Navitus Bay wind farm plans scaled back for the second time

Navitus Bay wind farm plans scaled back for the second time

Mike Unsworth, project director at Navitus Bay

First published in News
Last updated
by , Chief Reporter

THE developer behind the controversial wind farm planned for the coast off Dorset has today announced that it is scaling back its plans.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd said that the northernmost ‘top triangle’ of the development will be removed, meaning the site, in places, will now be 3.8km further offshore than previously announced.

It says the move will reduce the visual impact of the plans. It is the second time the boundary has moved back.

The changes see the wind park move further out from Christchurch, now 12 miles instead of 10, while it will be 13 miles from Bournemouth, rather than 12.

Bournemouth Echo: Navitus Bay boundary changes map

View a larger version of this map here

Bournemouth Echo: Navitus Bay boundary change map

View a larger version of this map here

The distance from Poole changes from 12.5 miles to 13, but at Swanage the turbines will remain nine miles from the shore.

However, opposition groups say it changes nothing.

See all our stories on Navitus Bay here

Philip Dewhurst, Poole and Christchurch Bays Association spokesman, said: “This is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

“Even with these tweaks, Navitus will still be too big, too visible from our shores and too damaging to our tourism and boating economies.

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

“The UK already has more offshore wind farms than the rest of Europe put together; Navitus is a farm too far.”

The association’s technical expert, Bill Hoodless, added: “This 10 per cent reduction is totally insignificant when compared to the need for an 85 per cent reduction just to meet the government’s Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment.”

Navitus Bay says that in locations such as the Isle of Wight, Lymington and Christchurch, the change will “substantially increase the distance of the nearest turbine from the shore”.

In places such as Swanage and Durlston Head, it says that “the horizontal spread of turbines on the horizon will be considerably reduced, and the change to the shape of the wind park will also open up a clear gap between the southern coast of the Isle of Wight and the development”.

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

“The threats to the environment, tourism, birds and navigation remain almost unchanged, and the onshore disruption will be the same. If a wind farm this size and so close to the coastline had been proposed at the outset we would still have been strongly opposed to the scheme.

“The turbines would be just as close to Swanage and the Jurassic coast World Heritage Site as before and the impacts on them are still significant.

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

Cllr John Beesley, Leader of Bournemouth Borough Council, said: “We are disappointed that we were not shown these revised proposals at the most recent consultation stage.  All the councils in the area are working together to obtain accurate information from the developers, Eneco.  We cannot comment on these revisions until we have seen the final proposals, along with details of how these changes mitigate the visual and economic impacts outlined in earlier proposals from the developers.”

Cllr Elaine Atkinson, leader of Borough of Poole, added: "It's good that they have demonstrated that they've listened to people."

It will mean that the park will now cover an area of 155 sqkm, compared to 175 sqkm.

The maximum number of turbines will be reduced from 218 to 194.

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

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

“As we move towards submitting our final application for planning permission, we believe that this latest boundary change is a positive step, ensuring that the project reflects local views while bringing considerable benefits to the region.

“We believe we now have an application that reflects in-depth local consultation and will, if granted planning permission, bring enormous benefits to the local region and to the UK as a whole.”

Navitus Bay plans to submit its planning application to the Government in the spring and says that the park would generate enough electricity to power 710,000 homes.

It has now produced new photomontages reflecting the changes.

Bournemouth Echo: Navitus Bay wind farm plans scaled back for the second time View larger version of visual showing view from Durlston Bournemouth Echo: Navitus Bay Sandbanks View larger version of visual showing view from Sandbanks Bournemouth Echo: Navitus Bay undercliff photomontage View larger version of visual showing view from Undercliff

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:15pm Thu 6 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Who invents these name yesterday shopping park today wind park ?
Who invents these name yesterday shopping park today wind park ? kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -7

12:16pm Thu 6 Feb 14

billy bumble says...

Mike Unsworth - looking at your pic I wouldn't buy a second hand car from you
Mike Unsworth - looking at your pic I wouldn't buy a second hand car from you billy bumble
  • Score: 1

12:17pm Thu 6 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

Scale it back to zero turbines and it'll be fine.
Scale it back to zero turbines and it'll be fine. speedy231278
  • Score: 6

12:24pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Sue001 says...

Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,
Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad., Sue001
  • Score: -3

12:39pm Thu 6 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Anchor a balloon as big as the one in the gardens .where the nearest turbin Will be and see how often you get to see it. can't imagine any sailor game enough to go out to sea that far will be daft enough to crash into one.get used to them you won,t know they are there.
Anchor a balloon as big as the one in the gardens .where the nearest turbin Will be and see how often you get to see it. can't imagine any sailor game enough to go out to sea that far will be daft enough to crash into one.get used to them you won,t know they are there. kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 6

12:41pm Thu 6 Feb 14

MaxReturn says...

This development if it goes ahead will certainly create jobs. Economically non-viable turbines will create a whole new industry set up to fix and repair them as they are always breaking down. A friend having a large construction company in the US tells me has a colleague who set up a very successful repair business in Texas because the turbines are always failing. His newly hired employees are never short of work. So something good does come out of these potty schemes although not what was originally designed.
This development if it goes ahead will certainly create jobs. Economically non-viable turbines will create a whole new industry set up to fix and repair them as they are always breaking down. A friend having a large construction company in the US tells me has a colleague who set up a very successful repair business in Texas because the turbines are always failing. His newly hired employees are never short of work. So something good does come out of these potty schemes although not what was originally designed. MaxReturn
  • Score: -1

12:41pm Thu 6 Feb 14

BarrHumbug says...

Must be a quiet day on cannabis overdose and so the papers back to their next biggest revenue generator, the wind farm?
Must be a quiet day on cannabis overdose and so the papers back to their next biggest revenue generator, the wind farm? BarrHumbug
  • Score: -3

12:45pm Thu 6 Feb 14

kalebmoledirt says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Must be a quiet day on cannabis overdose and so the papers back to their next biggest revenue generator, the wind farm?
Think that is probably travellers.then the Ice rink
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Must be a quiet day on cannabis overdose and so the papers back to their next biggest revenue generator, the wind farm?[/p][/quote]Think that is probably travellers.then the Ice rink kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -6

12:48pm Thu 6 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Must be a quiet day on cannabis overdose and so the papers back to their next biggest revenue generator, the wind farm?
Think that is probably travellers.then the Ice rink
Neither of which will do anything but cost taxpayers for something completely pointless and unnecessary.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Must be a quiet day on cannabis overdose and so the papers back to their next biggest revenue generator, the wind farm?[/p][/quote]Think that is probably travellers.then the Ice rink[/p][/quote]Neither of which will do anything but cost taxpayers for something completely pointless and unnecessary. speedy231278
  • Score: 3

12:55pm Thu 6 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

MaxReturn wrote:
This development if it goes ahead will certainly create jobs. Economically non-viable turbines will create a whole new industry set up to fix and repair them as they are always breaking down. A friend having a large construction company in the US tells me has a colleague who set up a very successful repair business in Texas because the turbines are always failing. His newly hired employees are never short of work. So something good does come out of these potty schemes although not what was originally designed.
Create jobs? But so will the many far more efficient, much more reliable and less costly alternative ways of generating electricity. Common sense suggests we would ALL be far better off creating any new jobs in those fields.
[quote][p][bold]MaxReturn[/bold] wrote: This development if it goes ahead will certainly create jobs. Economically non-viable turbines will create a whole new industry set up to fix and repair them as they are always breaking down. A friend having a large construction company in the US tells me has a colleague who set up a very successful repair business in Texas because the turbines are always failing. His newly hired employees are never short of work. So something good does come out of these potty schemes although not what was originally designed.[/p][/quote]Create jobs? But so will the many far more efficient, much more reliable and less costly alternative ways of generating electricity. Common sense suggests we would ALL be far better off creating any new jobs in those fields. muscliffman
  • Score: 7

1:05pm Thu 6 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

Sue001 wrote:
Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,
'fare in the storms' ?

It seems probable that the turbines proposed for this part of the Dorset coast would paradoxically all have to of been locked out of action for most of the past two months, because of the wind/s - and goodness knows how many would even still be standing after the more severe gales!
[quote][p][bold]Sue001[/bold] wrote: Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,[/p][/quote]'fare in the storms' ? It seems probable that the turbines proposed for this part of the Dorset coast would paradoxically all have to of been locked out of action for most of the past two months, because of the wind/s - and goodness knows how many would even still be standing after the more severe gales! muscliffman
  • Score: 11

1:38pm Thu 6 Feb 14

MaxReturn says...

Definitely the wrong kind of wind!
Definitely the wrong kind of wind! MaxReturn
  • Score: 6

1:59pm Thu 6 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

“We believe we now have an application that reflects in-depth local consultation and will, if granted planning permission, bring enormous benefits to the local region and to the UK as a whole.”


Not forgetting a few politicians too....
“We believe we now have an application that reflects in-depth local consultation and will, if granted planning permission, bring enormous benefits to the local region and to the UK as a whole.” Not forgetting a few politicians too.... BIGTONE
  • Score: 6

3:05pm Thu 6 Feb 14

TheDistrict says...

Take no notice Navitus of these Nimbys. We are all aware that we need renewable energy, from what ever source is available and a wind farm is one of them. It could have been placed on the Purbecks, or any coastline along the South, but Navitus have proposed a wind farm 12 miles or more off the coast. You people do make me laugh. One minute you want rid of fossle fuels because it is contaminating the world atmosphere, so alternatives are found such as wind farms, fracking, nuclear energy, and the same people now moan because it blights their views from the beaches (probably never go to the beach), or they are scared because someone mentioned earthquakes caused by fracking. Get a life, go hug a tree. It will happend whether it is now, or in the future. Let it happen.
Take no notice Navitus of these Nimbys. We are all aware that we need renewable energy, from what ever source is available and a wind farm is one of them. It could have been placed on the Purbecks, or any coastline along the South, but Navitus have proposed a wind farm 12 miles or more off the coast. You people do make me laugh. One minute you want rid of fossle fuels because it is contaminating the world atmosphere, so alternatives are found such as wind farms, fracking, nuclear energy, and the same people now moan because it blights their views from the beaches (probably never go to the beach), or they are scared because someone mentioned earthquakes caused by fracking. Get a life, go hug a tree. It will happend whether it is now, or in the future. Let it happen. TheDistrict
  • Score: -10

3:06pm Thu 6 Feb 14

endless journey says...

....also it's a good job we don't have tall electricity pylons up and down the land blighting the country everywhere, which we could also find a reason to complain about.
....also it's a good job we don't have tall electricity pylons up and down the land blighting the country everywhere, which we could also find a reason to complain about. endless journey
  • Score: 9

3:44pm Thu 6 Feb 14

mooninpisces says...

Dr Andrew Langley of Challenge Navitus complains that after these changes "the turbines will be just as close to Swanage and the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site as before".

Strange, then, that one of the alternative layouts Dr Langley proposed not so long ago (Purbeck Gazette, August 2011) was closer to the World Heritage Site, and would have resulted in a significantly more intrusive impact on views from the Jurassic Coast. And that his main concern then was the horizontal spread of views from Swanage and Durlston, which is reduced by this latest revision.
Dr Andrew Langley of Challenge Navitus complains that after these changes "the turbines will be just as close to Swanage and the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site as before". Strange, then, that one of the alternative layouts Dr Langley proposed not so long ago (Purbeck Gazette, August 2011) was closer to the World Heritage Site, and would have resulted in a significantly more intrusive impact on views from the Jurassic Coast. And that his main concern then was the horizontal spread of views from Swanage and Durlston, which is reduced by this latest revision. mooninpisces
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Thu 6 Feb 14

mooninpisces says...

muscliffman wrote:
Sue001 wrote:
Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,
'fare in the storms' ?

It seems probable that the turbines proposed for this part of the Dorset coast would paradoxically all have to of been locked out of action for most of the past two months, because of the wind/s - and goodness knows how many would even still be standing after the more severe gales!
Extreme weather such as we have experienced over the past couple of months is something we can expect more of in years to come if the oceans continue to warm as a result of increased carbon emissions. Which is why developing renewable energy rather than fossil fuels is so important.

Wind turbines don't cut out until wind speeds exceed 56 mph. There would have been times this winter when Navitus Bay would have been unable to generate electricity because of storm force winds, but those times would have been measured in hours, not months. And during those hours, plenty of wind energy was being generated elsewhere in Britain, as the energy mix data showed.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sue001[/bold] wrote: Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,[/p][/quote]'fare in the storms' ? It seems probable that the turbines proposed for this part of the Dorset coast would paradoxically all have to of been locked out of action for most of the past two months, because of the wind/s - and goodness knows how many would even still be standing after the more severe gales![/p][/quote]Extreme weather such as we have experienced over the past couple of months is something we can expect more of in years to come if the oceans continue to warm as a result of increased carbon emissions. Which is why developing renewable energy rather than fossil fuels is so important. Wind turbines don't cut out until wind speeds exceed 56 mph. There would have been times this winter when Navitus Bay would have been unable to generate electricity because of storm force winds, but those times would have been measured in hours, not months. And during those hours, plenty of wind energy was being generated elsewhere in Britain, as the energy mix data showed. mooninpisces
  • Score: -5

4:44pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Wageslave says...

Sue001 wrote:
Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,
I think in these storms they would have to be switched off before they burst into flames.
[quote][p][bold]Sue001[/bold] wrote: Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,[/p][/quote]I think in these storms they would have to be switched off before they burst into flames. Wageslave
  • Score: 8

5:26pm Thu 6 Feb 14

TheDistrict says...

Regardless of the 5 thumbs down I received on my last comment, you all know it makes sense to go ahead with alternative energy resources. Anyway, if this weather keeps up, you will not be able to sit on the beach and view what cannot be seen. Get reel, hug a tree.
Regardless of the 5 thumbs down I received on my last comment, you all know it makes sense to go ahead with alternative energy resources. Anyway, if this weather keeps up, you will not be able to sit on the beach and view what cannot be seen. Get reel, hug a tree. TheDistrict
  • Score: -10

6:02pm Thu 6 Feb 14

soundsteve89 says...

You do have to wonder if looking at the wind turbines 12 miles away is any different to seeing a shipping channel with ships running past all the time. Both arent supposed to be in the sea by natures reckoning but we dont go complaining about ships. Rather this, than have them on purbeck or solar arrays across the beautiful countryside we have in dorset. Let's face it, still wont be anywhere as near as damaging for our views as the imax was.
You do have to wonder if looking at the wind turbines 12 miles away is any different to seeing a shipping channel with ships running past all the time. Both arent supposed to be in the sea by natures reckoning but we dont go complaining about ships. Rather this, than have them on purbeck or solar arrays across the beautiful countryside we have in dorset. Let's face it, still wont be anywhere as near as damaging for our views as the imax was. soundsteve89
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Thu 6 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

mooninpisces wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Sue001 wrote:
Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,
'fare in the storms' ?

It seems probable that the turbines proposed for this part of the Dorset coast would paradoxically all have to of been locked out of action for most of the past two months, because of the wind/s - and goodness knows how many would even still be standing after the more severe gales!
Extreme weather such as we have experienced over the past couple of months is something we can expect more of in years to come if the oceans continue to warm as a result of increased carbon emissions. Which is why developing renewable energy rather than fossil fuels is so important.

Wind turbines don't cut out until wind speeds exceed 56 mph. There would have been times this winter when Navitus Bay would have been unable to generate electricity because of storm force winds, but those times would have been measured in hours, not months. And during those hours, plenty of wind energy was being generated elsewhere in Britain, as the energy mix data showed.
You say "Extreme weather such as we have experienced over the past couple of months is something we can expect more of in years to come if the oceans continue to warm as a result of increased carbon emissions" I and many more others totally disagree - not least because there is NO evidence this is the case from any source which does not have a vested interest in saying so.

Climate change and extreme weather happens perfectly naturally and has been occurring sometimes very dramatically for millions and millions of years - we have been industrialised for just over one hundred of those years, so relatively only a millisecond's worth of man's carbon emissions. The only difference in weather events lately is the ability of mankind to record and often sensationally communicate them - and for some people to find a way to make money and gain political power from the gullible with unfounded and preposterous explanations about a fictional 'man made global warming'.

(Ironically if there had not been extreme weather and climate change in our pre-industrialised pre-carbon emissions past this proposed wind farm would be situated on dry land - because the English Channel would never have been flooded by a climate changed rising sea and associated extreme storm surges.)
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sue001[/bold] wrote: Wonder how the turbines would fare in the storms we are experiencing? Ban the lot of them, as bad as fracking in my opinion - all about making money for those who already have too much - at what cost to the environment? so sad.,[/p][/quote]'fare in the storms' ? It seems probable that the turbines proposed for this part of the Dorset coast would paradoxically all have to of been locked out of action for most of the past two months, because of the wind/s - and goodness knows how many would even still be standing after the more severe gales![/p][/quote]Extreme weather such as we have experienced over the past couple of months is something we can expect more of in years to come if the oceans continue to warm as a result of increased carbon emissions. Which is why developing renewable energy rather than fossil fuels is so important. Wind turbines don't cut out until wind speeds exceed 56 mph. There would have been times this winter when Navitus Bay would have been unable to generate electricity because of storm force winds, but those times would have been measured in hours, not months. And during those hours, plenty of wind energy was being generated elsewhere in Britain, as the energy mix data showed.[/p][/quote]You say "Extreme weather such as we have experienced over the past couple of months is something we can expect more of in years to come if the oceans continue to warm as a result of increased carbon emissions" I and many more others totally disagree - not least because there is NO evidence this is the case from any source which does not have a vested interest in saying so. Climate change and extreme weather happens perfectly naturally and has been occurring sometimes very dramatically for millions and millions of years - we have been industrialised for just over one hundred of those years, so relatively only a millisecond's worth of man's carbon emissions. The only difference in weather events lately is the ability of mankind to record and often sensationally communicate them - and for some people to find a way to make money and gain political power from the gullible with unfounded and preposterous explanations about a fictional 'man made global warming'. (Ironically if there had not been extreme weather and climate change in our pre-industrialised pre-carbon emissions past this proposed wind farm would be situated on dry land - because the English Channel would never have been flooded by a climate changed rising sea and associated extreme storm surges.) muscliffman
  • Score: 13

7:37pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Ophilum says...

I think we are all being conned by the Navitus bay money spinners, we are the fools who will pay for these uneconomic ,Bird Chomping white Elephant machines Remember it is the Greens who caused the Somerset levels to flood and cause all the human suffering of the people of the area by infiltrating there foot soldiers into the so called environment agency that love this type of scam and stopped the river dredging.
Be scared, Very scared of this rubbish being foisted on us by a vociferous minority for ulterior motives.
I think we are all being conned by the Navitus bay money spinners, we are the fools who will pay for these uneconomic ,Bird Chomping white Elephant machines Remember it is the Greens who caused the Somerset levels to flood and cause all the human suffering of the people of the area by infiltrating there foot soldiers into the so called environment agency that love this type of scam and stopped the river dredging. Be scared, Very scared of this rubbish being foisted on us by a vociferous minority for ulterior motives. Ophilum
  • Score: 6

7:52pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Ebb Tide says...

One step towards complete non-existence.

Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?
One step towards complete non-existence. Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ? Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Yankee1 says...

In entering an open negotiation, you always propose more than what you want.

Therefore, any reduction appears to be a concession.

Make the entire facility 13+ miles from any point on shore, including Swanage, and then perhaps a deal can be cut.
In entering an open negotiation, you always propose more than what you want. Therefore, any reduction appears to be a concession. Make the entire facility 13+ miles from any point on shore, including Swanage, and then perhaps a deal can be cut. Yankee1
  • Score: -3

7:52am Fri 7 Feb 14

apm1954 says...

for goodness sake get on and build them , whats the problem , same old few moan they dont want fracking dont want wind power , they never come up with the answer wake up or shut up fact we need to do something.
for goodness sake get on and build them , whats the problem , same old few moan they dont want fracking dont want wind power , they never come up with the answer wake up or shut up fact we need to do something. apm1954
  • Score: 0

8:05am Fri 7 Feb 14

Burtyboy says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
One step towards complete non-existence.

Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?
Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work?

I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty?
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: One step towards complete non-existence. Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?[/p][/quote]Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work? I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty? Burtyboy
  • Score: 2

9:51am Fri 7 Feb 14

mooninpisces says...

Cllr John Beesley, Leader of Bournemouth Borough Council, said: “We are disappointed that we were not shown these revised proposals at the most recent consultation stage."

Does he not understand what consultation means? You consult, and THEN revise your proposals as a result of the consultation. You can't present your revision before the consultation, because that wouldn't have taken the result of the consultation into account!
Cllr John Beesley, Leader of Bournemouth Borough Council, said: “We are disappointed that we were not shown these revised proposals at the most recent consultation stage." Does he not understand what consultation means? You consult, and THEN revise your proposals as a result of the consultation. You can't present your revision before the consultation, because that wouldn't have taken the result of the consultation into account! mooninpisces
  • Score: 1

10:10am Fri 7 Feb 14

Ebb Tide says...

Burtyboy wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
One step towards complete non-existence.

Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?
Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work?

I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty?
The cost of the research and consultation is subsidized by our energy bills.

Since we are paying for the research, it would be good to know what they have learnt about the impact of storms upon the proposed structures and their
generating capabilities.
[quote][p][bold]Burtyboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: One step towards complete non-existence. Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?[/p][/quote]Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work? I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty?[/p][/quote]The cost of the research and consultation is subsidized by our energy bills. Since we are paying for the research, it would be good to know what they have learnt about the impact of storms upon the proposed structures and their generating capabilities. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 1

11:25am Fri 7 Feb 14

Trophy1980 says...

Bring on the turbines....unless all you moaners would prefer to use coal or atomic energy...it's not as these other options will have a negative affect on the environment.
What part of sustainability do all the objectors mind??? I mean really, what difference will the turbines have on our precious view...people are not going to stop coming to Poole because of some giant windmills that are 12 miles out to sea!!!
They are more likely to stop coming to Poole because of the lack of things to do...well unless your over 70 and like walking.
Bring on the turbines....unless all you moaners would prefer to use coal or atomic energy...it's not as these other options will have a negative affect on the environment. What part of sustainability do all the objectors mind??? I mean really, what difference will the turbines have on our precious view...people are not going to stop coming to Poole because of some giant windmills that are 12 miles out to sea!!! They are more likely to stop coming to Poole because of the lack of things to do...well unless your over 70 and like walking. Trophy1980
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Ebb Tide says...

Trophy1980 wrote:
Bring on the turbines....unless all you moaners would prefer to use coal or atomic energy...it's not as these other options will have a negative affect on the environment.
What part of sustainability do all the objectors mind??? I mean really, what difference will the turbines have on our precious view...people are not going to stop coming to Poole because of some giant windmills that are 12 miles out to sea!!!
They are more likely to stop coming to Poole because of the lack of things to do...well unless your over 70 and like walking.
The fact that 'sustainability', in the Navitus context, is not for more than a decade or two ! Please provide information that differs from this view.
[quote][p][bold]Trophy1980[/bold] wrote: Bring on the turbines....unless all you moaners would prefer to use coal or atomic energy...it's not as these other options will have a negative affect on the environment. What part of sustainability do all the objectors mind??? I mean really, what difference will the turbines have on our precious view...people are not going to stop coming to Poole because of some giant windmills that are 12 miles out to sea!!! They are more likely to stop coming to Poole because of the lack of things to do...well unless your over 70 and like walking.[/p][/quote]The fact that 'sustainability', in the Navitus context, is not for more than a decade or two ! Please provide information that differs from this view. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 2

2:45pm Fri 7 Feb 14

TOM AND JANE says...

For sure Navitus always intended to scale down in order to try to pacify objectors. This will make little or no difference to its impact from the shore and could cause the loss of the UKs only World Heritage Site. Offshore wind farms are so expensive and uneconomical that they will drive up our electricity prices to the extent that they will bankrupt the nation making our manufacturing industries totally uneconomical. One nuclear power station provides the power of a wind farm the size of Greater London, if they were 25% efficient. However time is showing they are nearer 6%, so 4 times this size and dont last either. Our country isn't big enough nor our waters. The Germans have already given up on offshore and onshore wind farms and are building 28 new coal fired power stations, will we ever learn? Shale gas extraction and new gas powered stations are our only lifesaver or more nuclear power.
For sure Navitus always intended to scale down in order to try to pacify objectors. This will make little or no difference to its impact from the shore and could cause the loss of the UKs only World Heritage Site. Offshore wind farms are so expensive and uneconomical that they will drive up our electricity prices to the extent that they will bankrupt the nation making our manufacturing industries totally uneconomical. One nuclear power station provides the power of a wind farm the size of Greater London, if they were 25% efficient. However time is showing they are nearer 6%, so 4 times this size and dont last either. Our country isn't big enough nor our waters. The Germans have already given up on offshore and onshore wind farms and are building 28 new coal fired power stations, will we ever learn? Shale gas extraction and new gas powered stations are our only lifesaver or more nuclear power. TOM AND JANE
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Fri 7 Feb 14

mooninpisces says...

Most of the objectors who have expressed an opinion here seem to feel that scaling down Navitus Bay in response to the concerns that were raised during the consultations doesn't do anything to reduce the impact.

Perhaps, then, NBDL should resurrect the original proposal?
Most of the objectors who have expressed an opinion here seem to feel that scaling down Navitus Bay in response to the concerns that were raised during the consultations doesn't do anything to reduce the impact. Perhaps, then, NBDL should resurrect the original proposal? mooninpisces
  • Score: -2

5:02pm Fri 7 Feb 14

mooninpisces says...

It hasn't taken long for the above comment to be given a thumbs down.

Perhaps someone can explain-

If it makes no difference, what's the problem with going back to the original plan?

If, on the other hand, it does make a difference, why not admit it?
It hasn't taken long for the above comment to be given a thumbs down. Perhaps someone can explain- If it makes no difference, what's the problem with going back to the original plan? If, on the other hand, it does make a difference, why not admit it? mooninpisces
  • Score: -1

7:12pm Fri 7 Feb 14

mooninpisces says...

I guess the thumbs down on the last comment is the answer.
I guess the thumbs down on the last comment is the answer. mooninpisces
  • Score: -1

8:39pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Ophilum says...

To expensive, spain has had to cut its susidy to cost of wholesale energy only and that soon cut the nonsence out double quick no takers now.
To expensive, spain has had to cut its susidy to cost of wholesale energy only and that soon cut the nonsence out double quick no takers now. Ophilum
  • Score: 2

10:31pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Ebb Tide says...

Ophilum wrote:
To expensive, spain has had to cut its susidy to cost of wholesale energy only and that soon cut the nonsence out double quick no takers now.
Navitus do not offer advice about the extent to which they will have to rely on subsidies to keep their expected supply of electricity. Please let me know if this opinion is wrong.

The level of subsidy is unaffordable for more than a few years , the life of the turbines is relatively short (no more than a decade or two) and then what ? We will have no money to invest in a replacement - having paid it out in subsidies for wind turbines 'lost at sea'. A problem for a future government says this government, no doubt.
[quote][p][bold]Ophilum[/bold] wrote: To expensive, spain has had to cut its susidy to cost of wholesale energy only and that soon cut the nonsence out double quick no takers now.[/p][/quote]Navitus do not offer advice about the extent to which they will have to rely on subsidies to keep their expected supply of electricity. Please let me know if this opinion is wrong. The level of subsidy is unaffordable for more than a few years , the life of the turbines is relatively short (no more than a decade or two) and then what ? We will have no money to invest in a replacement - having paid it out in subsidies for wind turbines 'lost at sea'. A problem for a future government says this government, no doubt. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 1

5:46am Sun 9 Feb 14

a.g.o.g. says...

mooninpisces wrote:
I guess the thumbs down on the last comment is the answer.
90% of a bad deal is still a bad deal!
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: I guess the thumbs down on the last comment is the answer.[/p][/quote]90% of a bad deal is still a bad deal! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

8:49am Tue 11 Feb 14

Burtyboy says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
Burtyboy wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote: One step towards complete non-existence. Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?
Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work? I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty?
The cost of the research and consultation is subsidized by our energy bills. Since we are paying for the research, it would be good to know what they have learnt about the impact of storms upon the proposed structures and their generating capabilities.
I think the point i was trying to make is the cost of the r&d isn't subsidised is it as their paid a fixed price for whatever power they make?
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burtyboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: One step towards complete non-existence. Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?[/p][/quote]Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work? I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty?[/p][/quote]The cost of the research and consultation is subsidized by our energy bills. Since we are paying for the research, it would be good to know what they have learnt about the impact of storms upon the proposed structures and their generating capabilities.[/p][/quote]I think the point i was trying to make is the cost of the r&d isn't subsidised is it as their paid a fixed price for whatever power they make? Burtyboy
  • Score: 0

9:10am Tue 11 Feb 14

Ebb Tide says...

Burtyboy wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
Burtyboy wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote: One step towards complete non-existence. Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?
Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work? I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty?
The cost of the research and consultation is subsidized by our energy bills. Since we are paying for the research, it would be good to know what they have learnt about the impact of storms upon the proposed structures and their generating capabilities.
I think the point i was trying to make is the cost of the r&d isn't subsidised is it as their paid a fixed price for whatever power they make?
Ah but what about the tax avoided by being able to offset 'preliminary costs' (for the installations) against the profits earned from our higher energy costs : subsidy by the back door.
[quote][p][bold]Burtyboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burtyboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: One step towards complete non-existence. Navitus should try harder or can they milk the research monies for a while longer with the possible collaboration of the Treasury acting through the guise of Crown Estates ?[/p][/quote]Not sure I get this comment. Do navitus make money out if the research from the government even if the windmills don't work? I think we need alternatives to coal because otherwise we'll end up relying on imported power and potentially huge price movements.wind may be expensive but at leat it's fixed price. Why else do people choose fixed tariffs if they don't prefer certainty over uncertainty?[/p][/quote]The cost of the research and consultation is subsidized by our energy bills. Since we are paying for the research, it would be good to know what they have learnt about the impact of storms upon the proposed structures and their generating capabilities.[/p][/quote]I think the point i was trying to make is the cost of the r&d isn't subsidised is it as their paid a fixed price for whatever power they make?[/p][/quote]Ah but what about the tax avoided by being able to offset 'preliminary costs' (for the installations) against the profits earned from our higher energy costs : subsidy by the back door. Ebb Tide
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree