only scaled back? That plan should be totally scuppered, Absolute eyesores, every one of them. hulla baloo
  • Score: -4

1:38pm Thu 6 Feb 14

derek james says...

they're still using the same old wind industry trick of quoting the theoretical power output which in the real world turns out to be about 25% of that figure, so instead of 710000 it will be 177500 if you're lucky
they're still using the same old wind industry trick of quoting the theoretical power output which in the real world turns out to be about 25% of that figure, so instead of 710000 it will be 177500 if you're lucky derek james
  • Score: 3

2:31pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Richard 51 says...

OK so you all want nuclear power stations on your door steps, so who's going to tell your children’s children where to dump the waste.
OK so you all want nuclear power stations on your door steps, so who's going to tell your children’s children where to dump the waste. Richard 51
  • Score: -3

2:40pm Thu 6 Feb 14

COYRlukeCOYR says...

I think.. if you are against this you are a complete utter ****. I hope all the flooding that's occurring hits all the people that are against any form of renewable energy... fracking is wrong.. wind generators are not... nether is Solar. I actually think the Wind generators look awesome and add to a beautiful country view. People against these things are seriously deluded and thick. Enjoy the climate change and I HOPE it affects those who oppose this.
I think.. if you are against this you are a complete utter ****. I hope all the flooding that's occurring hits all the people that are against any form of renewable energy... fracking is wrong.. wind generators are not... nether is Solar. I actually think the Wind generators look awesome and add to a beautiful country view. People against these things are seriously deluded and thick. Enjoy the climate change and I HOPE it affects those who oppose this. COYRlukeCOYR
  • Score: 3

2:42pm Thu 6 Feb 14

COYRlukeCOYR says...

AND enjoy your extortion energy prices.. peace out dumb f****
AND enjoy your extortion energy prices.. peace out dumb f**** COYRlukeCOYR
  • Score: -1

2:50pm Thu 6 Feb 14

hulla baloo says...

COYRlukeCOYR wrote:
I think.. if you are against this you are a complete utter ****. I hope all the flooding that's occurring hits all the people that are against any form of renewable energy... fracking is wrong.. wind generators are not... nether is Solar. I actually think the Wind generators look awesome and add to a beautiful country view. People against these things are seriously deluded and thick. Enjoy the climate change and I HOPE it affects those who oppose this.
Flooding is a natural occurence, fueled by the building on flood plains, not dredging rivers, more concrete laid etc leaves less for water to disperse.
Granted, these current conditions are exceptional. I wonder if the wind farm in the solent would have survived these winds.
As for their productivity, I have yet to be convinced they even pay for themselves, let alone make a good contribution to the grid.

So my opinion does not agree with yours, so I am thick. So what, is worth bearing in mind that resorting to name calling is usually the last option used when not on top of reasoning or discussion.
[quote][p][bold]COYRlukeCOYR[/bold] wrote: I think.. if you are against this you are a complete utter ****. I hope all the flooding that's occurring hits all the people that are against any form of renewable energy... fracking is wrong.. wind generators are not... nether is Solar. I actually think the Wind generators look awesome and add to a beautiful country view. People against these things are seriously deluded and thick. Enjoy the climate change and I HOPE it affects those who oppose this.[/p][/quote]Flooding is a natural occurence, fueled by the building on flood plains, not dredging rivers, more concrete laid etc leaves less for water to disperse. Granted, these current conditions are exceptional. I wonder if the wind farm in the solent would have survived these winds. As for their productivity, I have yet to be convinced they even pay for themselves, let alone make a good contribution to the grid. So my opinion does not agree with yours, so I am thick. So what, is worth bearing in mind that resorting to name calling is usually the last option used when not on top of reasoning or discussion. hulla baloo
  • Score: 8

3:10pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Danae says...

The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel?

The site potentially obstructs:
1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping
2. Shipping approaching/departin
g the West Solent
3. North-south/south-no
rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany
4. Other North-south/south-no
rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment
5. Commercial fishing operations

Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time.

This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions.

Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?
The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel? The site potentially obstructs: 1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping 2. Shipping approaching/departin g the West Solent 3. North-south/south-no rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany 4. Other North-south/south-no rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment 5. Commercial fishing operations Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time. This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions. Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds? Danae
  • Score: 3

3:28pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Torchie1 says...

Danae wrote:
The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel?

The site potentially obstructs:
1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping
2. Shipping approaching/departin

g the West Solent
3. North-south/south-no

rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany
4. Other North-south/south-no

rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment
5. Commercial fishing operations

Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time.

This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions.

Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?
Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight.
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel? The site potentially obstructs: 1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping 2. Shipping approaching/departin g the West Solent 3. North-south/south-no rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany 4. Other North-south/south-no rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment 5. Commercial fishing operations Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time. This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions. Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?[/p][/quote]Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Danae wrote:
The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel?

The site potentially obstructs:
1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping
2. Shipping approaching/departin


g the West Solent
3. North-south/south-no


rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany
4. Other North-south/south-no


rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment
5. Commercial fishing operations

Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time.

This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions.

Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?
Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight.
Unfortunately accidents do happen and engines sometimes break down. These monstrocities are just more unnecessary hazzards. The best solution would be for every roof in the UK to be solar panneled.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel? The site potentially obstructs: 1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping 2. Shipping approaching/departin g the West Solent 3. North-south/south-no rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany 4. Other North-south/south-no rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment 5. Commercial fishing operations Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time. This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions. Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?[/p][/quote]Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately accidents do happen and engines sometimes break down. These monstrocities are just more unnecessary hazzards. The best solution would be for every roof in the UK to be solar panneled. Inform Al
  • Score: 2

6:38pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Torchie1 says...

Inform Al wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Danae wrote:
The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel?

The site potentially obstructs:
1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping
2. Shipping approaching/departin



g the West Solent
3. North-south/south-no



rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany
4. Other North-south/south-no



rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment
5. Commercial fishing operations

Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time.

This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions.

Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?
Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight.
Unfortunately accidents do happen and engines sometimes break down. These monstrocities are just more unnecessary hazzards. The best solution would be for every roof in the UK to be solar panneled.
The 'what if' argument could be used to bring any and all progress to a grinding halt.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel? The site potentially obstructs: 1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping 2. Shipping approaching/departin g the West Solent 3. North-south/south-no rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany 4. Other North-south/south-no rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment 5. Commercial fishing operations Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time. This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions. Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?[/p][/quote]Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately accidents do happen and engines sometimes break down. These monstrocities are just more unnecessary hazzards. The best solution would be for every roof in the UK to be solar panneled.[/p][/quote]The 'what if' argument could be used to bring any and all progress to a grinding halt. Torchie1
  • Score: 1

7:41pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Danae wrote:
The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel?

The site potentially obstructs:
1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping
2. Shipping approaching/departin




g the West Solent
3. North-south/south-no




rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany
4. Other North-south/south-no




rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment
5. Commercial fishing operations

Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time.

This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions.

Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?
Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight.
Unfortunately accidents do happen and engines sometimes break down. These monstrocities are just more unnecessary hazzards. The best solution would be for every roof in the UK to be solar panneled.
The 'what if' argument could be used to bring any and all progress to a grinding halt.
If I'm gonna bump into something big I definitely do not want it to be at sea, and the government does have a duty of care that should include 'what ifs'
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: The peculiar issue with this site is: what caused the Crown Estate to think it should allow windfarm promoters to consider this part of the English Channel? The site potentially obstructs: 1. East-west/west-east inshore shipping 2. Shipping approaching/departin g the West Solent 3. North-south/south-no rth conventional and high speed cross channel ferry operations linking Poole, the Channel Isles and Brittany 4. Other North-south/south-no rth shipping on route 3 and also on the Needles-Cherbourg alignment 5. Commercial fishing operations Given the steady trickle of collision and grounding incidents involving commercial shipping in Sea Area Wight we can all assume that turbine masts, if ever installed in the intended patch will be hit from time to time. This will be a particular risk in fog and storm conditions. Will Eneco sue the Crown Estate if development consent in the subject location is finally refused on navigational risk grounds?[/p][/quote]Any competent mariner will navigate with brand new charts or those updated using 'Notices to Mariners' a publication used to keep relevant party's aware of changes that can affect safe passage in navigable waters. There are provisions made for sailing in reduced visibility but all the information required is on the charts which should be kept up to date. I'm afraid your argument is grasping at straws and anyone not aware of the waters they are sailing in could just as easily collide with the Isle of Wight.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately accidents do happen and engines sometimes break down. These monstrocities are just more unnecessary hazzards. The best solution would be for every roof in the UK to be solar panneled.[/p][/quote]The 'what if' argument could be used to bring any and all progress to a grinding halt.[/p][/quote]If I'm gonna bump into something big I definitely do not want it to be at sea, and the government does have a duty of care that should include 'what ifs' Inform Al
  • Score: 0

11:13am Sat 8 Feb 14

lowe esteem says...

hulla baloo wrote:
COYRlukeCOYR wrote:
I think.. if you are against this you are a complete utter ****. I hope all the flooding that's occurring hits all the people that are against any form of renewable energy... fracking is wrong.. wind generators are not... nether is Solar. I actually think the Wind generators look awesome and add to a beautiful country view. People against these things are seriously deluded and thick. Enjoy the climate change and I HOPE it affects those who oppose this.
Flooding is a natural occurence, fueled by the building on flood plains, not dredging rivers, more concrete laid etc leaves less for water to disperse.
Granted, these current conditions are exceptional. I wonder if the wind farm in the solent would have survived these winds.
As for their productivity, I have yet to be convinced they even pay for themselves, let alone make a good contribution to the grid.

So my opinion does not agree with yours, so I am thick. So what, is worth bearing in mind that resorting to name calling is usually the last option used when not on top of reasoning or discussion.
Granted coyrlukecoyr's opinion is a little more concise, direct and reasoned than your fluffy 'denial' approach but I didn't see too much name calling in there. You have wandered way off the thread with your thin-skinned rant, so put up or stop whining.
Whoever is in power should be applying more resources, logic and money to the whole population and power issues, though don't expect a call from any all-party think tank soon, hulla.
Perhaps a wind turbine gradually placed everywhere we've got telegraph poles or pylons would go some way to getting the point across to the people with the 'alternative alternative' (ie double negative)=DO NOTHING
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]COYRlukeCOYR[/bold] wrote: I think.. if you are against this you are a complete utter ****. I hope all the flooding that's occurring hits all the people that are against any form of renewable energy... fracking is wrong.. wind generators are not... nether is Solar. I actually think the Wind generators look awesome and add to a beautiful country view. People against these things are seriously deluded and thick. Enjoy the climate change and I HOPE it affects those who oppose this.[/p][/quote]Flooding is a natural occurence, fueled by the building on flood plains, not dredging rivers, more concrete laid etc leaves less for water to disperse. Granted, these current conditions are exceptional. I wonder if the wind farm in the solent would have survived these winds. As for their productivity, I have yet to be convinced they even pay for themselves, let alone make a good contribution to the grid. So my opinion does not agree with yours, so I am thick. So what, is worth bearing in mind that resorting to name calling is usually the last option used when not on top of reasoning or discussion.[/p][/quote]Granted coyrlukecoyr's opinion is a little more concise, direct and reasoned than your fluffy 'denial' approach but I didn't see too much name calling in there. You have wandered way off the thread with your thin-skinned rant, so put up or stop whining. Whoever is in power should be applying more resources, logic and money to the whole population and power issues, though don't expect a call from any all-party think tank soon, hulla. Perhaps a wind turbine gradually placed everywhere we've got telegraph poles or pylons would go some way to getting the point across to the people with the 'alternative alternative' (ie double negative)=DO NOTHING lowe esteem
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

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