A Suggested Email

TO YOUR MP – – – – TO YOUR COUNCILLOR
A SUGGESTED EMAIL TO YOUR COUNCILLOR:

Dear Councillor ,

I have heard about the very significant major installation being proposed to the east and west of the existing Rampion wind farm sited in the West Sussex coast.

I strongly oppose this new wind farm, and would like to have your support in opposing this. Your Council officers are currently involved in the pre-application consultation process with the developer. Please ensure that they take into account the strong local opposition to this and properly recognise where the proposed project breaches the guidelines and policy. The key issues are:

  1. that the project does not meet the policy guidelines of the South Marine Plan produced by the Maritime Management Organisation which makes sure that development does not have an adverse impact on tourism. This development is likely to result in around 1000 jobs to be lost in the Arun district alone. visibility from the coast.
  2. That the project is not green. It does not make the best use of valuable resources and so will not help the country reach Net-Zero as quickly as other projects currently in the pipeline for 2030. There is already 60GW of capacity in this pipeline to meet the target of 40GW. The Rampion 2 project should be stopped otherwise the country will be wasting resources. The reason this is not green is that the Rampion 2 area is in a region of low wind power density and so will produce much less electricity than an equivalent wind farm in the North Sea, for example, where the wind power density is much greater.
  3. The Rampion 2 project is not in a region where it can connect to the National Grid’s Offshore Transmission Network (OTN) and so it will need its own onshore cable connection to the onshore national grid. This onshore cable will cross the South Downs National Park causing permanent damage to the ecology. An equivalent wind farm in the North Sea, for example, could be connected to the OTN and would thus avoid all this harm.
  4. The project is within inshore waters and thus is against the OESEA2 government guidelines that all offshore wind projects should be offshore (i.e. >12 nautical miles (14 miles) from shore. This policy is for visibility reasons and for protection to coastal birds.
  5. The project is in contravention of the OESEA3/White report which identifies that wind farms with the height of turbine proposed should be >25 miles from a sensitive area. The South downs national park is such a designated area and the Rampion 2 wind farm would need to be more than 14 miles further out to meet these guidelines.
  6. The wind farm will causing irreparable damage to the seabed which will stop local crab and lobster fishing from Selsey and Littlehampton.

The proposed turbines seem very large – taller than the Eiffel Tower – taller than the highest peak of the South Downs. That would make them about 2.5 times the height of the current turbines – but, whether they are larger or not, any extension would dominate the West Sussex sea view. From location to the West of Climping, the new turbines could appear to be at least four times taller than the current ones. Moreover, this new installation could cover an area FOUR times the size of the existing wind farm and stretch from Selsey Bill in the west to Newhaven in the east.

In both turbine size and extent, such a large windfarm has never been built so close to the coast around the UK before, and I believe none such has been permitted off  the coast of mainland Europe. The turbines are to be sited only 8 miles from the coast. As set out above they should be at least 25 miles from the National Park to have a relatively low visible impact according to government recommendations.

The proposed windfarm will dominate the whole of our Sussex bay. There will be no place along the bay coast to go to avoid them. They will cover the whole of the horizon, fencing in all the sea views. During most of the day they will be illuminated by the sun behind them, making them dark. And at night, the whole horizon will be littered with flashing red lights!

If this project goes ahead, it will cause the coastal economy here to go further into decline. Tourists and visitors, and those who come here for the sea views and invest in the area, will all shun the Sussex bay – choosing to go to more attractive locations. The Sussex bay has already contributed to wind power with its current wind farm. There are much better places around the coast for a new windfarm of this type – in the North Sea, for example, where there is space for more than 175 gigawatts of turbine capacity (in addition to what is already planned to meet the 2050 net-zero target) at distances of 100 miles offshore on average. In this location, they would have limited impact on ship navigation and no significant impact on the coast. This would follow the target set by our prime minister who emphasised on 6th October this year that wind farms would be “far out in the deepest waters”. 

Please do all you can to represent our views and stop this project.

Yours sincerely,

(include name and complete address)

A SUGGESTED EMAIL TO YOUR MP

Dear Nick Gibb MP/Sir Peter Bottomley MP/Mims Davies MP/Andrew Griffith MP/Tim Loughton, MP/Peter Kyle MP,

This project is the very significant extension being proposed to the German-backed, Rampion Wind Farm potentially covering an area spanning the whole of the Sussex bay and very close to the shore (approx. only 8 miles out). This wind farm would NOT be “far out” at all; in fact, it would be an inshore wind farm. (The segregation between inshore and offshore is set out by the UK Marine Management Organisation at 12 nautical miles, or 14 miles, from the shore).  For the very large wind turbines proposed by Rampion for this new extension, the OESEA3 recommendations are a minimum of 25 miles from the South Downs National Park to ensure low impact. It may be difficult to move this proposed Wind Farm in the Sussex bay “far offshore” to meet the recommendations and the PM’s objective since it could interfere with shipping lanes. If so, the Sussex bay is not the right place for such a development. The German company investing and managing this project will receive the subsidies of British taxpayers but will not provide the return to the UK Economy that we need from our transition to renewables.

Along with many others, I strongly oppose such an extension of Rampion and would like to have your support in this.

The proposed turbines seem very large – taller than the Eiffel Tower – the blade tip would be higher than the highest peak of the South Downs National Park. That would make them about 2.5 times the height of the current turbines – but, whether they are larger or not, any extension would dominate the West Sussex sea view. From coastal locations west of Clymping, the new turbines could appear to be at least four times taller than the current ones. Moreover, this new installation could cover an area FOUR times the size of the existing wind farm and stretch from Selsey Bill in the west to Newhaven in the east

In both turbine size and extent, such a large windfarm has never been built so close to the coast in the UK before, and have been rejected by Germany and Belgium in recent applications. It would be contrary to all recommendations.

The proposed windfarm will dominate the whole of our Sussex bay. There will be no place along the bay coast to go to avoid them. They will cover the whole of the horizon, fencing in all the sea views. During most of the day they will be illuminated by the sun behind them, making them dark. And at night, the whole horizon will be littered with flashing red lights.

If this project goes ahead, the impacts would spread wide. Only last year, Sir David Attenborough explicitly expressed concern that ‘dredging to install cable to offshore wind farms changes the seabed and its wildlife forever’ [Wildlife Trusts Marine review 2020].  Rampion 2 also requires a completely new cable route onshore from Clymping to Bolney crossing the South Downs National Park, with a new 11-acre substation that will add to the disruption caused by Rampion.

Unless the wind farm were moved more than 13 miles further offshore, it would have a significant impact on key viewpoints in the South Downs National Park. Yet when the SDNP was designated, great weight was given by the Planning Inspector to the quality of the seascape and the extensive and uninterrupted views from the South Downs out to sea.

The Sussex bay has already contributed to wind power with its current wind farm. Fortunately, there is a greener way forward. All of the wind farms being considered for inshore waters like this proposed project could, instead, be located far offshore in the North Sea. where there is space for more than 175 gigawatts of turbine capacity (in addition to what is already planned to meet the 2050 net-zero target) at distances of 100 miles offshore on average. In this location, they would have limited impact on ship navigation and no significant impact on the coast.

Wind farms in the North Sea can also connect to the new National Grid offshore network transmission that the government has confirmed in the December 2020 Energy White paper. This will provide a much more stable and secure link, obviate any extra direct connection to shore, will be more reliable and will not only power the UK but also allow us to export to the EU in times of strong winds when we have too much wind capacity – instead of paying the operators to switch off. Wind Farms in this North Sea location would be in an area of high wind power density where more energy would be generated per turbine resulting in a lower cost of electricity, a much better (greener) use of valuable resources, a quicker route to Net-Zero and would follow the target set by our prime minister. The UK already has 60GW in the pipeline to meet the PM’s target of 40GW by 2030 and so this project is not necessary.

Please do all you can to represent our views and stop this project.

Yours sincerely,

(please include your full address and postcode as your MP will only consider representations from their own constituents)