New 3D views blow into wind farm row

4:30am Friday 1st February 2013 in News

Project director Mike Unsworth Project director Mike Unsworth

THE firm behind the controversial wind farm planned for off the Dorset coast has revealed a 3D model that it hopes will sway public opinion.

Navitus Bay Development Limited came in for criticism during its previous consultations last year for the lack of quality and detail in its mock-ups of what the park would look like, and for only showing the lower end of the proposed number of turbines.

This morning the firm unveiled the interactive model, which will allow people to view the proposed farm from anywhere between Lymington and Durlston, and view different sizes and numbers of turbines.

However, opposition group Challenge Navitus is still questioning the still image visualisations that NBDL has produced in the wake of scaling back its plans before Christmas.

The third round of public exhibitions begins on Friday in West Moors, before heading to Bournemouth on Saturday.

What NBDL says the park will look like from Bournemouth Pier

Challenge Navitus has also produced new videos on its website. It follows the changes to the scheme, which saw the park moved further out to sea and reduced the maximum number of turbines to 218 from 333, which Challenge Navitus described as ‘minor’.

Dr Andrew Langley, a scientist in mathematical modelling, who computed the latest visualisations and is a founder of Challenge Navitus, said: “The changes did little to reduce the visual impact of this scheme.”

But this morning project director Mike Unsworth - listen to the full interview below - said NBDL had to stick with the industry standards, but would adapt if they changed.

He said: “We have carefully listened to what the local community have said during previous phases of consultation and have gone the extra mile to help people really understand what the potential visual impact of the wind park could be.”

Comments(14)

Hessenford says...
12:23pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Not again, this is getting as boring as the surf reef story.

Report this post »

muscliffman says...
1:03pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Hessenford wrote:
Not again, this is getting as boring as the surf reef story.
Exactly, and costing even more public money on another unworking and unwanted construction.

Please take this windmill scam away!

Report this post »

coster says...
1:52pm Thu 31 Jan 13

They are desperate to commence this before the removal of subsidies and the final exposure of the overall idiocy of AGW.

Report this post »

coster says...
3:08pm Thu 31 Jan 13

And you may like to review 'caithnesswindfarms.
co.uk' where you will see some of the dangers.

Report this post »

Dr Strangelove says...
3:32pm Thu 31 Jan 13

muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Not again, this is getting as boring as the surf reef story.
Exactly, and costing even more public money on another unworking and unwanted construction.

Please take this windmill scam away!
Its not unwanted its needed. Glad you speak for all of us, are you royalty?

Report this post »

Dr Strangelove says...
3:35pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Its interesting that gas shares will be affected once there are enough wind farms around as the demand and price will reduce. Wonder if any of the moaners have shares in British gas?

Report this post »

palexgo says...
3:39pm Thu 31 Jan 13

When the Tories came to power in 1979 they withdrew finance to scientists and engineers who were investigating hydro-electric generation. I assume that the government was under pressure from oil and nuclear companies.

Wind farms are ridiculously expensive and never perform as well as was proposed. Hydro-electric, using the sea is so much better. The main reason is that a litre of sea weighs more than 800 times the weight of a litre of air. So, hydro-electric equipment producing the same as a wind turbine would be at least 500 time smaller than wind kit would be much cheaper and easier to maintain.

The potential of hydro-electric is so obvious that politicians of all kinds since 1979 should be prosecuted for incompetence. Its also possible that some were bribed to take on wind-farms.

Report this post »

muscliffman says...
4:28pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Dr Strangelove wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Not again, this is getting as boring as the surf reef story.
Exactly, and costing even more public money on another unworking and unwanted construction.

Please take this windmill scam away!
Its not unwanted its needed. Glad you speak for all of us, are you royalty?
'Needed' - that does not seem to be the popular view though, does it?
'Unwanted' by the majority of the public who see it for what it is - seems a far more reasonable description.
Windfarms will not solve any of the problems their promoters claim they will.

Report this post »

Hessenford says...
4:58pm Thu 31 Jan 13

muscliffman wrote:
Dr Strangelove wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Not again, this is getting as boring as the surf reef story.
Exactly, and costing even more public money on another unworking and unwanted construction.

Please take this windmill scam away!
Its not unwanted its needed. Glad you speak for all of us, are you royalty?
'Needed' - that does not seem to be the popular view though, does it?
'Unwanted' by the majority of the public who see it for what it is - seems a far more reasonable description.
Windfarms will not solve any of the problems their promoters claim they will.
Shows how good these thing are, a turbine in Devon which is designed to use the wind to generate power has collapsed due to the high winds,
You gotta laugh haven't you.

Report this post »

a.g.o.g. says...
9:45am Fri 1 Feb 13

The unnatural distant object diminishing perspective of the photo`s offered and particularly the pier which clearly isn`t true to the eye demonstrates just what a bunch of scoundrels are they who aim to besmirch our virgin sea views with a circa £4 Billion host of wind turbines that likely will not on average output produce enough electricity to power 600 average homes even between 7 and 9am without the support of the conventional gas/coal/nuclear stations we will have to keep on line part and full time for when there is either no wind or too much of it for them to cope with without feathering their blades or doing a "Devon Dive"!

Report this post »

The Liberal says...
9:48am Fri 1 Feb 13

Assuming it goes ahead, it'll be interesting to see whether the wind farm really is as inconspicuous as in the firm's model. If not, they should be made to pay a huge fine for misleading the public.

Report this post »

a.g.o.g. says...
10:51am Fri 1 Feb 13

Thank you Echo for at least providind a down-loadable copy of Navitus representations of the view the public will have of the wind farm.
If they have the Eyes of a Fish that is!

Report this post »

BmthNewshound says...
11:51am Fri 1 Feb 13

If people had made the same fuss objecting to the electricity pylons that criss-cross our countryside we wouldn't have a national grid which would result in more frequent power cuts.
.
It would be interesting to know what alternative the protestors would propose to replace our aging power stations which are due to be decommisioned. No doubt whatever their proposals they wouldn't want it to be built near their home.
.
I don't know what the fuss is about. For a large proportion of the year the view of the windfarm will be obscured by cloud or sea mist. After a while people will stop even noticing that the turbines are there.

Report this post »

a.g.o.g. says...
11:58am Fri 1 Feb 13

They`ll see all the evedence they don`t want in the size of their energy bills for an extraordinarily expensive supply of power that will in fact be superfluous to the conventional supply that will have to be on line 24/365 anyway. Check the facts and not the fantasy.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree