Navitus Bay
Development Ltd (NBDL) is the company planning a huge offshore wind-farm sitting directly off the UNESCO World heritage Jurassic Coast and the
nearby Bournemouth beaches.
The planning application is still going
through the planning process but NBDL (arrogant as ever) have
already ordered the turbines. The turbines they have
ordered are the largest within their application. Vestas
VT164 turbines. 200m high with a rotor diameter of 170m.
NBDL have ordered 121
of these monsters even though these turbines will maximize visual impact on just about the whole of this coast. This is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of paid NBDL consultants and
even NBDL themselves.
There are a number of documents submitted by Navitus to the planning inspectorate that describe the relative impact of these monster turbines on the environment.
I expect that there are those who are hoping that these documents have been buried in the mountain of planning bureaucracy surrounding this application. But sadly for them at least two of the documents have popped up again. I detail some of the findings from these two below.
The abbreviation used both by
NBDL and their consultants to describe the worst visual impact option is RWCS. That stands for “Realistic Worst
Case Scenario”
Remember, what you
read below are not my words. Nor are they the words of any of the many organisations and individuals who oppose
this travesty.
They are the words of paid NBDL consultants
and NBDL themselves.
First let us first look at a document paid for by NBDL and commissioned from LDA Design Consulting LLP. It deals specifically with visual impact from the various turbine options.
The
document forms an early part of NBDL's planning application and is available on the planning inspectorate portal via the following link:
This document presents a summary of RWCS in a table
(Wireframe Summary Table ) on page 20 (pdf page 23)
Of the eleven view
points shown in the table, six of them including Bournemouth beach,
Sandbanks, Durlston Head (and so the Jurassic Coast) and Milford have VT164 turbines as the RWCS (Realistic Worst Case Scenario).
The quotes regarding these six view points from the NBDL consultants document are detailed below. They are taken verbatim from the summary for each viewpoint:
Remember RWCS: –
Realistic Worst Case Scenario.
Durlston
Head
[quote]
Due
to the closer proximity of this viewpoint, it is easier to
distinguish between the heights of turbines than the density of
turbines. It is considered that the 8MW layout is the RWCS for this
viewpoint.
[unquote]
The
statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion about 8MW
turbines states the following:
[quote]
The
turbines appear noticeably taller than in other layouts.
[unquote]
Sandbanks
Beach
[quote]
Additional
height of the 8MW turbines, especially in proximity to neighbouring
landform, suggests the 8MW layout to be the RWCS from this viewpoint.
[unquote]
The
statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion about 8MW
turbines states the following:
[quote]
Turbines
are relatively clustered and irregular;the additional turbine height
is visible.
[unquote]
West
Cliff, Bournemouth
[quote]
The
additional height of the turbines and the lack of visual consistency
leads to the conclusion that the 8MW layout is the RWCS for this
viewpoint.
[unquote]
The
statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion about 8MW
turbines states the following:
[quote]
Turbines
are relatively dense and irregular. The additional turbine height is
judged perceptible
[unquote]
Milford
Promenade
[quote]
The
additional height of the 8MW turbines is particularly noticeable due
to the proximity of the Needles as a visual reference point. It is
considered that the 8MW layout is the RWCS for this viewpoint.
[unquote]
The
statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion for 8MW turbines
states the following:
[quote]
Particularly
dense along much of the horizon, turbines broken into sections,
additional height perceptible
[unquote]
The
Needles, Isle of Wight
[quote]
Difficult
to differentiate between the layouts but marginal leaning towards the
8MW layout
on
account of perceived greater depth and greater proportion of turbine
extending above the horizon line.
[unquote]
The
statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion for 8MW turbines
states the following:
[quote]
Increased
turbine height registers. Layout appears more chaotic.
[unquote]
St.
Aldhelm's Head
[quote]
Overall,
there are few meaningful differences between the layouts from this
viewpoint but site work suggests a leaning towards the 8MW layout.
[unquote]
Then, showing they have taken this fully on-board, we have references to visual RWCS within later NBDL submission documents. As an example take this document published
in January 2015. It concerns the so-called mitigation option.
Section
15.2.3
[quote]
…..it
had been judged appropriate to identify the fewest, tallest turbines
as the RWCS. There is no reason to deviate from this given the
reduced variation in turbine numbers for the Mitigation Option.
[unquote]
Section
15.2.7
[quote]
Experience
derived from many other offshore wind developments and feasibility
studies has also confirmed that it is turbine height rather than
turbine numbers that most usually determines the RWCS ….
[unquote]
Clearly,
even by the developers own analysis the visual impact of VT164 turbines on just about the whole of this coast equates to the worst
possible option. To be fair all the options are pretty horrendous.
But even so, the chosen option judged by the developers own documentation is the worst and most destructive.
But one hundred and twenty one of these coast-line scarring monsters is cheaper for the developer than one hundred and ninety or so of the their
ugly, shorter cousins. So a greedy foreign multinational might well consider cutting costs at the expense of the local environment a "good idea".
The
arrogance, the willful desecration and the mindless pseudo-science
that defines this travesty has yet to meet a match anywhere within
the planning process.
It
is not that they don't understand the damage this scheme will impose.
It
is more like they just don't give a damn.
3 comments:
I'm convinced Billy, and I'm always a fan of your well written and well researched articles. You must do one about New Zealand's ill-considered approach to energy. If you don't do it, I will. But I reckon you will do it better.......
Well Flax, I reckon you are seriously selling yourself short. I would be very interested to know your take on NZ energy policy - whats good and whats wrong. As you are there in Wellington your take is bound to be more incisive and generally better than mine.
Okay Billy, I will take up the gauntlet. Will require some research and as I have other 'projects' on simmer it won't appear soon. But when it finally bubbles over (get a grip Flaxen) I'll send you the link. Your valued opinion on my mixture, will be most welcome.
Post a Comment