Rampion Offshore Wind Farm

Representations received regarding Rampion Offshore Wind Farm

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Rampion Offshore Wind Farm and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brighton & Newhaven Fish Sales Ltd
"The applicant has plans to construct a substancial wind farm on a sea area that has been a historically important fishing ground for centuries, a site that is of most economic importance to our local fishing industry. Both the site itself and the cable routes will, by the developers own admition, devastate the sea bed habitat in the development area during the construction phase, and will have negative impacts on fish and shellfish stocks during both the construction and operational phases. This will have a significantly negative impact on the seabed habitat, local fish/shellfish stocks and therefore fishermens businesses, for the entire period that the wind farm is sited in the proposed area. Discussions with the developer have failed to offer any comfort for these areas of concern, infact they have offered information confirming such negative affects. What has not been forth-coming is any detail on how the developer means to over-come these environmental negative effects. The fishing industry is facing increasing pressure from Governmental departments and agencies, to curb activities that "may" disturb the seabed. We believe that any marine development should be made to adhere to these same principals and if it cannot do so, should not be given permission."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brighton Charter Fishing Limited
"I am concerned that the development will limit or impact access to fishing grounds that form the basis of my sole income, with potentially a serious impact on the ongoing viability of my business."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Campbell
"I have a direct view of the proposed site for the Rampion windfarm from my home on The Promenade at Peacehaven. I am strongly in favour of the project with one proviso: the lay-out of the windfarm needs to maximise the barrier effect on surf at all points except the Brighton surfing beach. The SSSI (I think) Beachy Head and the Newhaven Head of chalk cliffs are being eroded - as also is the coast in Telscombe. Seaford beach costs a lot each year to maintain. The concrete walkway that protects Peacehaven, Rottingdean and the coast westwards to Brighton will sometime need very expensive maintenance. If the the surfing organisations were right in claiming that surf would be reduced by a third under the original plans, then surely it could be reduced by a third elsewhere by careful layout of the windfarm. Ever since Charles Darwin's work on coral reefs, we have known about this effect (and probably before). The hundreds of millions of public money that would be saved (especially by the Environment Agency) over the life of the windfarm seems to have been of little concern to the designers of the windfarm. I wanted to send this quickly since I shall be out of contact for a couple of weeks - and have not had time to read the whole proposal yet, so apologies if this has already been done. 1. In general, despite the fact that it will damage the view from my home, I favour this windfarm proposal. 2. However, applicant has failed throughout to identify and consider/quantify a big potential impact as required under paras 3&4 of Schedule 4 of the EIA. Moreover, the addendum to its ES dated March 13 (document 6.1.33) is wrong when it states that the amendment will not result in significant environmental impact. The impact it has failed to consider concerns the intertidal/foreshore, most notably the cliffs and breakwaters/undercliff walkways. So far as I can see, the applicant has at no stage identified or quantified the favourable impact of the project (and its various design alternatives) by means of cutting the effect of wave action on the coastline. Moreover, the amendment will significantly reduce this favourable impact. The recent cliff falls in Dorset have highlighted the importance of cliff issues for future expenditure by local councils and the Environment Agency: if the project were to be designed in such a way as to maximise the impact on waves/swell (especially at high tide and in storm conditions), it could save £hundreds of millions - possibly even billions - in public expenditure on repairwork to the undercliff and infrastructure vulnerability (eg where the A259 passes close to the unprotected cliff edge between Rottingdean and Telscombe). This could also enhance the returns from future tourism. It could slow the pace of erosion of both manmade and natural coastal formations. In the amended version the applicant has sought to cut the favourable effect as a response to the surfers. Since surfing is mainly at the west end of the affected coastline, and the cliff erosion issue concerns wave action at high tide only (surfers are concerned with wave action at other states of the tide) there can surely be some way of ensuring both needs are met. Without any analysis by EON it is very difficult even to discuss the issue meaningfully. For my assertions as to the effect of waves on coast, see the various articles in Mortimore, R.N. and Duperret, A. (eds) 2004 'Coastal Chalk Cliff Instability' published by Geological Society, London as well as other work going back to Charles Darwin's Coral reef analysis. At this stage I am simply asking that this very important and WHOLLY NEGLECTED issue be selected for further investigation. 3. I politely question whether fewer but taller windmills will be less obtrusive than more smaller ones: as Virginia Woolf (who lived close to Newhaven for so long) wrote in 'The Waves': Gradually as the sky whitened a dark line lay on the hroizon dividing the sea from the sky'. Is it not the break in the horizon that matters most visually? But I am quite prepared to be told that I am wrong on this. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Federation of Fishermens Organisation
"National Representative bodie for England, Wales and N Ireland. Impact on local fishing industry Detrimental socio-economic impacts thereafter"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Newhaven Fish & Flake Ice Society Ltd
"As secretary of the Newhaven Fish & Flake Ice Society Ltd I pass information on and update industry of any changes in the area that may affect their fishing opportunities. This development will affect some of the members of our Society and will impact on their fishing areas through displacement of effort. Chairman to add more detail."
Non-Statutory Organisations
South Eastern Fishermen on behalf of South Eastern Fishermen
"Our organisation represents around 20 individual fishermen who have fished in the proposed development area for decades. Their livelyhoods are largely derived from the proposed area and all members are very concerned about the developers acknowledged seabed habitat destruction and ongoing disturbance to marine life. The developers own evidence has described significant habitat destruction during the construction phases in both the wind farm site and cable channels and also describes the likely negative ongoing effects of the operational phase. Our concerns focus on the negative effects of habitat destruction and fish and shellfish stock depletion that is a probable effect of this development. "
Other Statutory Consultees
The Crown Estate
"The Crown Estate manages property and rights which are owned by Her Majesty in right of the Crown. This portfolio includes around half of the foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to 12 nautical miles around the UK. Under the Energy Act 2004 and the Energy Act 2008, The Crown Estate also manages the rights over the continental shelf to offshore energy generation and the rights to carbon dioxide and natural gas storage and transportation (respectively). The Crown Estate requests to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Rampion offshore windfarm. Our interest in the project is that E.ON Climate & Renewables holds an Agreement for Lease from The Crown Estate for the area of seabed to be occupied by the project, and (subject to obtaining the necessary development consents) The Crown Estate will issue a lease to E.ON Climate & Renewables for construction of the project. We therefore wish to follow the progress of examination of the project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dive125
"During the construction of the windfarm it would be extremly useful 1) To know which areas are being worked on and when with as much notice as possible 2) To have as small an area as possible to be restricted for navigation, recreational diving (especially on wreck sites) and angling at any one time This is so we can plan where to operate, plan around any navigation hazards and by having the smallest area as possible resticted try to earn our living in what is already a challanging business (current climate both economic and weather doesn't help) When the windfarm is completed; reasonable, clear and accurate guidance on any navigation and diving exclusion zones again is needed. (current information is a no diving zone within 50m of any tower and the assumption is that towers will NOT be built close to wreck sites. Again current assumption is Navigation for small craft within the windfarm is allowed) Please bear in mind that this windfarm is over large area that is used by a significant number of divers and anglers and the charter and tourist businesses supported by them "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matt James-Evans
"I'm sending this info on as I'm all for the windfarm to go ahead and be built on the Sussex coast. My views on green energy is the way this country needs to work towards more and see the likes of coal/nuclear energy be decommissioned "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr David Samuel
"I wish to object to this application on two levels: I feel it will inpact heavily on the local economy by becoming a blot on the landscape for tourists. I have seen no indication presented by EON of case studies for Tourism and how an instalation of this kind effects tourism and the local tourist economy - how does this compare to other areas of national beauty like the Lake District that rely on its views for visitor numbers? This is not nor ever has been an industrial coastline - why are we being subjected to this now? I also paid a great deal of money to buy a house with an uninterupted sea view - how are we to be compensated for the industrial view we are to inherit if this project goes ahead?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brinder
"I am a mother of three living in Hove with the sea 100 metres from our house. I am a sixth form teacher in Worthing and have discussed the plans for the wind farm with my students. I just wanted to let you know that we are overwhelmingly in support of the plans. The views of the younger generation are often overlooked but as the generation that will grow up and live with the wind farm I believe that their opinion should carry significant weight. My only concern is that the project should be put into action as soon as practically possible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Goss
"The proposed location for the offshore farm is directly opposite Brighton and Hove seafront. Despite Eon's claims that they have mitigated its affect on the Heritage coast, it will be directly in sight of visitors to Brighton seafront. This seems unnecessary, and detrimental to Brighton's future as a major UK seaside destination for UK and global visitors. Brighton has a large number of short term visitors who wish to come to the beach and to sit and stroll and enjoy the view. This will be seriously jeopardised by the location of the farm. I realise that the Sussex coast is heavily populated, but there are locations where an unblemished sea view is less cherished and economically important than directly offshore Brighton. I had heard (it appears incorrectly, unfortunately)that the farm was now proposed to be located directly off Newhaven. That would seem to be a suitable compromise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dan McCormick
"My concerns are to do with the land restoration. The rampion wind farm will connect to the national grid via the Bolney station. This is apparently because the existing overground cables are not up to the voltage required for effecient transmission. Turning this situation around, does this mean that this underground cable being installed will be the connection to the national grid for the south coast? Being able to supply as well as deliver power. I am interested in protecting the ancient habitat that the Downs represent. If we are faced with this underground solution, then one would wish to be sure that it is maximise it's use. One day soon, the national grid will need to be upgraded to a more effecient voltage. It may well be that at this stage it down to EON alone to fund the connection. It is the only game in town as far as they are concerned. We may miss on opportunity to kill two birds with the one stone. We might also look forward to the need to extend the fibre optic network. Could this trench be used to include such a cable? Many interested parties are not on board with this project but added value could make a difference."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Swaysland
"I am a resident of Seaford and have concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the seashore and beach in the Seaford Bay area, particularly the effect on the movement of shingle on the seabed and the extent to which it might reduce the natural deposition of shingle on the beach thus undermining the sea defences of the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr G Lickfold
"-Visual impact of the windarm from the coast and the ridge of the south downs -Not being able to perceptualise what visual impact will be -Wineham lane substation 1) Please put the substation as far away from the road as possible 2) During construction vehicles should only approach from the North, because to the south of the site there are alot of houses and a very popular pub. At peak times there is a lot of parking on the road near the pub which is already dangerous so additional construction traffic would aggravate this problem. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gavin Ayling
"I am in general support of the application and hope that as much as possible of the Crown Estate can be used for the local production of power."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoff King
"My concerns with this proposals are as follows. Concern over the damage to the sea bed and to fish stocks. Concern over the proximity of this project to the Shipping Lanes, particularly the main west bound English Channel Shipping Lane. Concern over the proximity of this project to the Inshore Shipping Lanes. Concern over the proximity of this project to the Anchorage for Shoreham Harbour. In short, the siting of this proposed wind farm is in totally the wrong place and would be a significant hazard to navigation and to the local fisheries. Also of concern is the whole concept of wind power as it has been proved elsewhere that these turbines do not produce anything like the claimed output of electricity. There remains considerable concern over the proposed onshore route of the cables and the proposed sub station. Why is it necessary to route these cables all the way across the South Downs National Park to a new sub station when, assuming these cables come ashore in the Shoreham area, they could link into the existing National Grid cables from the current Shoreham Power Station with minimal impact."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J E Rimmington
"I approve the construction of the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm in principle, renewable energy is something we need more of. I am concerned that an extensive farm will damage the ecosystem on the sea bed and above, so applaud the reduction in the offshore site area. I want EON to work with the local Wildlife Trusts and other ecology research organisations to reduce the environmental impact offshore. I am not at all concerned about the field of view. Roll on wind energy!! :-)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Watts
"The nearest turbines are too close to the shore. Other large windfarms are at least 20km from the shore, Rampion is proposing a mere 13km for the nearest turbine. An extra 7 kms will make them much more acceptable to the neighbours, please reconsider. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Brett
"The whole principal of an offshore wind farm is an exciting venture and one that I do not have a problem with. However my major concerns are the environmental impacts that could be created by such an adventurous scheme. I would be interested to see how E.On have addressed some of the issues and what plans they have in place to meet any future possible problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stewart Roberts
"I am concerned over the possible compulsory purchase of the land containing Brooklands Pleasure Park as I am a regular user of the par-3 golf course."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Ashley
"I am concerned that the location of the wind farm will be detrimental to living and visiting Brighton. By building something that is in direct view of 200,000+ people every day, this scheme is something that can have enormous impact to day to day lives for the foreseeable future, as opposed to a location away from such highly populated areas. The open, empty, seascape is a feature of Brighton and the surrounding towns, for residents and visitors alike, that I believe is of vital importance to the character of the area. Brighton is a congested city, made more bearable by the fact there is nothing visible over the sea to the south of the city. I genuinely fear that the proposed wind farm will generate a sense of enclosure that will affect a large number of people for many years. I am also concerned that the evaluation of the pros and cons of providing energy through alternative means (gas/coal/nuclear) is given proper consideration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Santosh Bhabra
"I fundamentally disagree with the Rampion proposal, primarily on aesthetic grounds, as I believe a view, once lost cannot be recreated, but also because I do not support the subsidy to this alternative form of energy technology which seems to me to be ill-conceived and a poor use of public funding. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tug- Horizon
"The impact on the port of Newhaven; the impact on the sea routes usesd by the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry (DFDS);"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Barnett
"I am interested to follow this development as I have an academic and professional interest in renewable energy and this scheme is near to where I live. I do not wish to make representation, but I would like to be kept informed of the planning process. I have no particular concerns about this development, but I am professionally interested in this subject and would therefore like to receive all notifications about and coming from the process. Thank you. Andrew Barnett "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Arthur Hepher
"I wish to object to the application because what is proposed is likely to damage the beauty of an area of great aesthetic quality as recognised in its status as a national park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Hepher
"i object strongly to this proposal which if carried out would damage the great beauty of the national park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Bateup
"I wish to understand how this far reaching application will affect the land on which my house isnsituated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Selsey Fishermans Association
"Selsey Fishermans Association These are the submissions I wish to make in respect of this application; Fishing vessels from Selsey being unable to fish in this sea area because of the proposal. Displacement of other fishing vessels during construction phase. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Murray
"Off-shore wind power must be a vital component in developing renewable energy output that will reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels and help us to meet climate change targets. This area has the potential to make a significant contribution and will also help to drive the creation of new sustainable jobs in an area greatly in need of them. It may well be visible from the heritage coast and indeed from the new South Downs National Park but i do not view this as a disadvantage , especially as steps have been taken to ensure that the power lines connecting to the national grid are not intrusive in the landscape."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Karen Henderson and Dr Fraser Duncan
"Our land is directly adjacent to the land acquired for access/building works. There has been a lack of specific information to be able to come to a view regarding the impact of the work required to build the electricity sub-station and the impact of the completed structure on our property although it is likely to be detrimental. There has been poor communication with those most affected by proposed building works, no local impact report and a lack of detail with regard to the final plans to be able to comment and potentially influence the final design to minimise impact. Also what mitigation are E-On prepared to offer? HRA Art 1 and 8 likely to be engaged."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Simon Markwick
"I disagree with the application in two ways: Firstly on the basis of the damage the project will do to the local environment, particularly in terms of the visual impact that the wind farm. Secondly I object to the investment of public (tax payers' and utility bill payers') money in such a project which would otherwise not be viable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Royal Yachting Association
"The RYA has set out its position clearly on offshore wind development and each developer is aware of the RYA position. The RYA will resist any application for any application for an operational 50m safety zone without compelling evidence of need and means of accurately determining infringement. The RYA expects that the charted depth as the export cables come assure will be maintained. The inshore passage along the coast is popular among cruising yachtsmen and we do not expect the indiscrimninate use of rock dumping for cable protection to affect this or to reduce chart datum at any other location connected with the offshore works."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Jones
"i support the revised proposal in the reduction of turbines to 175 whilst retaining capacity at 700MW. I support the reduced field of view to 20 deg. I support the onshore cable route proposals and the substation location with construction access wineham lane. The landscape/sea view will be enhanced to provide and support the next generation with sustainable power, low impact and new landscape features."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr. Keith Bickers
"There still appears to be no mention of the coast area between 'Brooklands' where the cables will come ashore and Worthing pier. This area of coastline will be directly impacted by the view of the windfarm yet nothing is said regarding the reduction of field of view. You mention the 'heritage coast' and do not specify which part of the south coast this refers to. Thanks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cyndy Downie
"I object to the placement of the turbines offshore where they remain in sight of the Heritage Coastline. Thousands of people have moved to the coast to enjoy the coastal view and have recreational pursuits all along the coast line. The blight of 175 turbines even with a 20 degree view will seriously impact the much needed tourism trade and property investment along the shoreline. Also, there has been little publicity about the proposal and a large number of the population have no idea how severely their sea view will be blighted. This proposal has been the biggest secret on the South Coast."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laurence Tondelier
"I support the proposed offshore wind farm and wish to be kept up-to-date on the application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
littlehampton commercial fishermens association on behalf of littlehampton commercial fishermens association
"hello If you in effect, block off an area of sea that has been traditionally fished by a number of fishermen, then these fishermen have to work elsewhere.In doing so the amount of available fish in that area has to be shared by more fishermen, consequently reducing their income.We [LCFA] have already expressed our concerns regarding this proposal to Chris Tomlinson and David Guy, and are all totally against any reduction in our fishing grounds. Please also note that when more fishermen fish a smaller area,it normally results in friction between them, which we definitely dont want We have many other concerns regarding this proposal, but i am sure you understand how we all feel, although we all know there is nothing we can do to stop it kind regards danny [secretary LCFA] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Todd
"I support the proposed wind farm and would like to be kept informed regarding its planning status."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Dargan
"I support the creation and location of the wind farm"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Edward Felton
"If the wind farm goes ahead I willhave an uninterupted view of 145 wind mills"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Edwards
"I am an interested local resident, who rents a field for a horse near the south downs, who wishes to be kept in the loop regarding works carried out."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Paskins
"I am writing to support this application. UK needs more renewable generation. I have examined the plans at exhibitions and I am impressed at the level Eon have gone to to make this application as benign as possible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Blamires
"I am concerned about the visual effects of a large wind farm on the sea views from and around Worthing."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vicky Wakefield-Jarrett
"A resident of nearby Brighton, I have a keen interest in energy and environmental issues. I am broadly in favour of these proposals, as I am in favour of the development of renewable energy sources, to meet our long term energy security needs. I think being able to view the wind turbines will be very resourceful to local schools to teach about issues of energy generation and climate change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Downey
"Having spoken to trawler skippers in the area, I am concerned about the displacement of fishing effort and how this will effect my fishing practice. I think the fishing industry should be considered for any work opportunities that arise through the development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leila McCormick
"I am unhappy with the underground cabling. This route will distroy downland turf and forna in the National Park, and cut through hedges and ancient woodland in the weald."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Fuller
"I have no objection per say but I am concerned about the displacement of the trawlers and whelk fishermen who will indirectly affect my income. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel McEnery
"I disagree with this wind farm. Wind farms have been proved out to not be cost effective forms of producing electricity, they are very harmful to the environment in their construction and subsequent destruction, harmful to the environment in their operation and are ugly and will effect the tourism of Brighton. Great Yarmouth has a wind farm off its coast and it looks awful I saw it last year and it ruins their skyline."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Thomas
"1. The turbines will be highly visible from the coastline and will destroy the visual amenity. 2. The substructures will radically affect the seabed, and nobody knows how this will affect sealife; water and tidal flows and submarine life and activity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Parker
"The proposed site will affect my fishing opportunities and I have been given no details of how any losses of fishing area will be compensated for as I use the area many months of the year. I started a new drift net fishery 2 years ago and feel this will not be possible when the turbines are in place. I would rather be able to fish than be compensated for loss of income."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Steer
"dissagree The visual impact The effect on low-flying migrating birds"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fatih Kariem
"The main principals to be examined are: 1- the appearance of the coast line with the number of wind farms. 2- Have the option of investing the money on the research and development of wind turbine is considered in place of this project? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jax Atkins
"I have lived in Brighton all my life. I feel I want to have a say in the proposed wind farm. I am in agreement with the proposal of the siting of an offshore wind farm in Sussex. I believe it in much-needed. It will not be an eye-sore nor a blot on the landscape! I used to have a holiday chalet between Whitstable & Herne Bay - there was an offshore wind farm sited there & it was wonderful to look at; depending on weather conditions sometimes it looked very remote & other times close. I didn't encounter one person who disliked it... I would like to represent as to the appearance of the wind farm if the need arises. I will attend hearings or write an opinion if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Lewis
"Brighton and Hove is a magnet for tourism to the UK. To destroy the nature of that site by the placement of this windfarm would be tantamount to vandalism of the local economy based on tourism. There is a large and thriving business community based upon the use of the water sports facilities of the sea. By reducing the height of the waves which Brighton and Hove receive will lower the quality of the experience of those water based sports and activities and thus effect the local economy and the enjoyment of those sports. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Miller
"I, in general, support the proposals. However, with some concerns. One major concern I have is for the fishing fleet leaving from Shoreham Harbour. According to the shipping lanes they would as a result be forced to detour around the turbines: and as a result incur extra costs for the foreseeable future. I would hope that there would be compensation for such. Another concern I have is that of the power line to Bolney running through picturesque countryside of SDNP, I hope appropriate compensation be paid to farmers and householders and there be as minimal inconvenience as possible. I also have concern about the ecology out at sea and on land where the power line will run. I need to be reassured of a minimisation of impacts to precious species of marine and land flora and fauna. I do support the scheme and a diversified energy pool of which wind is essential. Therefore I feel it necessary to get the maximum number of wind turbines possible. It seems utterly pointless to minimise the number of turbines: as it is no conciliation to opposers. One may as well build the maximum here possible without drastic ecological impacts to avoid elsewhere in the country having turbines (land or sea) and therefore having opposition there. If you are going to pass it, pass as many as possible. I also support the economic arguments for the local area but would like to see them stronger. It is essential for EON to give as many jobs to local people as possible. Not only that but use as many ships from Newhaven and Shoreham as possible and engineering companies from the local area in construction. I would also encourage a community grant from EON to B&H. To summarise I support the maximum sustainable number of turbines here, but want to ensure onshore and offshore ecology and encourage EON to support the local economy and local communities as much as possible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Donald Bickerstaff
"As a fisherman who has fished this area for more than 35 years I hope the industry will be treated with the respect it deserves and will full consideration for our fishing practice. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Diplock
"I, and others do have a right to fish the waters that are either within the boundaries of common British Waters [6 mile], and also the right beyond that boundary, internationaly. This is where I am an interested party, if it will affect my rights as a Commercial Fisherman, Fishing as I have done for many a year. There is different termonolgy in one who is a 'Hunter', which one is, those fish is not ones property until it is caught within ones gear, as laid down in 'British Law', so one has to hunt for those species and a 'Hunter' has rights. I have stated the above for what ever purpose it affects the way in which I Fish across the watery Land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Isabelle Anderson
"I support this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr.C.R.Weaver
"Living as I do,at height, with close uninterrupted/partially uninterrupted,visual/audible access to/from the proposed wind farm,I am concerned and feel confident that 24/7 period noise from the proposal, on the prevailing south- westerly wind direction will irrevocably blight my existence in my property;I therefore feel that sound recordings should be taken by e-on in now present circumstances,to be compared later when the proposed development may be in operation;neighbours and indeed Seaford Town in general could be effected by a potential environmental noise blight. concern is also felt over a potential dispoilation of an otherwise natural uninterrupted heritage that has and should continue for all,especially when other less invasive modes of power generation have now superceeded wind farm generation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Needham
"I disagree with this proposed application on the grounds of: 1)Environmental 2)Ethical 3)Financial 4)Visual Issues"
Parish Councils
Twineham Parish Council
"It is appreciated that this is a project of major importance and the Parish Council has no objection to the principle of the project. However, as the substation is to be sited in Twineham, it will probably be the only parish in Sussex to suffer a long term impact from this very large construction project. During the construction phase the Parish Council requests that: • Hours of work to be restricted to 8 am - 6pm Mon - Fri, 8 am - 1pm on Saturdays and no work on Saturday afternoons, Sundays or Bank Holidays. • Lighting - this is a sensitive site in a rural area of farmland. We request that the absolute minimum of lights are used at night and that these lights are appropriately screened with cowls. • There should be a one way system for deliveries to ensure that residents are not subjected to 28 months of noise from reversing lorries. • A full arborcultural survey to be undertaken before any work is commenced. There are a large number of trees and hedgerows that will be affected by the works and will need to be reinstated. The existing hedgerows contain a number of mature oaks that will also need to be replaced. • Wheel washing facilities are installed on site and used by all vehicles leaving the site • No workers to live on site • Deliveries and workers coming to the site are given clear instructions as to the route to the substation to avoid use of the eastern end of Bob Lane which is completely unsuitable for any additional traffic • Further consultation will be required with local residents regarding the traffic management plan • A full “noise map” to be provided • Local representative to be included in the Liaison Working Group The Parish Council would also make the following points: • Buildings should be buried, with bunding and tree screening • No further enlargement of the site in the future • Detailed information to be provided about the community infrastructure contribution to be made available to the Parish Council Obviously, this is a very large infrastructure project that will have a major impact on our small, rural community. The Parish Council wishes to ensure that all measures are taken to keep disruption during the long construction process and the subsequent management of the plant to an absolute minimum. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Ray
"I object to the loss of untrammeled sea views which have always been part of our national heritage. Most man-made objects in the sea are transitory, passing along the coast. The occasional lighthouse is acceptable and oil rigs, although ugly, do tend to move way. The only view that one can still have which has not been marred by man's activities, is out to sea. The viewpoints that will be affected are from areas of national importance including the South Downs National Park and seaside urban conservation areas which include Grade I listed buildings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr L.H.Aslett
"I am concerned about low frequency noise from the wind farm. E-on admit in their documentation that low frequency noise can travel long distances.In terms of distance the land is close to the turbines and the prevaling wind is south west which will blow the noise on-shore.There will be noise but it their documentation E-on have not given much improtance to it and do not have any plans to mitigate this and the attitude is that you will have to put up with it. E-on have not done their calculations on the actual turbines but have extrapulated the data from a different turbine thus we do not know what the noise level will be. Many people have their lives seroiusly affected by noise disturbance and there is no way of excaping from it. The bigger turbines that are proposed are significantly taller than previously and thus the possibility of a high level of low freguency noise disturbance is therefore greater."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Leslie
"none yet I don't have any objections especially, just wanted to keep up with progress and be an interested party"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Leach
"Antill i hear more of what is going on with the wind farm, I still object to it as i have stated this many times. This is just another nail in the coffin for genuin fishermen, who have fished that area all their lives. I will not give up without a fight. c.i.leach"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Hammond
"I have concerns with the cost, necessity, and visual effects of the proposal, but also with the effct on birds and maritime life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Tait
"Dear Sir, I reiterate my original comments, which were basically that I thought our beautiful natural sea view would be spoilt, the electricity would cost and exorbitant amount to maintain and there are better way of making electricity, i.e. Hydro electricity, which beautiful countrys like New Zealand use and their lakes and waterfalls have a double value as they become visitor attractions that people want to visit rather than being put off by lots of metal windmills! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Williams
"I disagree with the building of this offshore wind farm for a number of reasons. The siting of this huge development in an unspoiled area in full view of the coastal strip will create a permanent eyesore for which there will be negligible environmental return. Wind turbines, it has been established, will also kill large numbers of seabirds and will generate noise and vibration which will be heard and felt along the shore. The projected effective life of these turbines has recently been downgraded to between 12 and 15 years and one wonders whether such a short period of productivity can justify this huge development. Offshore wind generation of energy is the least efficient and most costly of all forms of power generation and this development is only viable as a result of unnecessarily generous Government subsidy which increases energy costs to us all without and significant environmental gain."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Newhaven Marina Ltd
"Newhaven is a township in dire need of regeneration. Rampion will be key to getting newhaven 'back on its feet' . In short this project can not come too quickly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
S. Lovelace
"As a neighbor opposite the planned entrance to the substation I have major concerns with regard to both noise and construction arrangements. Specifically to unsuitable road traffic in a narrow country lane."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Gore
"The Consultation Feedback did not satisfactorily answer the following questions raised:- 1)Concern regarding affect on lug worm population in beach area damaged by landfall operations. 2)Response to House devaluation completely ignored the fact that the VOA has had to re-band properties where wind farms have been located. 3)Affect on local climate due to reduction in wind energy not answered. 4) The reduction in size and number of wind turbines does not reduce the visual impact sufficiently."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Harry Linfield
"My property lies within 450mtrs of the proposed run of the onshore cable as it passes through the Parish of Woodmancote. Between my property and the proposed run are a line of pylons supporting high voltage electricity cables which are also routed to the national grid substation at Bolney and which also pass through the South Downs National Park. The outline of my submission is: · The existing power lines across the downs North of Shoreham in West Sussex are a scar on the landscape of the South Downs National Park · They would be less of an health hazard and less of an eyesore if they could be routed underground · With the advent of the onshore adjacent routing of the proposed Rampion underground cable the opportunity is there to reroute them underground at minimum cost · The Scoping Report mentions multiple ducts in the trenches so it would appear that an extra duct or ducts to carry the present overground cables should not be a major problem compared with the improvement to environmental impact "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hotel Nineteen Ltd
"I am wholly in favour of the wind farm because our country needs to invest in renewable energy. As an hotelier I also belive it will have a positive impact on the tourism industry in Brighton"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian White
"i am a commercial fisherman working in this area at different times of the year,so therefore i am interested in anything that will hamper my operations and way of earning my living."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Enever
"I have lived with my family on the cliff tops in Peacehaven for the past 27 years. We have direct sea views. The proposed turbines are excessive in size, will be a blot on the seascape and possibly a danger to shipping. The costs, energy and resources used in producing, erecting and maintaining these will be disproportionate to the energy they will produce. I fear a future turbine graveyard."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Vlok
"What research has been done in to whether house prices will be affected by the wind farm?"
Local Authorities
West Sussex County Council
"The County Council is of the opinion that there may be impacts, both positive and negative and both off-shore and on, relating to this development, which may require consideration. Details of these will be made available at a later date."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Rogers
"I AGREE with the aims of this application and support it. The principle reasons are the need to increase the proportion of the country's energy demands to be met from renewable resources; and more locally, the specific economic benefits anticipated from the use of Newhaven port. I have been the county councillor for Newhaven since 1989, but am retiring at this year's local elections."
Parish Councils
Kingston Parish Council
"Kingston Parish Council has considered the consultation information and strongly opposes the Rampion project because: 1. It is uneconomic - Council believes the amount of energy produced will not cover installation and running costs and it would not be viable without government subsidy. 2. The wind turbines will be visually intrusive, being clearly visible from land and sea. 3. The laying of cables to transport energy will be disruptive to the seabed and countryside. 4. It will be damaging to the ecology of the seabed, the coast and the countryside and represents a particular hazard for birds and marine life. 5. Council suggests that schemes to harness tidal energy would be both more efficient and more sustainable. 6. Council is concerned that there should be a proviso that if the scheme goes ahead and is unsuccessful the equipment should be removed and the disrupted seabed and land re-instated AND the cost of this should be met by the developer. 7. Support for these views from our residents has been evidenced by a recent Neighbourhood Plan Survey to which 39% of households responded. The results showed that residents in Kingston do not support wind turbines - domestic or off-shore. When asked in the survey: a) Whether the Plan should "Encourage installation of domestic wind turbines, providing they do not alter the character or aesthetics of the property or surrounding area" 70 % were against this (44.6% strongly disagreed with only 9.8% strongly supporting) b) “Are you worried about: off-shore turbines?” 57% were worried. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cliff Dargonne
"my concern would be to see that some 'local' employment comes out of any final project. It appears that all recent infrastructure projects progress with minimum local participation. For local I would suggest 'Sussex' or preferably 'BN' post codes, rather than the rest of UK/Europe generally."
Parish Councils
Bolney Parish Council
"Bolney Parish Council is concerned about what considerations, if any, are being given to the access to the new substation along Wineham Lane from the A272. The A272 is an extremely busy road and we have yet to be advised what proposals are to be put in place at the junction of these roads to protect parishioners in terms of traffic delays. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Allen
"I would like to find access to the application; arguments for and against, as there hasn't been very much publicity relating to the application to build a wind farm."
Other Statutory Consultees
NATS En Route LTD
"NATS does not anticipate an impact on its infrastructure from this development but nonetheless wishes to register as an Interested Party."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Williams
"I believe this wind farm development will be detrimental to the area in that it will destroy boating and pleasure in the area. It will destroy the sky line and be a blight on the seascape. Despite so called expert opinion it will damage the environment and eco of the area. I am STRONGLY against the wind farm development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Peter Jones
"I support this proposal as I recognise the urgent need to decarbonise our economy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason Kilburn Evans
"I am happy to support this important development. My life is made much easier by access to affordable electricity and for this I am very grateful. But my comforts should not come at any cost, particularly in relation to the inheritance left for future generations. So I wholeheartedly support the development of renewables in my local area as it is both an important thing generally and also fulfills the maxim "Think global, act local.""
Parish Councils
Washington Parish Council
"Washington Parish Councillors are in the process of discussing the proposal and will make formal representation following agreement of all members at a Full Parish Council meeting. Rebecca Luckin Clerk to Washington Parish Council"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bruce Gibson
"I strongly object to the installation of a wind turbine farm off the Brighton coast for the following reasons; • The exhibition I attended by Eon clearly showed the visibility of the farm from Brighton, particularly on a clear day. Such installations of the coast in a famous sea side resort do offend the eye. • Such an installation may put tourists off coming to Brighton and therefore it is a loss to the city. • An installation of this magnitude should be placed where the turbines cannot be seen by millions of people, so locations around Britain should be sourced, even if the installation is a higher cost. • There is no financial gain for the residents of Brighton to have such an installation in view. • There are concerns about the impact on the land side, which could be more easily dealt with in non populous areas. • I suspect that such an installation could cause havoc to shipping and loss of life. "
Other Statutory Consultees
English Heritage
"English Heritage is an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and reports to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. We are the Government’s lead advisory body on all aspects of the historic environment in England and have a statutory role in the planning system. Central to this role is the advice we give to local planning authorities and government departments on development proposals affecting designated heritage assets, such as listed buildings, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and conservation areas. The National Heritage Act (2002) made English Heritage responsible also for maritime archaeological remains in the English area of the UK Territorial Sea. English Heritage made representations at the pre-application stage. We now propose to offer comment on the application and how the applicant has addressed our previous comments and recommendations. We are intending to work with E.ON on a statement of common ground. Our comments are likely to relate principally to: - The archaeological interest of buried archaeological remains on the site of the offshore development and cable routes; - The archaeological interest of buried archaeological remains on the site of the onshore cable routes and substations; and - The effect of the development on the setting of onshore heritage assets. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Highways Agency NDD SE
"The Highways Agency is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England’s strategic road network on behalf of the Secretary of State. The proposed cable crosses our network at the A27 in Sompting, West Sussex. This section of the strategic network is heavily trafficked particularly during peak periods when it operates under considerable stress with habitual slow moving traffic, queues and delays. Consequently, we would have concerns should additional traffic be added to the A27 or its junctions around Sompting without appropriate mitigation measures being identified and implemented. Additionally, the proposed onshore sub-station located at Bolney is likely to require construction traffic to use the A23 to access the site. We are therefore interested in the safety and operation of the A23 in this vicinity and further afield in relation to the movement of abnormal loads on the strategic road network. Although we have had discussions with E-ON prior to this application, these have not yet been concluded to our satisfaction and therefore we are currently a potential objector to this Project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Monteum Limited
"Located off one of the World’s busiest shipping routes, Shoreham is important for larger commercial vessels (tankers, dredgers etc) as well as recreational and fishing vessels. Direct species habit loss from foundations and scour protection is estimated at a minimum of 839510m2 (100 turbines), potentially resulting in the loss of habitats, nesting, spawning and nursery sites, including those for Black Bream and Seahorses. Increased Suspended Sediment Concentrations (SSC) created by the construction, operation and decommissioning (CO&D) of the Project can be detrimental to certain species e.g. the SSC from dredging appears to have significantly reduced the amount of crab locally. Settling sediment could reduce habitats, nesting & spawning areas as well as cause morality in certain species, disastrously affecting the food chain. Noise will be created by the CO&D. Increased vessels will result in noise increase too. Black Bream have demonstrated avoidance of ?43km from noise sources, other species are also significantly affected. Increased noise can result in a change to spawning areas, fish distribution and physical injury/death. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and thermal radiation emitted by turbines, substations and power cables. Thermal radiation loss from the power cables has been calculated at approximately 100W/m over a length of 27km. Relatively minor changes in temperature can have a major effect on ecosystems. Migration routes and behaviour of fish and other species are likely to be influenced by EMF, potentially significantly affecting the fishing industry. Vessel surveys performed provide limited representation of number and frequency. Additionally, data gained using Automatic Identification System (AIS) and RADAR generally does not cover vessels ?15m length. A high proportion of vessels (recreational and fishing) in the Shoreham area are ?10m length. Vessels using AIS to assist navigation due to RADAR interference as a collision mitigation measure is a non-feasible option for a significant proportion of vessels. On average 40-45 ?10m fishing vessels land into Shoreham. A significant number of ?10m fishing vessels from Brighton, Littlehampton & Worthing and recreational boats from SYC, mostly without AIS, currently utilise the Project area. Additional Project vessel movements and the turbines themselves result in an increased potential collision frequency regardless of any mitigation measures. Rerouting existing navigational paths will increase journey times by ?1hr 30mins, adding valuable time, money and fuel. Potentially making Shoreham Port economically unviable for certain industries or resulting in companies, both landing in the Port and fishermen, having to put prices up. Exclusion zones of 500m/50m would be in operation during CO&D. Fishing activities must occur elsewhere. With revised navigation routes, additional vessels (Project vessels and re-routed vessels) now travelling through alternative fishing ground, the concentration of vessels increases and thus collision risk. Additionally certain fishing activities are hindered, e.g. beam trawling or pair netting may become highly dangerous / impossible. Commercially ICES_Rectangle_30E9 represents 30.2% of Shoreham’s landed fish, and nearly all landings for smaller ports, e.g. Brighton, Littlehampton and Worthing. The average annual landing of UK vessels from 2001-2010 was recorded at £4,638,579 within ICES_Rectangle_30E9. The Project would result in an estimated 139km2 of lost fishing ground plus exclusion zone."
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"The Environment Agency is normally a statutory consultee to planning authorities on development proposals. This application will affect a number of flood defences, cross a designated main river and other ordinary watercourses. We will provide more detailed written representations on these issues as well as other water quality aspects as part of the examination stage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Campbell
"Having studied the plans in detail i am in fovour of this development. There are a number of reasons for this the main one being that we need to ensure security of energy supplies within the UK, this is one step on this journey. In addition those of a NIMBY attitude need to underatnd that progress has to be made and there are sacrfices that need to be made on the way. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lars Welander
"Dear Sirs, I am concerned about environmental issues coupled to the development of offshore windfarms. Regards Lars "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr Peter Bacon
"My various comments were made last year to E,on on following receipt of the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm Draft Proposals, and my unique numver is   to which please refer. E,on in their letter to me dated 2-4-13, set out some of their key changes and mitigation proposals as contained in their final application, and i am please to see that these embrace to a large degree my concerns, viz: a) Reduced maximum area of site by 24 ? any maximum number of turbines reduced 175. b) Reduced feild of view from this heratage coast from 31deg to 20deg. c) reduced offshore export cable corridor. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Tim Holter
"Non-Technical Summary Doc 6.4 Seascape Visual Impact NTS.9.54&55 A significant aesthetic value of those parts of the National Park affording seaward views is the clear view across the sea to the horizon. This will be spoilt by the windfarm which will be visible over a lengthy stretch of the park. I most strongly object to the cluttering of the view from the iconic Seven Sister. For this reason alone the farm should not be allowed to proceed unless it can be entirely moved to a site westr of its current most westerly point. Landscape Visual Impact I object to the scarring of downland within the South Downs National Park which is likely to take many lifetimes to heal, if ever. ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY Section 24 Environmental Impact of On-shoe Cable Route My concerns are ornithological - prpotection of species of conservation importance TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 24.3.10 records birds were only an incidental part of other wildlife surveys/walkovers in December 2010 and March 2011. Summer migrant birds and nesting activity would be absent at those dates. 24.4.90 and following paragraphs do not list nightingales or peregrines. Both species are conservation listed. LITTLE EGRET (Egretta garzetta) Amber listed. Only 7 nest sites recorded in Sussex in 2011 24.4.92 A short distance south from the cable route at Applesham/ Coombes Road is a heronry which includes 7/8 pairs of nesting egrets (2013). They are very 'flighty' and likely to be dissuaded from using the heronry or frightened off during nesting. NO WORK SHOULD BE ALLOWED from February to August during their nesting period. NIGHTINGALES (Luscinia megarhynchos) Amber listed The cable passes near Sussex ildlife Trust's Woods Mill nature reserve and Oreham Common. This vicionity which extends east and west of these sites is a hotspot for nesting nightingales. I REQUEST THAT CARE IS TAKEN to avoid disturbance and, ideally, no work to take place between April and August BARN OWLS (Tyto alba) Amber listed & WCA schedule 1 species By not working in the vicinity of the nightingales would alsao avoid disturbance in the foraging area of owls nesting 600 metres away within the SWT reserve. There may be other active barn owl nest sites on the cable route. Contacting Sussex Ornithological Society may give more site details. PEREGRINE FALCON (Falco peregrinus) Amber listed & WCA schedule 1 species Only 20/30 nesting pairs in Sussex. XXX NO WORK SHOULD BE ALLOWED Between Old Erringham Farm and Beeding Hill between March and August "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Croker
"As a professional engineer, UK resident and sea user local to the proposed wind farm, having followed the scheme as it has been developed, I wish to express my full support for the Rampion wind farm proposals in all its aspects. The UK needs all the renewable energy it can harvest, and sooner rather than later!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amber Watkin
"I agree with the current revised application proposals."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The British Horse Society
"The British Horse Society (BHS) is the UK's largest equine charity and equestrian membership organisation, and the governing body for recreational riding. Its charitable objects include the promotion of equestrian safety, particularly on roads and equestrian access to bridleways and other off-road riding for the public benefit. My interest is in Document 8.3, Public Rights of Way Strategy. Specific approaches for dealing with closures/diversions on prow need to be decided on a case by case basis (and agreed in advance with WSCC RoW Officers). Relevant user organisations should also be informed. Prow closures must be minimised as much as possible, would prefer less than 3 days at any one time. and these must be well publicised, both on the ground and to relevant organisations. Final reinstatement of the prow within the working area must be to a standard equal to or better than prior to the construction works. Temporary reinstatement must be to a standard suitable for use by all legitimate users of the prow, especially important where the prow is a bridleway and used by equestrians. Maps showing HGV routes and compound sites should be provided to user organisations. Equestrians and HGVs do not mix well and it is very important that riders are made aware not just of the roads HGVs will use, but ideally the time of day this use will take place. Local roads are important links in the prow network and have to be used as access routes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr Alec Roy Coppard
" I have a number of objections to the proposed scheme. The first concerns the unreliability of wind power. The essential fact is that it needs back up from other sources. In spite of the size of the scheme, at best it will only supply two thirds of the domestic households in Sussex, not taking into account other needs such as those of industry, street lighting and rail transport. Its life will only be between 20 and 25 years: what will replace it and does such a short life justify the huge cost ? The second is the visual impact, that of a forest of steel only eight miles from the coast and up to 700 feet tall which cannot be disguised. The third is the environmental damage that will result from the construction of the inland transmission line. It is accepted that efforts have been made to reduce this and also that overhead transmission lines would be an even worse alternative, but the damamge will still be severe. Fouthly is the vunerability of the turbines. Has the effect of a servere storm, such as experienced in 1987 been taken into account ? Next is the fact that all major items of equipment, turbine blades, generators etc: will have to be imported ( a fact given in answer to a question at a recent meeting and never mentioned in literature provided). Much was made of the creation of a mere 85 jobs in Newhaven. How many more could have been created if all these major items had been manufactured in the UK? Lastly, in view of all the above, and the enormous cost of this project, and others like it, would it not have been better to spend money on futher research into carbon capture and storage? the technology does exisit as does that for other ''renewable'' energy sources, such as tidal flow. I would therefore question whether such an expensive, intrusive and unrelaible scheme would be worthwhile for such a relatively small contribution to the needs of the county as a whole. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs S Field
"I disagree with the environmental study as it in my opinion is not enough coverage of the whole area by 1 boat per month. Migrating birds use this corridor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mrs Val Wills
"1) I do not agree to the whole project 2) The huge cost of and overall lifespan of the windfarm (20-25 years) makes no long term sense. 3) For those living near/next to the site, their situation will be blighted and homes devalued. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Maritime & Coastguard Agency
"A formal written representation submitted by letter outlining the MCA position on navigation safety relating to the project. To view the representation, please click on the link: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Rampion-PINS-Interested-party-Response.pdf If this link does not open automatically, please cut and paste it into your browser. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
British Telecom
"We have studied this offshore wind turbine proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links. The conclusion is that, the Project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks. "
Other Statutory Consultees
National Trust
"Introduction The National Trust owns and manages extensive land holdings on the South Downs and in the surrounding area including Highdown Hill, Cissbury Ring, Fulking Escarpment, Shoreham Gap, Southwick Hill, Devil’s Dyke, Black Cap, Frog Firle Farm, Chyngton Farm and Exceat, Crowlink and Birling Gap. The Trust has a statutory duty to promote the permanent preservation of these properties and their enjoyment for benefit of the nation in the long term. The Trust supports renewable energy schemes provided they are of an appropriate scale and design for their setting and produce a net environmental benefit. However we do not support proposals that would seriously damage the beauty of our coastline. We believe that the location and design of all energy schemes should take account of the full range of environmental considerations. We note the changes that have been made to the Rampion proposal since the publication of the draft Environmental Statement (ES), in particular those relating to the landscape, seascape and visual assessment. Many of these are welcomed. However the Trust still has a number of serious concerns, particularly relating to the impact of the proposals on the amenity of our property, the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and the Heritage Coast. Impact on Designated Assets In spite of the revisions to the proposal the ES concludes that the windfarm will still have a major / moderate visual effect on the character of the elevated and coastline extents of the National Park and Heritage Coast. The SDNP attracts some 39 million recreational day visits per year and its proximity to a large population makes this a popular and highly valued area for recreation. The National Trust owns a significant part of the Heritage Coast which is one of the few remaining undeveloped areas along the south coast and is of exceptional importance and value. Impact on Landscape Character and Seascape Character In spite of the amendments to the scheme the ES still concludes that the impact of the proposal on the South Downs Landscape Character Area and the South Downs Coastal Waters Seascape Character Area is major. Impact on Visual Receptors We note the changes made to the assessment scoring to reflect specific viewpoint sensitivities. The ES now concludes that many of the viewpoints along the Heritage Coast and within the SDNP are of very high sensitivity. We note that the impact from several key viewpoints are now considered to be major, including National Trust sites at Birling Gap, Devils’ Dyke, Highdown Hill and Cissbury Ring. Recreation and visitor locations This section of the ES concludes that the proposal will have a major effect on the SDNP, on the beach at Birling Gap and on Highdown Hill. We believe the effect at Crowlink will also be major. Conclusion The National Trust does not consider that sufficient weight has been given to the status of the National Park and Heritage Coast. The SDNP contains a large population relative to other National Parks and is highly accessible to large parts of the south east region. We believe the harmful effects of the project in terms of impact on landscape, seascape and visual impact are likely to outweigh the benefits and as a result the proposal is contrary to government policy as set out in NPS EN1 and EN3. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Ilex Conservation Group
"We are a conservation group concerned with preserving the beauty and character of our coastline at Goring by Sea and we are concerned with the potential loss of visual amenity which will result if a large area of the seascape is dominated by Wind turbines particularly when they all require lighting to ensure safety."
Local Authorities
Lewes District Council
"Lewes District Council supports the proposal and would like the opportunity to make a representation on the following issues: 1) The economic benefit that the proposal offers, in particular with regard to the economy of Newhaven in East Sussex. Should the proposal be granted planning permission then Newhaven would be the operating and maintenance port providing up to 85 full time jobs. There would be even wider economic benefits to the local supply chain. The magnitude upon the local supply chain is dependent on whether the construction port is Newhaven. We are obviously supportive of the Port being used for construction and we would be looking to link employment opportunities to the local community and in particular the proposed University Technical College at Newhaven. 2) The visual impact of the proposed turbine array from the coast between East Saltdean and Newhaven and in particular from the Sussex Heritage Coast at Seaford Head. Our comments will be based upon the alterations made since the extensive consultation undertaken by E.on in 2012 which should haven ensured that the array is less visible. 3) The possible impact upon on inshore fishing, deep sea angling and recreational diving during construction phase and the mitigation proposed to limit any adverse impacts and so ensure that these activities continue and have an economic benefit. 4) The potential impact of the proposal upon coastal processes along the coast from East Saltdean to Cuckmere Haven and whether there is an adverse impact upon the sediment budget along coast between East Saltdean and Cuckmere Haven 5) We would to comment upon whether noise from the installation of the wind turbines at sea will be audible. We understand that the installation operations may require piles to be driven into the sea bed, possibly at night. Such operations may be audible at properties on top of the cliffs at Peacehaven. Our representation will include comment regarding the mitigation methods proposed we would wish to ensure that any impact is minimised 6) Noise emanating from the array once it is operational and the potential impact upon residents and visitors along the coast from Eats Saltdean to Seaford Head we would wish to ensure that any impact is minimised "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr Micael Tanner
"I object to this application for the following reasons:- 1) The cost of installation of 175 turbines and maintenance over the life does not cover the alleged power input costs 2) Do not agree with the costing and benefit to individual consumers 3) The ecological damage to the marine environment is unstable 4) The marine infrastructure and the navigational and existing fisheries will be irrevocably damage. 5) The coastal views will be lost and is detrimental to the enjoyment of residents and visitors 6) The project is against the local and national interest and the case of it has to be made "
Non-Statutory Organisations
West Sussex Local Access Forum
"The West Sussex Local Access Forum (WSLAF) is interested in matter affecting access, in particular rights of way. Specific interest relating to Document 8.3 Public Rights of Way Strategy WSLAF is an independent advisory body established under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to give access advice to local authorities, statutory organisations and non-government organisations. In giving that advice, the Forum's main objective is to ensure the existing network of public rights of way (prows), as well as the wider access network, is protected and where possible enhanced. The Forum has a balanced membership of knowledgeable and experienced users (walkers, cyclists, horse riders and carriage drivers), landowners and other interests (including conservation, disabled access, landscape). For further infomation visit www.wslaf.org Interested in matters concerning access on foot, by bicyle, on horse imparticular "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Charles M. Goldie
"The wind farm will make a significant contribution to the UK's move towards renewable energy sources and therefore to the long-term future of our country and its inhabitants. The visual impact will be minor and will soon be accepted. Other downsides are relatively less important. I support the application."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Newhaven and Seaford Sailing Club
"At present Newhaven and Seaford Sailing Club is neutral on the proposed developments. However the Club uses the foreshore of Seaford Bay for small boat racing, sail training and for other water based activities. We also have support boats for these activities in Newhaven Harbour. We also conduct some training in the estuary. We are concerned that future infrastructure plans for Newhaven Harbour will affect our activities either directly or indirectly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Richard Maile
"My principal reasons for objecting to the whole conceptof a wind farm in this locality are: The visual impact of the turbines as seen from the Heritage Coastline, including important seaside resorts such as Brighton, Worthing and Eastbourne. The impact of the proposal upon boat users, fishermen and upon the sea bed, which is an imp[ortant breeding ground for fish. Local knowledge/background: I am a Chartered Surveyor with 50 years of practice working from offices in Shoreham-by-Sea, Lancing, Worthing and Littlehampton. I have known the adjacent Sussex coastline for over 60 years, having aquired my first boat in 1953 at the age of 13 and started my own business at the age of 15 using 100 hook long lines from the beach at Lancing. My cathes were sold to Gunns Fishmongers in St James' Street, Brighton. From 1962-1968 I lived at   , a block of flats on Shoreham Beach. Since the mid 1950's I have sailed and raced dinghies and larger yachts based at Shoreham. I have also sailed the length of the South Coast on numerous occaisions in yachts ranging from 22 feet to 124 feet, HM minesweepers and supply vessels. Approximately 8 years ago I delivered a yacht from the Halberg Rassy Yard in Western Sweden via the Great Belt and Danish Islands and then to the Kiel Canal. This provided me with an insight into the devastating impact of windfarms upon the coast of Denmark. Nearer to home, the wind farms in the Thames Estuary have had an adverse impact as viewed from passing ships and boats. I understand the Danish Government has indicated that the offshore wind farms are not as economically productive as originally envisaged, a matter aparently ignored by the present UK Government. Detailled objections: The turbines would be visable from the Heritage Coastline and will therefore impact upon what is an important, unspoilt coastline and principal tourist locality. As to the impact upon fishing, I understand that the turbines will have an adverse effect upon the sea bed over a short period of time during construction work. However, given the current that will pass through the cables during the period when the turbines are in operation, it is likely that this will also impact upon these important fish breeding grounds. I believe professional evidence will be adduced at the Examination to this effect. Should the Inspector be in any doubt as to the visual impact of such a large wind farm in this location, which is to be sited directly on an important South Coast route for yachtsmen and small craft, he should either visit the Danish Islands or - closer to home - take a boat trip to view the offshore wind farms in the Thames Estuary. I would appreciate the opportunity of being invited to provide further detailed evidence at the Examination in Public in due course."
Other Statutory Consultees
Shoreham Port Authority
"Shoreham Port is a Trust Port and not-for-profit. Our mission is to provide a first class service to our customers and to continue to develop our excellent infrastructure and facilities to meet their requirements, in a commercially economic and efficient way. We are committed to discharging our statutory duties to ensure all ships can use the port safely and to safeguard the long term viability and future of the port. In principle we support offshore wind farms provided they do not adversely affect the safety of marine operations or the viability of ports. We are concerned that the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm proposal as it stands will have a negative impact on Shoreham Port and its stakeholders. 1. The required re-routing and increased passage distances for vessels using the Port. 2. The proximity of export cables to vessel anchorages. We have particular interest in the ES Section 14 –Shipping and Navigation and the Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) Appendix 14.1. We refer to figure 14.3 which provides an overview of the general methodology applied in the risk assessments. This methodology shows that the outputs from this process will include an ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) Statement. We request sight of the ALARP Statement without which we are unable to agree that the NRA is robust. Table 14.2 differentiates between approaches to major and minor ports and between designated large and small ship anchorages. It is unclear whether Shoreham Port has been considered as a major or minor port or whether the anchorages are for large or small ships. Without this information we are unable to agree the veracity of the NRA in particular the finding in Table 14.8 that the Residual Effect of “the physical presence of the wind farm structures may reduce access to local ports” is found to be Major/Moderate. If Shoreham is considered a major port (which it is) the sensitivity becomes high (not medium) and the residual effect becomes major. We draw attention to section 5.6.1 of the NRA and repeat our representation regarding the possibility of moving CS1 buoy and that stakeholders would be content with a 2nm corridor through the site. We do not consider that this option has been sufficiently evaluated. We refer to the NRA page 110 which lists the risk of a vessel anchoring on and/or dragging anchor over subsea equipment. We note that it is recognised that vessels anchoring off Shoreham can “drop anchor 3-4m below the seabed” and that the cable corridor will not be an official no anchorage zone. We agree with the mitigation of “Appropriate cable protection and/or burial”. Appropriate burial within 3 miles of the entrance to Shoreham Port will have to be much greater than 3-4m and regular survey and maintenance would also be necessary. We suggest that a more effective mitigation would be to move the eastern edge of the cable route area further to the west so that it is at least 3 miles clear of the entrance to the port. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
J.Openshaw (Ms)
"We obviously need to control CO2 emissions, but I think we should rely more on nuclear energy. Wind energy requires supplementing with a more constant base-load. Siting an off-shore wind farm of this scale in this area will affect tourism, bird-life and the sea-bed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Hil
"1) The effect of the On Shore Power Cable during consruction on the acees to Worthing via the A259 and the A27 from the east. These routes have high traffic on each road. Even if they are closed sequentialy during the on shore cable laying, the traffic density on the remainig road will cause major disruption. If the Western road in Lancing is closed to Provide access for consruction traffic will have a very aderse effect on the business conducted in the industrial estates accessed from Western Road. 2) The low energy density at the proposed maximum output of 700 mW means that the cost per kW/hr units to the consumer will be high in comparision with Gas Coal or Nuclear generation. If, as I have heard. that on average the utilisation from wind farms can be 36%, thus the capital cost of generation will be very high and demard will not be met, requiring addition power generation capacity. 3)The high costs will have to be borne by the Tax Payer inthe forn of the Subsidy claimed by the company and the diret consumer in the high energy costs that will acrue. 4) As e-on is a global company and it foiiows the example of other such compaies,it is most likely to repatrat its profits to a low tax Country. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Baxendale
"I am concerned about the construction of this site on the following grounds - Environment, the effect on birds and the disruption to marine life is incalculable - Safety, the busiest sea in the world will be littered with technological apparatus to damage and destruct leisure and commercial shipping, a vast obstacle,nothing more - Economics, the questionable longevity of wind turbines and the cost to manufacture has challenged the economics of this form of sustainable energy generation - aesthetics, this part of the coast is one of the most populated in th UK, the farm will ruin a view for millions of residents and millions of visitors"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Monika MacDonald
"There are no aspects of the application with which I agree. Frankly, the idea that the view from Brighton seafront should be forever blighted is beyond me, and how the Council can possibly be in favour of such an plan defies belief. Wind farms are brutally ugly and not even that efficient. Of course we need ideas to generate power cleanly and efficiently, but ruining a historic seafront is not the way to do it. If it has to be a windfarm then it should be sited somewhere over the horizon or far enough from a different coast so it cannot be seen. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scott Warman
"There are no aspects of the application with which I agree. Frankly, the idea that the view from Brighton seafront should be forever blighted is beyond me, and how the Council can possibly be in favour of such an plan defies belief. Wind farms are brutally ugly and not even that efficient. Of course we need ideas to generate power cleanly and efficiently, but ruining a historic seafront is not the way to do it. If it has to be a windfarm then it should be sited somewhere over the horizon or far enough from a different coast so it cannot be seen. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Saunders
"I am concerned with the following aspects of the application: The planned siting of the project will impinge significantly on the sea views of the part of the coast which is considered to be amongst the most attractive in UK. The project will be visible not only from the coast but also from inland areas such as Devils Dyke. The ruination of such views is a potential disaster for the inhabitants of Brighton and Hove and I believe will affect the tourist interest in the area and cause significant financial blight. The process of construction and then eventual decommissioning will place unnecessary starin on local transport links. The area proposed is part of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and will prove to be a danger for obvious reasons"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeff Livings
"E.ON have ignored our previous representations regarding the site of the substation and have chosen a location (site A) that will cause the maximum disruption, resulting in a conspicuous (E.ON words) change to the existing landscape. E.ON should consider an alternate brown field location, or as a last resort use the site closer (site B) to the existing substation at Wineham Lane as it is less disruptive to the majority of residents. If located at site A, the substation will be visible from all rooms on the south side of our property, all garden areas, including the garden room. The site A is completely across the rear of our property. All the main rooms of our property have a southerly aspect, meaning it will be impossible to take in any views without there being some impact from the substation. The proposed site is rural location with only very feint background noise of distant traffic and agricultural vehicles. The proposed hours of construction from 7.00am-7.00pm Monday to Friday and 7am-1pm Saturday will have a significant negative impact on the quality of our lives for 28 months. E.ON have stated noise levels will exceed target thresholds during these hours. As such, machinery should only be permitted between 09.00am and 5.00pm Monday through Friday with no weekend working allowed whatsoever. E.ON have failed to sufficiently consider the impact on traffic, particularly on country lanes, choosing site B rather than site A would impact fewer, small, country lanes. E.ON have stated 'Wineham Lane is already used by the adjacent Bolney substation and can accommodate abnormal loads', favouring site B. E.ON should sink the buildings within the landscape to reduce the visual impact, at least half of the structure should be below the existing ground level. E.ON should use bunds to reduce the noise and improve the visual appearance, the planting of mature trees should be done concurrently with the building works. No building should be permitted on elevated grounds. There needs to be an assurance the substation will not be enlarged in the future. Consideration needs to be given to sink power cables and reduce the number of pylons in this area as a balance to adding industrial buildings in a rural setting. All buildings need to have the appearance of rural, or farm type buildings. Consideration needs to be given to the negative impact on property values and the fact that properties cannot be sold during this period, as is presently being demonstrated with failed sales. E.ON have failed to consult with several neighbours and have omitted our previous comments and concerns from all published material thus far, despite having attended a meeting at our house. Consequently we do not believe the consultation process has been full and fair. E.ON have not given sufficient consideration to the site decommissioning, a maximum term of 20 years should be assigned to the planning approval, whereupon the site is returned to a rural setting."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Funnell
"As a born and bred Brightonian I feel the wind farm of the coast of the most prestigious seaside tourism area in the country will be detrimental both to the views and spoil the current windsurfing, motor boating and other recreational sports in the vicinity. This site is also one of the busiest shipping channel in the world. This is an accident waiting to happen. Birds are killed by these monstrosities. Why are cages not put around them for the safety of all? This coastline has been known to suffer occasional tsunamis - last whilst the Marina was being constructed in the 1970s whereupon a 10 feet wave flew over the breakwater, taking cranes with it. Several historical tsunamis have also taken place along this beach. The land south of Selsey Bill suffers undersea tremors which radiate this way. The very shallow coastal shelf (made up of two shallow clifflines below the waterline, is an ideal breeding ground for a tsunami, where the waters stop and gather height just before hitting land. For some reason, it is the very shallow waters which are the most dangerously affected, and Brighton has the hallmark of such a case, with ideal tsunami conditions. Also, Brighton bore the brunt of the 1987 hurricane. The coastline is formed so that strong wind hit Selsey Bill and are deflected towards this coastline. Wind farms need to be placed in unpopulated, obscure areas where the geology has been more carefully considered and where the potential for disaster is minimised."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr R M Hirst
"Our house is situated about 400 metres from the proposed onshore substation development, which we understand is to take about 28 months work, twelve hours a day. Our principal concerns are: - noise arising from the ongoing works - pollution arising from the extensive earthworks - traffic generated not only from the supply of equipment and materials, but also from the large numbers (up to 250 in any one day) of workers on the site - screening of the works during their activity and of the completed substation - reinstatement of hedges, verges, etc. of all roads used and fields crossed - lighting at night - the lack of any assistance from e.on in funding an agent to represent us and our neighbours (as compared with their funding of land agents representing land owners for the cable works) - e.on's current position that they will not consider any compensation for the disturbance and inconvenience caused. We make here no comment on the visual impact as, according to the current preliminary plans, the new sub-station will not be visible from our property. However, if the plans should change in this respect we would reserve the right to place our concerns on record with regard to this. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Ordish
"The proposal commits to the implications of choosing a relatively 'young' technology of immense cost (and public subsidy), scale and visual impact - even though it may quickly prove to be outdated, and the offshore location making it difficult to simply change and update to be more efficient. I do not see a plan to deal with this change. The 2D images of the proposed farm are deceptive. They do not appear to have been created using accurate (ie measured) 3D modelling software, nor do they show the impact of different weather conditions - in particular the likely turbine contrails that will result from the construction, obscuring the horizon for miles. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shoreham Beach Residents Association
"CONSULTATION. The initial Round 3 site was called Hastings. This is the next bay eastwards from Beachy Head and does not impact us. We were therefore surprised to find the proposal in the Brighton bay to the west of Beachy Head During the public displays held last year we attempted to ask questions about the location of the windfarm, but the staff on duty did not know anything about that. The Residents' Association Committee had a personal meeting with the managers from Eon where we raised the same questions about location and were told it was not for consultation or negotiation. We tried to raise the problem with West Sussex County Council but the woman there would not speak to us. We also note that there is no response from Adur District Council. Location From our homes on Shorehan beach we have a 150degree view of the sea from Beachy Head to Worthing The proposal will obscure the central 70degrees of this and we will see all the turbines. The turbines will be 13 km from our homes not the 19.5 Km recommended by SEA. Due to the height of the turbines there could be 4 red warning lights on each tower, i.e. up to 800 red lights which will flicker as the blades rotate and pollute a completely black horizon/sky. General Eon have based their predictions on an "industry expected" power output. Although there is a monitoring platform we have not any access to its results. We are aware that the wind here is vary variable there being days with no wind and other days with over 100mph gales so claims of powering large areas of Sussex should be compared with the existing gas-fired power station at Shoreham harbour which will produce twice the power all the time, not just when an appropriate wind blows and has one chimney half the height of the turbines"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Antony Thorpe
"I am not convinced that sufficient mitigation has been agreed by the applicant to views seaward from the Sussex Heritage Coast. Further consideration needs to be given to this very important aspect."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Gordon-Seymour
"Since the proposed development could possibly impact the valuation of our property we would like to be involved in the process to protect our legal rights as a property owner in the immediate vicinity. "
Local Authorities
Crawley Borough Council
"The Development Control Committee at its meeting on 3rd May considered this development and resolved to advise PINS that : Crawley Borough Council raises no objection to this proposal. A letter will also follow in the post."
Local Authorities
East Sussex County Council
"The County Council welcomes the positive impact the application would make to boosting the areas local economy, especially the potential for significant positive effects to Newhaven through the proposed location of Rampion’s operations and maintenance base at Newhaven Port. This would lead directly to the creation of approximately 85 jobs, and would help support many local businesses as well as attracting new businesses to the area. "
Parish Councils
Henfield Parish Council
"Henfield Parish Council has no representations to make at this time. It has registered as an Interested Party as it is understood that a section of the infrastructure supporting the wind farm, namely the cable route from the coast to the new substation near the existing Bolney substation in Mid Sussex will pass through the parish of Henfield."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Elizabeth Tinworth
"Primary concern: Noise I am unconcerned about the noise that would be caused during installation of the turbines. it is the low level constant mechanical and acoustic noise from the installation once it is operating that troubles me. I would like time to read the final documents carefully and then to submit my views on the matter later. Secondary concern: I am concerned about the impact of the farm on the area as a place of recreation. Shoreham-by-sea is a popular destination for visitors from the, very crowded metropolitan environments in the south east of England. Many of whom, I believe come to enjoy the natural environment. There are many small businesses that rely on this 'tourist' trade. I am concerned that the installation will fundamentally change the character of Shoreham in the eyes of potential vistors making it overall a less attractive destination. I would like time to read the final documents carefully and then to submit my views on the matter later. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suzanne Philipps
"I wish in principle to support the creation of the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm. It has been shown that the underwater supports to the wind turbine does support additional marine life in which various species of fish can survive without the threat of destruction of the seabed by bottom trawlers and being subjected to fishing. I would also like to support all the provisions given by the Sussex Wildlife Trust to ensure survival of sensitive species and threatened species during the construction of the windfarm. EON will need to give assurances that all possible protection be given to breeding species under threat due to noise and vibration during construction and to cease working temporarily during the breeding season of vulnerable fish species. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Weinhold
"I am interested to know more about the final set up and how this will affect the land that will have to be dug up for the power cables coming from the wind farm"
Local Authorities
Brighton & Hove City Council
"Benefits Overall the council supports the principle of the windfarm, which will provide the following benefits: Environmental • An important contribution in helping tackle climate change. • Locally raising the profile, understanding and acceptability of renewable energy – in line with the council’s Zero Carbon ambition for all energy to come from renewable sources. • Positively contributing to the city’s One Planet Living objectives and international Biosphere Reserve aspirations for the city region. Economic • A modest creation of jobs and associated spin-off benefits for the local economy. • Helping secure Newhaven port’s future and role, in line with area’s proposed City Deal and vision for the Greater Brighton Area economy • Potential economic benefits through boat trips from Brighton Marina to the windfarm for sight seeing and fishing. • Benefits for local supply chains with estimates of 700 sub-contractors in the city region potentially involved. Concerns The seafront is fundamental in determining the city’s role as a major visitor attraction (as has recently been reflected in the results of public consultation for the council’s draft Seafront Strategy). The seafront continues to attract investment for new facilities such as the Brighton Bathing Pavilion proposal in Madeira Drive, the Brighton Wheel, and the i360 observation tower project. The council therefore requests that consideration of the planning application fully explores the issues below Noise and Visual • A precautionary approach should be taken to ensure that this application does not negatively affect by way of noise and visual intrusion the assets and benefits that the seafront brings to the city. • There has been insufficient information to date that definitively states that the noise from the off shore activities will not be audible to shoreline receptors. It is critical that such assurances are provided and have scientific evidence to support such claims. Further information is necessary from the applicant. Community Mitigation & Engagement Options should be explored to: • Involve people in a local share offer/community ownership of a turbine in the array through a community energy scheme. • Provide a visitor / interpretation /education centre with potential links with the city’s proposed i360 seafront observation tower as the best place to view the array. Great Yarmouth’s interpretation / visitor centre attracts 40,000 visitors per year for 30 small turbines. With 8 million visitors to the city annually and a much larger array, a centre for Brighton & Hove could be expected to have larger visitor numbers and a bigger impact. Shoreham Port • Further discussion with Shoreham Port Authority is strongly encouraged to minimise any adverse impact to commercial shipping using the port arising from the siting of turbines. Other issues • Concerns regarding marine ecology should continue to be taken up with Sussex Wildlife Trust. Concerns regarding the cable route impact on the South Downs National Park should continue to be addressed with the Park Authority and other key local stakeholders. The impact on Heritage Coast views should also be reduced further if possible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
COLIN CHILD
"My earlier brief and formal representation dated 4 Aug 2012 was allocated two ID nos. [id 1638 +1664] and neither 'summary' bore any even remote resemblance to what I wrote. I share, and, adopt, the South Down Society's concerns. However, I am revolted by the idea that the view out to sea from the sea front and the Downs will be ruined by these proposals. Furthermore, recently published proposals by the French authorities to harness sea water power near the Channel Islands offer a much better prospect. I am not convinced that crossing the Downs as proposed is necessary and contend that the power generated should be used in the heavily populated coastal area or taken across the Downs where Brighton is currently supplied [Is it Southwick or Portslade?] If this is not being done because the current supplier of the greater Brighton area is unwilling I would be outraged"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Sutton
"RAMPIAN OFFSHORE WIND FARM: PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE ENO10032 We are protesting about the proposed plan by the German Company E-On to put 195 wind turbines each a minimum of 180M (585 feet) high and could be 210M high - off the coast of Sussex. The projected lifespan of wind turbines is 20 – 25 years at the most. What happens with the environmentally damaging detritus of the concrete and metal left after that time. Left for our future generations. THIS NOT A GREEN SOLUTION. We are fortunate to have higher than average sunshine hours in Sussex and we SUPPORT SOLAR POWER to produce energy which is of great benefit to households financially. Surely in these times of hardship for families and the older generation, cheaper green energy must be of greater importance. One report stated a household’s electricity bill dropped from over £500 to £60 per year with solar panels. It has been suggested that roof tiles can be made into solar tiles and the Government could make it compulsory for new buildings to have these, the same as high standards of insulation in buildings is required now. The proposed wind farm will never provide cheap energy. Foreign firms building these wind farms reap £500 million a year in subsidies from the U.K. These subsidies could be given to schools, hospitals, care homes and others, to fit solar panels and thereby reduce the energy required from the grid and greatly reduce costs to the individual buildings. Pollution comes in many forms and it will not be just the visual pollution we will suffer from the proposal but noise pollution (by E-on’s own admission in their literature) and as the wind and weather in our area comes predominantly from the South or South West, this noise will be amplified on shore. Our coastline in Sussex is not only loved and appreciated by local people but is visited by thousands of people every year searching for open space and beautiful views from the shores out to sea and from the South Downs behind us. Our area boasts safe bathing for families and ideal conditions for all water sports including yacht racing. This is also a known route for migrating birds and therefore will have a devastating effect on birdlife. The South Downs were only recently awarded National Park status but the cables from this proposed wind farm will have to be put underneath this supposedly protected area. The highest of the turbines could be 210M and Cissbury Ring, an ancient hill fort on the South Downs, is only 165M. There have been many reports of wind farms not being efficient and not producing power when it is needed most, or being paid to turn the turbines off. However, the energy companies, none of them British, receive such colossal tax payer funded subsidies, that the actual energy produced is a secondary factor. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Joseph Armstrong
"against the proposal.It is a blot on the landscape and a complete waste of puplic money The person who complied this form is making it difficult to complete.It is an biased form and I intend to raise the matter with my M.P."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Gwyn
"The proposed Rampion Wind Farm will have a negative and detrimental impact in this location. I am concerned with the excessive intrusive effects of the size of the proposals on:- visual impact, environmental impact, hazard to shipping, bio-marine wild life and high maintenance required. I am not assured that the project is cost effective and the impact of excavating for power cables connection to the National Grid is immense and therefore costly. I therefore disagree with the proposals and wish to stongly object."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr G Pile
"I am opposed to this project as it will disturb and destroy the sea life in the area. It will also ruin the views from my home, the beach and the South Downs National Park for all visitors. There is no evidence that this is a cost effective method of energy production."
Members of the Public/Businesses
mr gary edwards
"i object to the proposed wind farm on the grounds that i am a commercial fisherman who actively fishes within and around the proposed site and feel that the displacement of fishing activity will seriously affect my livelyhood. i also believe that other restrictions such as ships sailing around the wind farm and dredgers being denied to access their dredging within the windfarm and therefore will increase dredging on other grounds that i fish. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs E Pile
"My husband and I live on Hove seafront and do not wish to have the natural beauty of the sea blighted by a wind farm. The views from the South Downs National park will also be damaged for generations to come. Local sea life will be damaged. Some days we have no wind in this area, whereas the tides and wave power could be a more efficient power source and not spoil the views."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Marion Armstrong
"wind farms are a total useless and a waste money.The only people who benefit are the German operators."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Bairstow
"I do object to the planned offshore wind farm. As a local resident and British citizen I believe that the benefits of the farm and its sustainable energy are outweighed by the detrimental effects. I feel strongly that artificial structures on the horizon would be something that would be of significant harm to the population of the uk and those who inherit this land from us. I believe that the natural status quo of the visual environment in which we live has greater value than is suggested by the planners. I believe that the unfettered horizon is of a great benefit to the health of this and future populations of this country. I also believe that were these to be built that they would not be readily or easily removed should the need arise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
UK Chamber of Shipping
"The UK Chamber of Shipping wishes to register as an interested party in the application to construct and operate the Rampion offshore wind farm. The UK Chamber represents the safety and operational interests of the UK commercial shipping sector and wishes to raise concerns over the level of consultation with our organisation as an industry representative stakeholder prior to submission of the application. Beyond a consultation meeting with E.ON and its navigational risk consultants in April 2011 and an invitation to the Navigation Hazard Workshop in January 2012, the UK Chamber has received no direct technical updates on the project prior to submission. We also did not receive documents relating to the formal Section 42 and Section 48 consultations in June 2012. Before submitting further formal written comments to the Planning Inspectorate, we wish to discuss a number of concerns with E.ON, including: • The proximity of the southern site boundary to the entry/exit of the Dover Strait Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS); we feel that the proposed 4.4NM distance may be inappropriate given that the shipping template included in MCA Marine Guidance Note 371 recommends a distance of 5NM between a site boundary and the entry/exit of a TSS. • The safety impacts of the project on vessels anchoring beyond the exit of the TSS, which we do not feel are covered adequately by the Environmental Statement. • The proposed rerouting of cargo vessels bound for and from Shoreham Harbour, as illustrated in Figure 14.29 of the Environmental Statement, on which we require further clarification regarding the likely usage of each routing option. • The potential displacement of smaller craft towards areas of high density commercial shipping activity and the associated increases in navigational safety risk. A meeting between E.ON, the UK Chamber and the Royal Yachting Association has now been set for Friday 17th May. However, we feel that E.ON should have approached stakeholders for further discussion well in advance of the application submission date. We hope that this meeting will address the concerns outlined above and inform our formal written comments to be submitted at a later stage of the examination process. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Carter
"I strongly oppose the Rampion scheme as it will be a visual pollution to the Sussex coast. Also, the proposed project will produce electricity at a much higher cost than could be produced by alternative schemes.These increased costs will borne by the current tax payers and will shackle future generations with a much higher energy cost than our manufacturing competitors. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annie Gilbert
"I believe that building >100 wind turbines only 9 miles off of the coast of Brighton will spoil a 21 mile spectacular uninterrupted view. I own 2 seafront properties with sea views and these views will be completely altered. I believe the value of the properties will decrease as well. I haven't seen much media coverage on this application and believe that many people living/owning seafront properties or boats between Newhaven and Worthing have no idea what is being planned. I believe other alternative ways of generating power have not been explored enough and think that all the disruption to build this very large wind farm will not be worth the temporary - wind turbines last 20-25 yrs only - assistance in generating electricity. Wave height will be affected which will trouble our large surfing community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Murphy
"As we live on Wineham Lane we are mostly concerned about the noise produced during the building of the sub station which, in a quiet country area like this will be considerable and intrusive. In the country noise travels a long way especially in the summer months, when obviously we are all outside more. Our other major concern is the amount of traffic this project will generate. We understand there is an estimate of about 6,000 vehicle movements during the building time and that about 250 people will be working at the site at any one time. This will result in an enormous increase in traffic, up and down what is really a small country lane. There are also two small bridges with bends, which are already in a fairly delicate state. Our final concern is t over the diminished value of our property while the planning process and building of the sub station goes on. This will result in a lot of uncertainty during that time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Carter
"I strongly disagree with the rampion scheme as it will visually pollute the off-shore views from the Sussex coast with the aim to produce electricity from an unecconomical source, the cost of which will be carried by me and all other users of this electricity. I request you consider the use of alternative energy sources which do not blight the sea and land scapes with the proposed hideous windmill structures. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Hardy
"As a UK citizen I want to preserve my right to contribute to the deliberations involved in reaching the decision on this application because of the gravity of its impact on the area where I live."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Sexton
"Our coastline in Sussex is somewhere not only local people love and appreciate but is visited by thousands of people every year searching for open space and beautiful views from the shores out to sea and from the South Downs behind us. I am protesting about a proposed plan by the German Company E-On to put 195 wind turbines each a minumum of 180M (585 feet) high off the coast of Worthing in West Sussex, visible from Littlehampton in the West to Lewes in the East. They are planning the biggest offshore wind farm only 8 miles off a coastline that relies on its tourist industry and boasts safe bathing for families and ideal conditions for water sports. Pollution comes in many forms and it will not be just the visual pollution we will suffer in Worthing from this proposal but noise pollution (by E-on's own admission in their literature) and as the wind and weather in our area comes from the South or South West, this noise will be amplified on shore. This is also a known route for migrating birds and therefore will have a devastating effect on birdlife. We are fortunate to have higher than average sunshine hours in our area in Sussex and we support Solar Panels to produce energy which is of benefit to households financially. One report said a household's energy bill dropped from £500 to £60 a year. Surely, in these times of hardship for families and the older generation, this must be of great importance. It has been suggested that roof tiles could be made into solar tiles and the Government could make it compulsory for new buildings to have these, the same as high standards of insulation in buildings are required now. The subsidies could then be given to households to have their roof retiled with these solar tiles. There have been many reports of wind farms not being efficient and not producing power when it is needed most, however the energy companies receive such colossal tax payer funded subsidies, that the actual energy produced is a secondary factor. As we understand, all the current commercial onshore and offshore wind farms are owned by foreigh companies, meaning all these subsidies disappear from the British economy and consequently it is purely a money making exercise without care to the British peoples' viewpoint and living environment. The projected lifespan of wind turbines is 20 - 25years at the most. What happens after that time? What happens with the environmentally damaging detritus of the concrete and metal left? It is therefore not a solution for power for future generations. David Sexton"
Members of the Public/Businesses
G C Williams
"1. Generally. Wind farms (onshore and offshore) are not an efficient solution to the UK's energy needs; the LX supply from them is spasmodic and needs back up which, because not constant is inefficient, carbon emission saved is cancelled out by what is expended in their construction and installation and they cause disproportionate disturbance (e.g. the long carry from the coast to Bolney to supply the National Grid - not, as suggested, the inhabitants of West Sussex). 2. Specifically. My concern in relation to the effects on Wineham Lane, and my request that no widening, strengthening or straightening of the Lane will take place and that vehicle drivers will be required drive along the Lane slowly and with due regard for those who use it and/or live beside it, is set out in an email sent by me to Mr Tomlinson at Eon on 25 January.Perhaps the traffic burden could be shared with other access routes (?Kent Street)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GlaxoSmithKline
"The GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Worthing site is located on Southdownview Way, south of the Upper Brighton Road (A27). It manufactures medically essential prescription medicines to a worldwide market; the manufacturing capability at Worthing supports trans global markets and is of strategic importance to GSK. The site occupies approx 38 acres and is one of the largest employers of direct staff and resources in the Worthing area. The site is therefore not only important to the GSK business but also to the local economy and to the national/worldwide health market. Part of the proposed underground cabling, which will connect the proposed E.ON wind farm to the new substation at Bolney, will be laid in close proximity to and at one point will cross, GSK’s trade effluent outfall pipeline, which runs from GSK’s Worthing site across neighbouring land and out onto the sea bed. The GSK effluent pipeline was installed at a depth of approx 1 metre during the 1970’s; the pipe is made of PVCu and is of 12” diameter. The pipe carries consented trade effluent from the site out to sea where it is discharged. In the event of a breach of the pipe the breach would be detected by GSK and will result in the cessation of all manufacturing, process and utility operations within 48 hours. GSK has the following specific concerns • Existing easements that are in place where the effluent outfall pipeline runs across neighbouring land - the lifting of and the overlap between E.ON’s exclusion area and GSK’s working area. Especially during any maintenance works in the future following cable installation. • There are a number of points where E.ON’s access routes to their cable will require potentially heavy machinery to be taken over and along the route of the GSK pipeline. • Where the cable route crosses under the GSK effluent pipeline – damage to the pipe during installation works, not just from the installation activity, but the subsequent land movement that it could cause. • GSK requires confirmation that the offshore route of the cabling and associated works will not impact upon the offshore part of its effluent pipeline. The proposed route of the cable for the wind farm, both onshore and offshore, therefore creates a serious risk for the GSK operation. GSK has had discussions with E.ON regarding how best to resolve these concerns. An objection was submitted to the earlier E.ON proposals. The current proposals raise however greater concern than the previous proposals since they have greater potential to impact upon the GSK operation. GSK is keen to progress communication with E.ON to mitigate any effect that E.ON’s development may have on its effluent pipeline. Until such time that such an agreement is reached GSK wish to formally object to E.ON’s proposals. GSK must ensure that it protects its ability to supply its worldwide customers with medically essential drugs and that this is not compromised by the installation of new infrastructure over its existing facilities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Beaver
"I disagree with the proposal on the grounds that the public have not been given an opportunity to disagree with the plan for Rampion Offshore Wind Farm. At no point have we been given an explanation on why a wind farm with widespread impact on scenery, sailing, marine life etc has been chosen as more appropriate than hydro electricity or other electrical generation. We have been given options over the size of the turbines and Eon has reduced the degrees of vision but we haven’t heard of the comparative effectiveness of other alternatives. Further to this promotion has been discrete and difficult to find."
Local Authorities
Hampshire County Council
"Thank you for affording Hampshire County Council the opportunity of commenting on this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Having considered the proposal in detail from a range of different perspectives, reflecting the various statutory functions the County Council performs, I can confirm that the County Council does not consider that the proposal raises significant implications relevant to those statutory duties. Therefore the County Council wishes to make no comment at this stage in the application process. However, I would be very grateful if you would keep me informed of progress on the application, particularly if any changes are made to the scope or detail of the project, as it progresses through the consenting process."
Local Authorities
Horsham District Council
"As an interested party, Horsham District Council reserve the right to provide a more detailed written representation later in the Examination process. At this stage it is anticipated that any further representation may address aspects such as landscape, biodiversity and air quality and transport matters. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Hove Civic Society
"We support the principle of wind turbo generators to keep the lights on in a carbon-free way, but object to E.ON’s proposed cable to Bolney, which breaks the golden design rule of minimising transmission distance and voltage transformations. Rampion’s 100 or more generators should be matched and cabled directly at 33kV to the existing 100 or more coastal substations from Littlehampton to Newhaven, to minimise capital and operating costs and consumers’ bills. Bolney is 20 km inland, whereas the consumers supplied by Rampion live in those coastal towns along. Taking Rampion’s power to Bolney is like going to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head, incurring excessive costs and losses. The cable carries Rampion’s power 48km further than necessary (28km from Sompting to Bolney, plus 20km back to Fishersgate) and transforms it’s voltage 6 times (33kV to 132kV, up to 400kV, down to 132kV, down to 33kV, down to 11kV, and down to 240V) The Inspector should refuse this design as ‘gold plated’, as the cable to Bolney is unnecessary. He should refer the design back to E.ON, and insist that Rampion’s generators be connected in a consumer- and environment-friendly way, requiring only 2 stages of transformation (down from 33kV to 11kV, and down to 240V) by being connected at 33kV to the coastal substations either: • Individually and directly, by 100 or more undersea cables, or • Collectively to Shoreham power station busbars, (owned by Scottish Power/Iberdrola) from which existing cables connect to Fishersgate / SouthernCross 132kV substation (owned by Power Networks) and thence to those costal substations, which is also connected by 132kV overhead transmission line to Bolney. This alternative design will save consumers the capital cost (£100 m) of the cable to Bolney, and avoid it’s environmental damage, and it’s losses in transmission"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanna Shackleton
"I am quite simply concerned about the impact of this proposed off shore wind farm on the sea scape of our south coast and would like to be kept informed of developments that are likely to affect me."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Stockdale
"I welcome the proposed generation of electricity from windpower off shore where it should have a minimal impact on the amenities of local residents. I have some concerns about the vulnerability of the array of windturbines to damage by shipping and terrorism. But, I would like an opportunity to view all the proposal documents and to comment on them at a later stage."
Local Authorities
Mid Sussex District Council
"Mid Sussex District Council would like to register an interest in the application, as part of the scheme is within the District Council's boundary. As such, further representation will be made during the necessary period, including submitting a Local Impact Report."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr L G Smith
"I agree with the need to provide environmentally sustainable solutions to our local power needs. My interest is the minimalisation of impacts on the local fishermen and their livelihood, the marine ecology and air pollution of my local environment during the contruction phase so that i know that every day when I see the turbines at the end of my road I will know that EON have conducted the project with these concerns in mind. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"NETWORK RAIL REPRESENTATION TO E.ON CLIMATE AND RENEWABLES UK RAMPION OFFSHORE WIND LIMITED – DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER ("DCO") APPLICATION This representation is made on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail). Network Rail is the owner and operator of Britain’s national rail network, and has duties in relation to that network arising both from the original Authorising Acts and from the Railways Act 1993 Network Rail have an interest in land which is the subject of the DCO application. The DCO application affects Network Rail's operational rail land including proposed compulsory acquisition for installation and maintenance of cables which are proposed to go underneath the Brighton to Worthing South Coast railway line, which is part of the National Rail operational infrastructure, by way of horizontal directional drilling. Network Rail has a duty to maintain the operation and safety of the National Rail infrastructure. The application, as currently proposed, would have an unacceptable impact on the operation and safety of the railway. However, this could be overcome by the incorporation of Network Rail protective provisions (Protective Provisions) in the DCO. There are no protective provisions currently annexed to Schedule 12 of the draft DCO submitted with the application and some are clearly required in order to protect the operation and safety of the railway. Protective provisions in favour of Network Rail and its predecessors as owner and operator of the national rail network are well precedented in both Transport & Works Act Orders and in Development Consent Orders, the most recent of which is the Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order) 2011. Network Rail have standard procedures in place which could operate under Protective Provisions to enable the project to go ahead without compulsory purchase affecting operational railway. Therefore there is no justification for granting provisions in the DCO for compulsory purchase. Network Rail is in discussion with the promoter with a view to agreeing the inclusion of Protective Provisions in the DCO, and for making arrangements and agreeing terms for the carrying out of the DCO project without compulsory purchase affecting the operation and safety of the railway "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Hanley
"All our representations and objections relate to the construction of the proposed onshore electricity substation at Twineham. We disagree that E.ON has taken into account the opinions, concerns and objections raised by us and our neighbours in Bolney and Twineham over the location of the new substation and the impact that the construction of the new substation will have on the local community, road users and residents. 1. We object to the site chosen for the construction of the new substation. E.ON has failed to take into account the representations we and others made that the Wineham Lane site (Option B in Section 3 of the Environmental Statement (‘ES’)) is preferable to the Bob Lane site (Option A). 2. We argue that the process to select the site set out in Section 3 of the ES adopted by E.ON is flawed. 3. We dispute Section 27 of the ES as to the noise levels during the construction, operating and decommissioning periods of the substation. No account has been made of the natural topography of the area and the effect this will have on the actual noise levels. The consequence of this failure is to significantly underestimate the true impact the noise levels will have on us and other residents close to the construction site and the extent of loss of amenity and quiet enjoyment of our homes during the construction, operating and decommissioning periods of the substation. 4. We argue that the landscaping measures proposed by E.ON in Section 26 of the ES are inadequate. To properly mitigate the impact of the new substation on the rural countryside and on the property owners surrounding the site, E.ON should firstly level the proposed site to the lowest point of the site and then the base of the substation should be dug down well below the new ground level by several metres. Earth bunds should be built around the construction site (before construction commences) to reduce the visibility of the site from the local residents and to reduce construction and operating noise levels for those of us that have to live near the site. Planting of mature trees and shrubs should be done at the commencement of the construction of the substation and not at the end of the building period as suggested by E.ON in Section 26. 5. We suggest that E.ON has failed to appreciate the full impact on the country roads and lanes in the vicinity of the site of the proposed substation of the additional construction site traffic E.ON predicts will use the roads on a daily basis for 2 ½ years over the construction period and the full impact of such additional traffic on the local residents. 6. Despite requests, E.ON has refused to pay for a land agent to represent local residents to protect our interests in relation to the construction of the proposed substation. 7. As a direct consequence of the Rampion project and through no choice of our own, we are going to have to endure: • uncertainty during the planning process over the next 18 months; • thereafter, excessive noise levels during the 2 ½ year construction period of the substation on a site only 300m from our property for 12 hours a day, 5 ½ days a week; • after that, operational noise from the new substation; and • in 20 years’ time, further noise during the decommissioning of the substation. Our house is listed and consequently we are prohibited from having double-glazed windows so we have no means of mitigating the impact of a building site noise levels ourselves. We therefore seek compensation for: • the loss of amenity and the impact on the enjoyment of our home and our ability to choose to sell over the next 4 ½ years during the planning and development of the Rampion project; • the devaluation of our property during this period; • the devaluation of our property during the operation period; and • the loss of amenity and impact on our enjoyment of our home and our ability to choose to sell during the decommissioning period. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Letts
"As my house is in the general vicinity of the proposed Bolney sub-station development, I wish to be kept aware of decisions made or possibly made on this, in case they could have an adverse impact on the environment close to me. In particular, I would wish to see the proposals for natural screening of the development implemented if the scheme is to be given the go-ahead, in order to lessen any visual impact on the local area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ramblers Sussex Area
"We are concerned principally with the Rights of Way and access implications of the application, set out in Document 8.3 Public Rights of Way Strategy. The specific approaches for dealing with closures and diversions to be agreed with PRoW Officers should be subject to consultation with User Groups. Long term temporary closures should be minimised as much as possible and consultation with User Groups on proposed permanent closures should be as early as possible. The level of use of a PRoW should not determine whether a diversion is required. There should be wide advertising of the temporary closures not just in the immediate vicinity of the line of the path. Temporary reinstatement of a path should be suitable for all legal users and permanent reinstatement should be to a standard equal or better than prior to the construction works. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority
"The Sussex IFCA submitted a detailed response to the Development's Draft Environmental Statement on 7th August 2012. In accordance with its fisheries and conservation duties the Authority seeks to raise awareness of relevant matters relating to marine ecology and fisheries. Where possible the Authority has supported the provision appropriate evidence to be used in the assessment of the application. In this initial response the Authority provided comment on: General Comments Impact WFD and MSFD objectives that need to be considered in the application process, the cable corridor includes near shore FOCI Cumulative Impacts The Authority is concerned that the complexity of cumulative impacts on marine sytems are adaquately developed reflecting multiple user interests. Sources of data The Authority has indicated where further source data can be acquired including the Strategic monitoring work undertaken by the east channel association. Environmental Baseline The Authority have raised concerns as to the quality of spatial biological and geological information to support cable route mapping inshore. Imparticular FOCI locations associated. The need for appropriate resolution survey techniques. Fish and Shellfish Ecology Issues have been previously raised regarding the extent of data and greater need for information in respect to spatial and temporal fish/shellfish data. Commercial Fisheries The signifcance of commercial and recreational fisheries requires due regard in the development assessment process. The extent of cumulative issues with local MCZ is not fully explored in terms of impact. We recommend close consultation with the Commercial Fisheries Working Group. Monitoring and migitation Proposals for monitoring and migitation can be signifcantly developed. Enhancement of structures to improve marine habitat opportunities could be explored further "
Local Authorities
Adur & Worthing Councils
"Removal of Infrastructure It is not clear as to whether the infrastructure for the wind farm will be removed at the end of its service life. This should be firmly stated as one of the outcomes including the mechanism that will be followed. More certainty as to what happens to the proposed infrastructure to minimise future impacts is needed. A decommissioning strategy is therefore required at this stage. Socio/Economic Impacts and Mitigation A stronger commitment towards the benefits to the local economy is necessary to mitigate the impact on tourism and the temporary closure of facilities the area will face as a consequence of this development. Water based leisure activities are important to residents in the local area but are also a contributor to the tourism / visitor economy. These activities will be impacted during construction and operational phases and further modifications to the scheme or mitigation/compensation measures are therefore required. Local Plan Allocations and Cumulative Impacts The ES does not take into account new development proposed in the draft Adur Local Plan, which, if approved could come forward at the same time as the construction of the wind farm. These sites should be accounted for in the ES in terms of cumulative impacts on the environment, traffic and the availability of construction labour. Visual Impact / Mitigation The ES (document 6.1.12) notes a large change in magnitude to the seascape off the Sussex coast with ‘major to moderate’ visual effects identified for a number of areas. No mitigations measures have been identified and whilst the visual impact of the wind farm cannot easily be mitigated, the visual impacts are considered such to warrant the consideration of a number of compensatory measures. Impact on Shoreham Port Shoreham Port is a major business which makes a significant contribution to the local economy. There is a concern that its long term viability could be impacted by the wind farm if vessels using the Port are required to re-route to avoid the turbines (thereby increasing passage distances) and their anchorages are affected by the export cables. Further modifications are therefore required to mitigate these problems. Sediment Transfer The effects of the proposal on nearshore sediment transport remain of extreme concern. Much of the barrier beach shoreline is heavily urbanised and any reduction will be significant to the management of future flood defence and coastal erosion measures. The outputs of the very high level analysis are acknowledged as being of low impact but not supported. The management of soft defences as the prime flood and erosion protection requires a longshore sediment flow. Any reduction, however small has an impact in the potential size and shape of a beach defence. The beaches have been monitored as part of a Defra funded project since 2002 so it is proposed that should beach volumes decrease following the installation of wind farm some compensation arrangements are agreed as part of the approval process. This proposal allows the scheme to progress albeit with compensatory measures. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Judge
"I am not convinced that offshore wind farms are a viable solution to the provision of energy. They are expensive, have difficult maintenance regimes, their availability if no better than 50% so require spare capacity to be provided in order to maintain supplies and the return on investment is questionable"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Brighton & Hove Friends of the Earth
"Brighton & Hove Friends of the Earth (BHFOE) welcomes the changes made by E.ON to its Rampion wind farm proposals. In particular, BHFOE is pleased that E.ON has listened to concerns about the impact on the Heritage Coast and significantly reduced the visibility of the wind farm from that part of the National Park. While BHFOE remains committed to supporting the Rampion wind farm due to the overriding need to generate renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions and to mitigate climate change, it would like to see further improvements. With regard to the Heritage Coast, BHFOE believes that there is scope to further reduce the impact on this special area, and given its importance in being one of the few undeveloped coastlines along the south coast, this should be prioritised. Secondly, while welcoming the undergrounding of the power lines and the proposed measures to minimise the impact on biodiversity and recreational users, BHFOE is not entirely convinced that a shorter route is not possible through the South Downs National Park. It is frustrated that E.ON is either unwilling or unable to work with other power companies to combine power lines through Shoreham and over Southwick Hill and Fulking, to deliver not only the connectivity to the National Grid but to also bring about significant landscape benefits by the removal of the existing overhead power lines. Thirdly, BHFOE would like to see significant community benefits arising from the development to recompense for the permanent landscape impact the development would have and for the short term disruption it would cause the local community and visitors to the area. These should include: 1. Funding to remove eyesores in the South Downs, including existing overhead power and phone lines 2. Funding to improve rights of way in and to the National Park, particularly an improved crossing for the South Downs Way where it crosses the A283 near Upper Beeding 3. The creation of a visitor / educational centre which could explain the need for the wind farm and teach people about climate change, but also about the wider environment, particularly linking with the Biosphere Reserve bid Finally, BHFOE would like to see the opportunities for community ownership of one or two wind turbines explored, to enable the local community to have a stake in the wind farm and thus directly benefit from its construction. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Campaign for National Parks
"The Campaign for National Parks is the charity that campaigns to protect and promote National Parks in England and Wales as beautiful and inspirational places enjoyed and valued by all. It has been in existence for over 75 years. We represent the interests of the National Park Societies and work closely with them to ensure that National Park purposes are promoted and observed. We are working closely with the South Downs Society in our response to this proposal and our comments focus on the potential impact on the South Downs National Park. We have recently agreed an updated policy position statement on energy infrastructure. Whilst we recognise that National Parks have a key role to play in contributing to renewable energy and climate change targets, our position is that renewable energy developments within National Parks should only go ahead if they are of an appropriate scale and should be located in such a way as to minimise their visual and environmental impacts and that proposals for any new energy infrastructure in areas immediately outside National Parks (including offshore) should take account of the impact on the National Park setting. In this case, we recognise that the proposed offshore location is preferable to an onshore one and we also welcome the proposal to underground transmission cables. We are aware that during the pre-application consultation, the South Downs Society questioned the case for connecting the wind farm to the national grid at Bolney, as this necessitates a cable route across the National Park and also questioned both the proposed landfall and the cable route itself within the National Park. These issues largely seem to have been addressed in the formal application submission, although we share the South Downs Society’s concern that the justification for crossing the National Park seems to be primarily on cost grounds. It is essential that the project is implemented with the least possible disruption to public enjoyment of the National Park (given this is one of the statutory purposes of National Parks) and particular care should be taken to avoid disruption to users of the rights of way network – even short diversions or closures can be extremely inconvenient for those walking, cycling or horseriding. We therefore welcome the commitment to a communications strategy for users of rights of way, to minimise disruption. Our main concern relates to ensuring that there is appropriate mitigation for the environmental damage and disruption to the National Park that will inevitably result from the construction of this project. This should include a significant package of environmental measures to compensate for the ongoing visual damage from the turbines as well as the temporary disruption from the construction and cabling. This package should include, but not be restricted to, improved surfacing, safety, signage and furniture of rights of way near the cable route. The South Downs Society has identified additional measures which it would wish to see implemented as part of such a package. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Morris
"I object to the proposal on the following grounds, as someone who has lived in the area for 55 Years. 1. Location, opposite probably the most densely populated section of the coast 2. Scale. The project will spoil a huge area of the marine environment and will ruin views over an enormous area including from the National Park 3. Large scale disruption. In an already very congested area 4. Disruption of the unimproved grassland areas of the South Downs, in my experience these fragile soils take decades to recover from large scale disturbance. 5. Effect on local fishing grounds, particularly those used by smaller sustainable vessels. 6. I do not believe the subsidies involved are the best way forward. Energy conservation programmes should be the first call. Wind farms are not a reliable source of energy and generation periods do not always match demand periods. 7. I would expect very significant power losses in the proposed transmission scheme to Bolney 8. Industrialisation of yet another wild environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Henry Amherst Tufnell
"My objection to the project is related to the method of interconnection of the output of the the scheme to the national grid. The proposal of the applicant (EON ) is to transmit the output from the wind generators by 4 3 phase cables operating at 132kV. These cables will be extended from the coast northwards to the existing 400kV. substation at Bolney. where it will be connected to the 400kV bus bars through transformers and an extension of the existing 400kV station .. There is an existing 132kV system which is owned and operated by UK Power Networks. This 132kV systems connects Bolney to the south coast towns such as Worthing, Brighton, Lewes, Newhaven etc. The present system is also supported by the power station at Shoreham together with local generation such as the energy recovery plant at Newhaven. If the output from the project could be connected to the existing 132kV system by constructing north of South Downs, a 132kV substation thereby reducing the length of the cables and negating the need for the 400kV transformers and switchgear at Bolney. Advantage could be taken to underground the circuits across the Downs between this new sub-station and the existing substation known as Southern Cross. In addition energy losses in the cables and transformers would be reduced As far as I can find out, ( having spoken to UK Power Networks) the applicant has not contacted UK Power Networks to investigate how the overall system could be optimised. I therefore think the applicant should, with UK Power Network, commission a report to optimise the overall system and at the same time incorporate any enhancements which may be required in the foreseeable future"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been notified by E.ON Climate and Renewables UK that the Planning Inspectorate has accepted the development consent order application for the proposed Rampion Offshore wind farm. E.ON Climate and Renewables UK have previously consulted the MoD in respect of this proposed wind farm. In a letter dated 12th March 2013, the MoD responded to E.ON Climate and Renewables UK confirming that the MoD had no objection to the proposal. The MoD has reviewed this response and I can confirm that the MoD raises no objection to the proposed Offshore wind farm, subject to the installation of suitable aviation lighting. The MoD requests that all perimeter turbines are fitted with 200 candela omni-directional aviation lighting at the highest practicable point. The MoD acknowledges that in accordance with the Air Navigation Order 2009 and CAP 764, the CAA requirements will supersede the MoD’s specification. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ferring Conservation Group
"I am submitting this representation on behalf of Ferring Conservation Group (FCG) (www.ferringvillage.co.uk). General FCG is very much in favour of action to reduce CO2 emissions, in order to reduce the rate of Global Warming. Renewable energy sources have an important part to play in reducing the CO2 from electricity generation, and other technologies, such as carbon capture, nuclear energy and energy efficiency also have a part to play. Wind energy is one of a number of renewable energy sources which should be considered for electricity generation. Solar, tidal, wave, hydroelectric and geothermal energy must also be considered and the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of all these sources have to be considered in each location. In the UK, climate and topography are not particularly favourable to the production of electricity from wind: as the E.ON submission notes, the proposed wind turbines will generate power for only about 30 per cent of the time. FCG therefore considers that each proposed installation must be judged on its merits and not supported simply because it makes a contribution to the reduction of CO2. The Rampion Project FCG has reviewed the original documents describing the project and the key changes and mitigation proposals introduced by E.On in response to consultation. The proposed changes have reduced a number of concerns, particularly regarding off-shore environmental impacts, but the following remain. 1. Cost-effectiveness of the project. The low value of an operation which can only produce electricity for 30 per cent of the time is hidden by the subsidy given to generation from renewable sources. Clearly there are economies of scale available to off-shore installations but despite this, power generation costs given by the Committee on Climate Change indicate that off-shore wind electricity generation is nearly double the cost of nuclear generation, which is available 100% of the time and also saves CO2 emissions. 2. Impact on visual amenity. The installation would be very visible from the Downs, from Highdown Hill in Ferring to Beachy Head in Eastbourne. A large, dense, industrial site, almost 140 sq km, only 13 km off shore would destroy the view across this great bay. The modifications to the development site and layout will not reduce the impact for Ferring. The wind farm will be very visible from the beaches and E.On’s photomontage of the view one would have from Worthing promenade is very telling. The view would be little different from Ferring beach just 6 km to the west. It would do great damage to the view and to the character of these seaside communities. 3. Construction on the Downs. The proposed changes to the cable route and construction techniques for the on-shore works are welcomed but FCG remain concerned about the impact on sensitive chalk grasslands. Open trench construction is still proposed although E.On has no proven reinstatement method. Other construction techniques, such as directional drilling, or further rerouting should be considered. 4. Decommissioning. The responsibility for decommissioning is unclear in the event that the developer is unable or unwilling to undertake this final phase. FCG consider that an insurance policy/bond should be financed by the developer, and set up immediately on commencement of construction, to finance decommissioning by others if necessary. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Friends of the Earth
"As a national environmental body we have an interest in this major scheme. We believe that wind power is a key component of the energy mix needed in the UK if we are to increase the quantity of renewable energy at the pace required to meet our commitments under the Climate Change Act. We need a range of different sized wind power schemes across the UK in order to meet our target of 15% of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. We therefore support this scheme in principle but do have some concerns. 1. We are concerned that the underground route chosen by E-on for the cabling to the grid at Bolney could be more direct and make use of existing power routes which would have less impacts overall. 2. Whilst E-on have made changes to earlier plans in order to reduce the visual impact from the Heritage Coast, we feel that further work could be undertaken to minimise the impacts even more. 3. We would like to see more infornation and commitment to the level of community benefit that can be gained from this project. In particular, community ownership of one or two wind turbines would enable the local community to have a stake in the wind farm. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
H Lewis
"Concerned about the visual impact (day and night time) of the wide span of turbines in this proposed development. No attempts to mitigate the impact from areas other than the Heritage coast appear to have been considered. The compact option should be at the back, rather than the front (ie nearer the coast) of the proposed development area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
K Baker
"We are concerned about the visual impact on the heritage coast of the wind farm. Also, about the environmental impact to marine life. And, about noise issues in newhaven harbour relating to an increased traffic during the nighttime relating to support of the wind farm . id405"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Sheridan
"I am concerned about traffic management on Bob Lane during the construction period and the disruption to my quality of life due to noise during the building."
Other Statutory Consultees
Marine Management Organisation
"To view this representation, please click on the link: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130510MMO_RAMPION_SECTION_56_RESPONSE.pdf If this link does not open automatically, please cut and paste it into your browser. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Andrew Coleman
"I am concerned that no 'before and after' monitoring of impacts on surf or mitigation measures are proposed if the impact is worse than modelled. The draft Development Consent Order should contain a condition requiring monitoring and - if impacts are greater than a reduction at any of the surfing locations identified in the Environmental Statement appendices and mitigation to be agreed with the local planning authority and representatives of local surfing organisations and businesses. The mitigation measures should be implemented by the developer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Katherine Anne Hirst
"The development of this substation will be a lengthy process for those living nearby and our house is about 400 metres from the proposed development. My main concerns are: Noise Pollution The huge amount of traffic, not only from the HGVs but from the large numbers of people working on the site. Screening and bunding should take place before development No lighting at night The lack of assistance from E.ON in paying for a representative to represent us. Lack of compensation. Reinstatement of hedges, verges, etc. I find the way we are being treated, despite E.ON's representative saying they are "consulting" with us, very high handed and even immoral."
Other Statutory Consultees
DLA Piper UK LLP on behalf of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc
"REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION PLC ("NGET") IN CONNECTION WITH RAMPION OFFSHORE WIND FARM ("PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT") 1. SUMMARY 1.1 The development consent order ("Order") applied for by E.ON would cause an adverse impact to existing and proposed infrastructure of NGET in the absence of appropriate protective provisions. This infrastructure forms an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales. 1.2 The parties are in discussions regarding E.ON's proposed connection to NGET's existing substation at Bolney and the rights required by E.ON for its onshore grid connection and substation. NGET is engaging with E.ON. However, in the absence of appropriate protective provisions being included in the Order to safeguard NGET's existing and proposed infrastructure, NGET will maintain its objection to the Proposed Development. 2. NGET INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED WORKS 2.1 NGET has significant existing infrastructure that will be affected by the onshore cable and substation aspects of the Proposed Development. Details are as follows: 2.1.1 NGET'S high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines: • 4VM 400kV Bolney to Ninfield; and • 4VF 400kV Bolney to Lovedean 2.1.2 NGET's Bolney (400/132kV) electricity substation located adjacent to the proposed substation of E.ON. 2.2 Further, NGET must retain the ability to install further infrastructure on its land affected by the Order. Such land is retained for future operational requirements, including the replacement of infrastructure and to retain operational flexibility to respond to wider transmission system requirements. 3. NGET LAND INTERESTS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DCO 3.1 As part of the application E.ON seeks powers to acquire land interests from NGET compulsorily, to create new rights over NGET property and to override / extinguish various easement rights required for the purposes of NGET's land undertaking. 3.2 The extent of the land over which E.ON is seeking compulsory purchase powers is excessive and NGET is unable to assess fully the impact that will be caused to its undertaking. NGET therefore objects to the compulsory acquisition of its interests and reserves its position to participate fully in the examination process and make further representations. 4. SECTION 127 PLANNING ACT 2008 4.1 Finally, NGET notes the comments made on behalf of E.ON at paragraph 8.24 of the Statement of Reasons. It is incorrect that section 127 is not applicable. All land of NGET that is affected by the Order is either used for the purposes of carrying on its undertaking or an interest is held for those purposes (i.e. the criteria at section 127(1)(c)(i) or (ii) are satisfied). NGET's land interests are required for operation of the infrastructure noted above and for the future development of strategic infrastructure planned by NGET in this area. 4.2 Consequently, unless agreement can be reached between the parties over suitable protections to enable NGET to withdraw its representation, the Order cannot include compulsory acquisition powers in respect of NGET's land interests unless the Secretary of State has first issued certificates in accordance with section 127. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Natural England
"In addition to the relevant representation outlined below - Natural England have submitted their full relevant representation together with associated appendices and a covering letter to the case officer leading on this proposed developement. To view this representation, please click on the link: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Natural-England-Relevant-Rep.pdf If this link does not open automatically, please cut and paste it into your browser. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul morris
"Your representation: I object to the proposal on the following grounds, as someone who has lived in the area for 60 Years. 1. Location, opposite probably the most densely populated section of the coast 2. Scale. The project will spoil a huge area of the marine environment and will ruin views over an enormous area including from the National Park 3. Large scale disruption. In an already very congested area 4. Disruption of the unimproved grassland areas of the South Downs, in my experience these fragile soils take decades to recover from large scale disturbance. 5. Effect on local fishing grounds, particularly those used by smaller sustainable vessels. 6. I do not believe the subsidies involved are the best way forward. Energy conservation programmes should be the first call. Wind farms are not a reliable source of energy and generation periods do not always match demand periods. 7. I would expect very significant power losses in the proposed transmission scheme to Bolney 8. Industrialisation of yet another wild environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
philip howson
"my main worry is cliff erosion to peacehaven and telscombe cliffs, this will effect the tidal patterns on this stretch of cliffs"
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"The Health Protection Agency is now part of Public Health England, which is established to protect and improve the nation's health and wellbeing, and to reduce inequalities. Representations on the electromagnetic fields (EMF) and chemical health impacts of new strategic infrastructure projects are provided by Public Health England’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards based at Didcot in Oxfordshire. Public Health England notes the assessment of the EMFs produced by the new onshore cables and substation, as described in Section 2b of the Environmental Statement – Onshore Project Description. Public Health England advises that comparison with local area substations is not strictly appropriate as these operate at lower voltages than the newly proposed substation for stepping up to the National Grid. Further consideration should also be given as to whether case by case compliance assessments are required for new cables operating at voltages above 132 kV i.e. 150 kV, 220 kV and up to 400 kV in the cables connecting the two substations, and for substations containing air-cored reactors. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Donovan
"As a walker who loves the scenery of the area in question, I am dismayed that a very long cable duct should be laid which will intersect the newly created National Park, and much of the beautiful landscape to the North of it. I am concerned that the surroundings will NOT be restored to their full beauty, that the work will go on and on and disrupt walkers by closing rights-of-way, and also that the work will badly affect the flora and fauna of the region. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Clark
"Wind turbines are and eye saw period and what right does anyone have to spoil our Sussex seascape? Can you imagine a Turner painting with a wind farm on the horizon? Take away the subsidies and they won’t be built anyway. The whole wind energy programme is a scam as its totally inefficient far too expensive and has too many vested interests! The country should be investing hydro power in the English and Bristol channels plus shale gas and nuclear. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Sheridan
"This application will have a great detrimental affect to my quality of life over a long period as I live very close to the proposed new substation."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the RSPB) (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the RSPB))
"The RSPB has considered the potential impacts of the proposal on birds in both the onshore and offshore environment. We have a number of concerns that we would like to raise with the Planning Inspectorate, which are summarised here: Offshore turbine array – Collision risk Whilst the RSPB welcomes the additional surveys carried out in spring 2011, we are concerned that this is only one year of additional coverage for migrating seabirds and waterbirds. This may mean that pulses of birds moving through the area may have been missed, leading to underestimates of population density and consequently potential underestimates of collision risk. The collision risk modelling undertaken raises concerns for the RSPB in relation to gannet and kittiwake. Gannet is important in this context as there are three Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the species within range of Rampion. There is also a regionally important (and designated as part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest) population of kittiwakes near to Rampion at Seaford Head. Table 11.15 in the Environmental Statement notes a percentage increase in baseline mortality for gannet of between 1.3% and 5.1% depending on the avoidance rate used, and between 2.9% and 11.6% for kittiwake. The RSPB considers these increases to be significant given the importance of the populations of these species. In terms of gannets, the risk may be significant in combination with other wind farms built and proposed around the UK. During pre-application consultation, the RSPB raised the potential collision risk to migrating nightjars. The RSPB welcomes the inclusion of analysis for this species, and agrees that a 0.4% increase over baseline mortality would not be a significant impact on SPA populations. Offshore turbine array – Disturbance/displacement The information presented in the Environmental Statement raises concerns for the RSPB in respect of the disturbance and displacement of gannet, kittiwake, fulmar, guillemots and razorbills from the wind farm area. These species are important because gannets may be linked to SPA breeding colonies; guillemots were recorded in nationally important numbers in the wind farm area; and kittiwake, razorbill and fulmar were recorded in regionally important numbers. E-On helpfully supplied the Sussex Ornithological Society with the raw data for the offshore bird surveys, and these data imply that significant proportions of these species are using the wind farm area for feeding. The Environmental Statement concludes that as these species forage over a wide area the loss of the wind farm for feeding is of negligible magnitude and not significant. However, the RSPB would like to give this further consideration and reserves the right to present more detail on our concerns relating to this issue in a further written representation. Onshore Cabling During pre-application consultations, the RSPB had raised the issue of disturbance during cable laying of a number of sensitive breeding bird species. We welcome the avoidance and mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement and consider these sufficient. "
Local Authorities
South Downs National Park Authority
"The South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) outlined its key issues within its s42 consultation response submitted in August 2012. Therefore, issues of relevance to the proposal which the SDNPA intends to comment further upon in its Local Impact Report will be: 1.1. Renewable Energy 1.2. The Weight Afforded to the National Park Designation 1.3. Alternative Site Selection 1.4. The Barometer for Assessment 1.5. Attaching Significance to Key Issues 1.6. Localism 1.7. Comprehensive Assessment 1.8. Meaningful Statutory Consultation 1.9. Assessment of Alternative Routes 1.9.1. Chronological Process 1.9.2. Consideration of Duty of Regard 1.10. Landscape 1.10.1. Landscape and Visual Impact 1.10.2. Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impacts 1.10.3. Impact of Groundworks Upon Landscape 1.11. Ecology 1.12. Water 1.13. Heritage Assets 1.14. Coastal Impact upon the SDNP 1.15. Land Quality 1.16. Trees 1.17. Geology 1.18. Decommissioning 1.19. Community Consultation 1.20. Community Benefits 1.21. Access 1.21.1. Impact upon the Local Highway Network 1.21.2. Impact upon Public Rights of Ways 1.21.3. Impact upon the South Downs Way 1.21.4. Access Land 1.21.5. Impact upon the Wider South Downs Network 1.22. Construction Management 1.22.1. Impacts of the Additional Works Required 1.22.2. Phasing 1.23. Engineering 1.24. Socio-Economic 1.25. Waste "
Non-Statutory Organisations
South Downs Society
"The South Downs Society is the national park society (“Friends group”) for the South Downs National Park, committed to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape of the national park and its quiet enjoyment. Our comments will reflect this focus. The Society’s agreed planning guideline for renewable energy proposals amounts to a general wish to support such proposals provided they are appropriate in scale, location and design. Each scheme is to be assessed on its merits, depending on perceived environmental benefits and disbenefits. The Society’s position on Rampion through the consultation stages has been as follows: • Acknowledgement of the significant projected energy output, equivalent – it is claimed – to the electricity requirements of over 450,000 homes • Preference, all things being considered, for this offshore location rather than onshore • Recognition that the room for manoeuvre within the allotted area of seabed is limited by landform and the franchise tendering process • Welcome for the proposed undergrounding of transmission cables • Recognition of both the openness of the consultation process and the work put into the relevant environmental and technical assessments – even if there may be questions over some of the presentation, interpretation and evaluation • An emphasis, in the layout of the turbines, on protecting views from the Sussex Heritage Coast • A strong questioning of the case for connecting the wind farm to the national grid at Bolney rather than any alternatives, thus necessitating a cable route across the national park • A questioning of both the proposed landfall and the cable route itself within the park • Pressing for the least possible disruption to public enjoyment of the park, including use of the rights of way network • Mitigation of any environmental damage and disruption • An appropriate package of environmental compensation measures With the formal application and accompanying Environmental Statement now submitted, the Society has assessed the extent to which our concerns, summarised above, have been taken on board in the ES. We have concluded that there has been: • A welcome rearrangement of turbines to reduce the visual impact on the Heritage Coast • A reasonable case made for a grid connection at Bolney, rather than elsewhere, though this appears to be primarily on cost grounds: the safeguarding of Pevensey Levels by not using Ninfield as a point of connection wouldn’t in itself justify crossing the national park, were it not for the financial argument • A reasonable case made for the selection of landfall and cable route • A welcome commitment to a communications strategy for users of rights of way, including the South Downs Way, to minimise disruption • There is still every reason to press for a significant package of environmental measures to compensate for the ongoing visual damage from the turbines and the temporary disruption from the construction and cabling. This package should include, but not be restricted to, improved surfacing, safety, signage and furniture of rights of way near to the cable route. The Society has identified additional measures which it would wish to see implemented as part of such a package. The Society would be happy to co-ordinate its inputs to the examination process with other organisations raising similar issues, including the Campaign for National Parks. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
David Howey on behalf of Sussex Ornithological Society
"Offshore Turbines - Collision Risk: The Sussex Ornithological Society (SOS) is concerned that no data were collected on nocturnal bird migrants. The data in the Environmental Statement indicate significant numbers of Kittiwakes from the nearby, regionally important breeding colony feed in and pass through the proposed site. The Statement also notes avoidance rates for this species and the SOS concern is the risk of collision which may be significant. Offshore Turbines - Displacement: Data in the Environmental Statement indicate that the wind farm area is an important feeding area for Gannet, Fulmar, Kittiwake, Guillemot and Razorbill. Although the Statement concludes that as these species forage over a wide area, the loss of the Rampion area for feeding is not significant. However, as the area is clearly of importance, SOS is concerned that no alternative and equally important areas have been identified. Onshore Cabling: The issue of disturbance to several sensitive breeding species during cable laying has been raised by both the RSPB and SOS. The mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Statement are welcomed. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Trinity House
"Dear Sirs, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER FOR THE RAMPION OFFSHORE WIND FARM Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development would have on navigation within Trinity House’s area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order throughout the process. Trinity House has made an initial assessment of the draft Order. We note the savings provision for Trinity House in Article 12. In Schedule 1 (Authorised Project), Part 3 (Requirements), we request minor amendments so that our powers are consistent with other similar Orders. We submit that Requirements 8 and 11 should be amended as follows: "8. The undertaker shall at or near the authorised development during the whole period of the construction, operation, alteration, replacement or decommissioning of the authorised development exhibit such lights, marks, sounds, signals and other aids to navigation [ADD: "and take such other steps for the prevention of danger to navigation"] as Trinity House may from time to time direct [OMIT: in writing]." "11. The undertaker shall provide reports on the availability of aids to navigation periodically as requested by Trinity House [OMIT: in writing]." In Schedule 13 (Deemed licence under Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009), Part 2 (Conditions), Condition 5 (Notifications and inspections), we request that in subparagraph (5) after “MMO or MCA” insert “or Trinity House…”. Please direct correspondence regarding this application to the following email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected] Yours faithfully Anna Gibb Legal Advisor Trinity House Direct Dial:   E-Mail: [email protected] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annette Livings
"I would like to raise objection to the new electricity substation at Bolney. E-ON identified 2 sites for the substation and had limited contact with land owners, some neighbours who will be disturbed by noise & traffic have still had no contact from E-ON. Of the two sites, building alongside the present substation would provide the least disturbance to residents living in the area, although still a great disappointment to learn that we are to have another monstrosity in our area. To learn that E-ON have disregarded the large majority of residents and is proposing to build the new substation almost a km away from the present substation (which obviously they have to connect to) without been able to give specific reasons why - I would like the planning inspectorate to look into this and ask that E-ON apart from looking at environmental concerns also take into consideration the well being and mental health of residents living with the project for the next 2 years of planning then a further 2-3 years of heavy disruption then for a further 20 years of looking directly out within 600 metres of our garden. The proposed site is rural location with only very feint background noise of distant traffic and agricultural vehicles. The proposed hours of construction from 7.00am-7.00pm Monday to Friday and 7am-1pm Saturday will have a significant negative impact on the quality of our lives for 28 months. E.ON have stated noise levels will exceed target thresholds during these hours. As such, machinery should only be permitted between 09.00am and 5.00pm Monday through Friday with no weekend working allowed whatsoever. E.ON have failed to sufficiently consider the impact on traffic, particularly on country lanes, choosing site B rather than site A would impact fewer, small, country lanes. E.ON have stated 'Wineham Lane is already used by the adjacent Bolney substation and can accommodate abnormal loads', favouring site B. E.ON should sink the buildings within the landscape to reduce the visual impact, at least half of the structure should be below the existing ground level. E.ON should use bunds to reduce the noise and improve the visual appearance, the planting of mature trees should be done concurrently with the building works. No building should be permitted on elevated grounds. There needs to be an assurance the substation will not be enlarged in the future. Consideration needs to be given to sink power cables and reduce the number of pylons in this area as a balance to adding industrial buildings in a rural setting. All buildings need to have the appearance of rural, or farm type buildings. Consideration needs to be given to the negative impact on property values and the fact that properties cannot be sold during this period, as is presently being demonstrated with failed sales. E.ON have failed to consult with several neighbours and have omitted our previous comments and concerns from all published material thus far, despite having attended a meeting at our house. Consequently we do not believe the consultation process has been full and fair. E.ON have not given sufficient consideration to the site decommissioning, a maximum term of 20 years should be assigned to the planning approval, whereupon the site is returned to a rural setting. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Worsley
"I am in broad agreement with the project in principal that being the production of renewable energy. I have already submitted detailed comments on areas of concern to Eon in the consultation process. They are: impact on agriculture & soil, air quality, landscape & visual impact, noise & vibration, socio-economic impact, transport impact during construction, and environmental impact. My comments are largely restricted to the cable route and the new substation at Bolney as that is the area that will have direct impact on my business and home. They are also the areas of greatest concern to local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Neil-Smith
"We have lived at   since 1989. Our house is less than 30 mitres from the sea and have enjoyed views which are unrestricted and uninterrupted since. The development as shown on the plans will forever change our enjoyment of the views over the last 24 years. In addition, we are greatly concerned that the development will have a dramatic effect on the valuation of   , a prime site in a prime location and the valuations of all those properties along the coast which enjoy the benefits of uninterrupted views across the sea. Following recent valuations of the property, and enquiries from potential purchasers, we are expected to 'loose' up to £150,000.00 if the development achieves consent. We have lived in the local area for over 40 years, and believe that a development as proposed will effectively change the visual amenities around the area from Bognor Regis in the west to Seaford in the east. This wind farm will be detrimental to the local amenities and economy, being 'Seaside Towns'. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Donna Edmunds
"I believe that this application should not be granted, as it is not in the public interest to build sizeable windfarms either on or off-shore. The science behind claims of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change are looking shaky at best, and is by no means settled. Carbon reduction schemes such as renewable energy sources which draw heavily on the public purse should therefore be avoided until more conclusive evidence is brought into the public sphere, as to spend vast sums of money on an unproved hypothesis is the very definition of profligate spending at a time when public finances are stretched. I have done much research in the field of energy policy in my role as assistant to Roger Helmer MEP in the European Parliament, so can go into much greater detail if required. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Rathbone
"my main concern is that I own two fishing vessels and I worry that my income will be diminished as my two boats up to now make a good living in of the proposed area. The income obtained by working in different areas will severely impede my livelihood."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Simpson
"As a resident living close to Hove beach I consider the proposed wind turbines off the Sussex coast to be a huge mistake. The questionable benefits of wind power generation cannot possibly justify the visual intrusion which will result in the complete ruination for generations to come of the natural open sea view from our coastline. This proposal should be refused in no uncertain terms. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Enterprise Fisheries Limited
"Owing to the size of the wind farm project off Littlehampton it will prevent me from fishing in this area. Prevention of being able to fish in this area, the impact of this increases fishing in other areas. I am concerned of the long term impact this will have in our area whilst the farm is being installed i.e., explosions beneath water level. The loss of income I will have to endure whilst this takes place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason May
"I disagree with the proposal that "The visible effects on the land use and environment will generally be temporary" as being a sufficient study into impact in this scoping report and that this expression admits that some visible effects on the land use without describing them. To include that the cable construction corridor is " planned to be reinstated to its former condition on completion of construction." is again only a 'plan', not a guarantee. The scoping report should guarantee the concluding outcome of such a project. To not be able to guarantee a proposal and to attempt to describe the total impact in 'general' statement terms is not suitable for an area of outstanding beauty. I have lived in this area for 4 years and know that the rural scenes, quietness and wildlife in this area is very well respected by residents and visitors. I believe that to propose a 40 metre working route through an area of outstanding beauty to route for some many miles is only proposing a cheaper solution to creating a new substation closer to the wind farm and financial reasons can not be the only decision to wreck havoc on this route for the proposed cabling. The completed and ongoing works will be visible from Devils Dyke viewpoint. I read that the considerations proposed also are for a project that is only leased from the crown estate. A lease term is only temporary. Fifty years lease for offshore equipment which only lasts 25years is not long term. The project could fail or be closed down. The impact of the trenching will define the future environment and as stated in the scoping report , the ecology and nature conservation including... • Damage to or mortality of protected or notable species within their habitats • Direct or indirect disturbance of protected or notable species within their habitats • Temporary or permanent loss of habitats important for species • Temporary or permanent severance of important habitat from species • Impacts on water quality through pollution, and • Impacts on overall species composition and diversity as a result of any of the above. A new substation at a coastal location , closer to the off shore wind farm would avoid onshore cabling issues considerably shorten the scoping report. The corporate and company beneficiaries of cabling manufacture and cable laying and cable maintenance should be clearly disclosed within the proposals and scope. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason Smith
"Information/consultation; consultation process has been limited, as a resident of Hove I have had no information through my door from Eon, Brighton council or any other parties. Eon claim that 4,700 people offered opinions but this only represents about 2% of the residents of Brighton & Hove. Brighton Council have been very unhelpful in providing information or making their views on the project known. For me the following issues remain unresolved from what I have been able to find and I would wish to be considered further; Impact on bird populations Cost to local residents and community e.g. future bills Levels of local and/or national subsidies being made available to support the project Impact on property prices along the heritage coast and conservation areas in Brighton & Hove Benefits for local community seem minimal and short lived from Eon documentation - has a full impact assessment of the short, medium and long term impacts on the local community been carried out "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Clark
"I am resident in Worthing, West Sussex, a retired Biologist (BSc London Botany & Zoology) and have an interest in Worthing Borough Council (WBC) Allotments I am a member of the Worthing and District, Allotment Association and advising Borough Councillor Alan Rice & County Councillor Bob Smytherman on Ecology & related matters. WBC is short of Allotments and has many people waiting for a plot. I fully support using the wind as a source of renewable Energy Matters which I question are: all within the onshore portion of the project. See “Figure 24.2 – Botanic Phase 1 Survey Map1” which I refer to. Below are some areas where information is missing, incomplete, incorrect or needs to be explained. CHESSWOOD FARM ALLOTMENTS (CFA) On the Map, south of the railway is a plot of land clearly labelled Allot Gdns. This is WBCs CFA that are entered via Pages Lane at the South West Corner. The CFA are not on the main cable route and appear not to have been surveyed. NORTH BROOKLANDS ALLOTMENTS (NBA) East of (CFA) is a plot of land that has been shaded to indicate that it is covered in tall ruderal vegetation. Hidden underneath this shading is the label “Allot Gdns” This is WBCs NBA, currently disused and are entered in the east via St. Pauls Avenue. NBA East of (CFA) is a plot of land that has been shaded to indicate that it is covered in tall ruderal vegetation. Hidden underneath this shading is the label “Allot Gdns” This is WBCs (NBA) that are entered via St. Pauls Avenue to the east. The onshore Cable passes through them and they appear to have been surveyed. BOTANIC and SOIL SURVEYS In the past, NBA was identified as uncapped landfill covered in ruderal plants. Land South of the NBAs substantial fence is uncapped landfill Land North of the NBA (marked by line of trees) is uncapped landfill that floods and contains a large sewer. WBC boreholes and inspection pits found very deep topsoil that currently supports a wide range of very healthy herbaceous with scattered shrubby plants BEES & MIGRATORY BIRDS For many years there has been an Apiary on NBA and it is a known stopover for migratory birds. JAPANESE KNOTWEED This tall invasive ruderal plant occurs in: Several CFA plots along the south west bank, and on an island of the River Ditch Public land, south of St Pauls Avenue (several stands) Public land, east of the Sewage Works. The tallest and most robust plants covering several square meters are on the Cable Route on WBC land south of NBA. To the best of my knowledge there are no Knotweed plants on NBA. WATERCOURSES It appears that all the main rivers, ordinary watercourses, ditches, sewers, culverts, etc have not been examined and mapped, for example: The ordinary watercourse “Teville Stream”, where: Flooded land cannot be used along its Culverted course by CFA The stream rises to the surface in the CFA The streams Surface Water Course runs across the CFA. The former River Ditch joins it by the CFA In the past Flooding Occurred across the Cable Route by St Pauls Avenue, allegedly due to a collapsed sewer carrying water to the Teville Stream. A pond in the sewage works has disappeared For more information see WBC minutes http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/media/media,107475,en.pdf Pages 8 – 16 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Winbow
"That the proposed wind farm would be : a) an unsightly spoliation of the Channel seascape, even from beach level; b) in common with all wind farms, an inefficient, intermittent and unpredictable way of generating power; c) grossly expensive (taxpayer-subsidised) for the output promised, probably nowhere near the optimistic forecasts of the Application; d) hazardous to all marine life, especially avian, both during and after construction; e) an obstruction to inshore vessels and low-level aviation; f) unacceptable disruption to local transport systems and damage to land in the South Downs National Park during construction of the cable to Bolney."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr.R.J.Gloyn
"Points of concern to myself as a property owner within sight and earshot of the proposed construction site at the Bolney substation National Grid connection point. 1) Huge volume of construction traffic,over 2 years, through a relatively quiet country area. 2) Noise during construction period far exceeding normal background levels. 3) Bright lighting both during construction hours and for night security. 4) Excessive dust and chemical pollution downwind, of special concern for asthmatics. 5) Visual aspect of the site, both during and after construction. The ground level should be as low as possible. Screening should be planted as soon as possible. 6) Residential property values will drop, especially during the construction period."
Members of the Public/Businesses
mrs emma louise norris
"I am outraged this wind farm is even being considered. This is along a huge stretch of busy coastline which will affect views, tourism, well being, property values (many of which are grade 2 listed). It will also have an impact on trading for all business along the seafront ie bars restaurants cafes. I have lived in Brighton for many years and believe this will ruin this stretch of coastline. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Norris
"I believe that this winds farm is a bad idea as it will ruin the view for large number of the population of the south coast. The local knowledge that I have is that I have lived in Brighton for many years and can see that this is a bad idea with my own eyes. Madness! "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stop the Rampion Offshore Windfarm
"The £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age. The case for windfarms rests on 3 great lies: 1. The pretence that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient. 2. The pretence that it is not a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy. 3. This industry is somehow making a vital contribution to 'saving the planet' by cutting our emissions of CO2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html Man-made climate change is unproven and implausible: The theory of man-made climate change is unproven and implausible, and that even if the theory were valid, the costs of the 2008 Climate Change Act and other measures designed to mitigate climate change will greatly exceed any foreseeable benefits. We believe that the UK’s current energy policy, dictated by Brussels, with its heavy reliance on wind, is seriously undermining the UK economy, and is driving jobs, industry and investment off-shore. It is forcing millions of households and pensioners into fuel poverty. And over-dependence on renewables threatens security of supply, and raises the probability of electricity shortages before the end of the decade http://www.thegwpf.org/report-crisis-uk-energy-policy-inevitable/ . CO2 emissions savings by windfarms are between trivial and zero: Recent studies indicate that emissions savings achieved by wind power, after allowing for the necessary conventional back-up, are somewhere between trivial and zero. http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-windpower.pdf . Cost of windfarms + conventional backup up = 10 x an equivalent gas fired power station: The above quoted study also looked at the cost per KW of electricity generated by a stand-alone wind turbine, and the very substantial costs of back-up generation. As you will be aware, gas back-up uses single-cycle generation, already much less efficient than modern combined cycle. Intermittent running of the gas plant further reduces efficiency and drives up cost. Professor Hughes (cited above) estimates that the capital cost of wind plus back-up is nine to ten times higher than an equivalent combined cycle gas plant. Green jobs? Claims that “the green economy” generates jobs and has the potential to aid economic recovery are deeply flawed. There have been a number of studies showing that by driving up energy costs, renewables actually destroy jobs in the real economy. We’re not talking green jobs. We’re talking green unemployment. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100078040/the-real-cost-of-global-warming/ The disastrous EU Renewable Directive, imposed upon us by the EU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3UUpgxmrf4 So what’s the alternative? The mainstream political party UKIP, have a far more sensible energy policy: http://ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2772-keeping-the-lights-on It is based on reliable, secure and affordable energy technologies, in stark contrast to the three old parties, who all endorse a flawed renewables strategy. UKIP's strategy can ensure that households have access to affordable energy, while underwriting the competitiveness of British industry. UKIP’s Energy policy statement points out that ironically, their approach could in fact achieve the emissions reductions called for by green lobbyists more effectively and more cheaply than a policy based on renewables. UKIP also calls for urgent investigation and exploitation of domestic energy sources including shale gas (which has halved gas prices in the USA). "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Sussex Wildlife Trust
"Sussex Wildlife Trust considers climate change to be the greatest threat to biodiversity and is supportive of measures to reduce its effects. We are broadly supportive of schemes to harness energy from renewable sources but recognise that there will be residual impacts on ecology. Having looked at the draft environmental statement, we engaged in the consultation process and have had subsequent meetings with E-on to discuss our concerns and suggestions for lessening the impact, both in the marine environment and on land and durin construction and operational phases. We would like time to have the offshore aspects of this proposal appraised by a marine ecologist, to assess potential impacts, given that there is now more certainty regarding the magnitude and location of the site. We remain concerned about the cumulative impact of this proposal with other schemes in the wider marine environment, particularly noise impacts on mobile species. On the terrestrial side, we would like to look at the cable route in greater detail to fully understand the impact on individual hedgerows, shaws and water bodies. The route will have an impact on rare chalk grassland habitats within the South Downs National Park as well as ancient hedgerows and trees of ecological significance in the Low Weald. We will endeavour to work with E-on to find solutions to reduce the impact and mitigate. We are expecting to get involved in a hedgerow management plan and similar for the waterbodies, when this work begins. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracey masters
"Living so close to this development will make life here unbearable."
Non-Statutory Organisations
UKIP Mid Sussex
"The £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age The case for windfarms rests on 3 great lies: 1. The pretence that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient. 2. The pretence that it is not a preposterously expensive way to produce electricity. No one would dream of building wind turbines unless they were guaranteed a huge government subsidy. 3. This industry is somehow making a vital contribution to 'saving the planet' by cutting our emissions of CO2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html Man-made climate change is unproven and implausible: The theory of man-made climate change is unproven and implausible, and that even if the theory were valid, the costs of the 2008 Climate Change Act and other measures designed to mitigate climate change will greatly exceed any foreseeable benefits. UKIP believes that the UK’s current energy policy, dictated by Brussels, with its heavy reliance on wind, is seriously undermining the UK economy, and is driving jobs, industry and investment off-shore. It is forcing millions of households and pensioners into fuel poverty. And over-dependence on renewables threatens security of supply, and raises the probability of electricity shortages before the end of the decade. http://www.thegwpf.org/report-crisis-uk-energy-policy-inevitable/ CO2 emissions savings by windfarms are between trivial and zero: Recent studies indicate that emissions savings achieved by wind power, after allowing for the necessary conventional back-up, are somewhere between trivial and zero http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-windpower.pdf . Cost of windfarms + conventional backup up = 10 x an equivalent gas fired power station: This same study also looked at the cost per KW of electricity generated by a stand-alone wind turbine, and the very substantial costs of back-up generation. As you will be aware, gas back-up uses single-cycle generation, already much less efficient than modern combined cycle. Intermittent running of the gas plant further reduces efficiency and drives up cost. Professor Hughes (cited above) estimates that the capital cost of wind plus back-up is nine to ten times higher than an equivalent combined cycle gas plant. Green jobs? Claims that “the green economy” generates jobs and has the potential to aid economic recovery are deeply flawed. There have been a number of studies showing that by driving up energy costs, renewables actually destroy jobs in the real economy. We’re not talking green jobs. We’re talking green unemployment. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100078040/the-real-cost-of-global-warming/ The disastrous EU Renewable Directive, imposed upon us by the EU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3UUpgxmrf4 So what’s the alternative? UKIP’s common-sense energy policy: http://ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2772-keeping-the-lights-on is based on reliable, secure and affordable energy technologies, in stark contrast to the three old parties, which all endorse a flawed renewables strategy. Our strategy can ensure that households have access to affordable energy, while underwriting the competitiveness of British industry. UKIP’s Energy policy statement points out that ironically, our approach could in fact achieve the emissions reductions called for by green lobbyists more effectively and more cheaply than a policy based on renewables. UKIP also calls for urgent investigation and exploitation of domestic energy sources including shale gas (which has halved gas prices in the USA). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Clive Hackney
"I am not objecting to the proposed offshore wind turbines, as I believeclean energy is better than a nuclear reactor. What I am concerned about is the planned route of the electricity cables next to my address. Sheet 8, No's 60-66. With the introduction and transportation of machinery to dig, lay ducting and then back fill of soil for the proposed cable. Will cause long disruption to the peace and quality of the countryside. I have been told the works undertaken will be intermitten for a period of two years. So I expect to be next to a building site for that period of time. Also, I am aware to the health risks high powered electric cables can cause either being underground or overhead pylons. This is a great worry to my quality of life."