Land & Seascapes - Visual Impact
The "Jurassic Coast" World Heritage Site
UNESCO has now responded to the government, raising serious concerns about the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site
The Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (to give it its proper name) is England's only natural WHS. It was designated as a globally important geological site. It was also nominated by the UK government for its natural beauty, but failed to be designated on those grounds partly because it was already protected by strong national designations, such as the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This has lead some to conclude wrongly that the status of the site could not be affected by the wind farm.
The Director of the Culture Sector of the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO wrote to the government on 2nd May. The letter included an annex with details of possible impacts as set out by their designated advisors on natural World Heritage Sites, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). IUCN raised a number of serious concerns. The World Heritage Committee, which makes formal decisions on the state of conservation of sites, has not met to discuss the Jurassic Coast yet. Unsurprisingly therefore, the Jurassic Coast is not currently on the list of World Heritage in Danger and the Committee has not reached a formal position, but the Committee could still act on IUCN's concerns at any time.
The Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (to give it its proper name) is England's only natural WHS. It was designated as a globally important geological site. It was also nominated by the UK government for its natural beauty, but failed to be designated on those grounds partly because it was already protected by strong national designations, such as the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This has lead some to conclude wrongly that the status of the site could not be affected by the wind farm.
The Director of the Culture Sector of the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO wrote to the government on 2nd May. The letter included an annex with details of possible impacts as set out by their designated advisors on natural World Heritage Sites, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). IUCN raised a number of serious concerns. The World Heritage Committee, which makes formal decisions on the state of conservation of sites, has not met to discuss the Jurassic Coast yet. Unsurprisingly therefore, the Jurassic Coast is not currently on the list of World Heritage in Danger and the Committee has not reached a formal position, but the Committee could still act on IUCN's concerns at any time.
IUCN concluded that,
“Any potential impacts from the Project on this natural property are in contradiction to the overarching principle of the World Heritage Convention as stipulated in its Article 4, as the completion of the Project would result in the property being presented and transmitted to future generations in a form that is significantly different from what was there at the time of inscription and until today. Specifically, the property will change from being located in a natural setting that is largely free from man-made structures to one where its setting is dominated by man-made structures.”
Our government accepted its “duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage” when the site was designated.
IUCN also concluded that, “the Project will have a significant impact on the natural setting of the property, in that it would adversely impact on important views from the property, including views from the main visitor centre at Durlston Castle towards the Isle of Wight, where the Project would replace the Isle of Wight as the dominant feature on the horizon. This is likely to significantly impact on visitors’ experience and appreciation of the property in its wider natural setting, which could in turn compromise the long term sustainability of the management of the property, through a loss of revenue and reduced opportunities to present the property in its natural setting to a wide audience. “
The full text of UNESCO's response can be found at jurassiccoast.org/navitus
This is a major step in the assessment of the proposal. It is significant that an independent, international conservation body has reached these conclusions.
When faced with problems over wind farms in the vicinity of Mont St. Michel in France, the French government protected the site by excluding wind farms from the region. We hope that our government will take similar action here to honour its commitments to UNESCO. In IUCN’s words, “…it appears that there is ample opportunity to relocate the Project to other offshore Round 3 zones where any adverse impacts on the property and other sensitive coastal areas… could be entirely avoided. “
“Any potential impacts from the Project on this natural property are in contradiction to the overarching principle of the World Heritage Convention as stipulated in its Article 4, as the completion of the Project would result in the property being presented and transmitted to future generations in a form that is significantly different from what was there at the time of inscription and until today. Specifically, the property will change from being located in a natural setting that is largely free from man-made structures to one where its setting is dominated by man-made structures.”
Our government accepted its “duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage” when the site was designated.
IUCN also concluded that, “the Project will have a significant impact on the natural setting of the property, in that it would adversely impact on important views from the property, including views from the main visitor centre at Durlston Castle towards the Isle of Wight, where the Project would replace the Isle of Wight as the dominant feature on the horizon. This is likely to significantly impact on visitors’ experience and appreciation of the property in its wider natural setting, which could in turn compromise the long term sustainability of the management of the property, through a loss of revenue and reduced opportunities to present the property in its natural setting to a wide audience. “
The full text of UNESCO's response can be found at jurassiccoast.org/navitus
This is a major step in the assessment of the proposal. It is significant that an independent, international conservation body has reached these conclusions.
When faced with problems over wind farms in the vicinity of Mont St. Michel in France, the French government protected the site by excluding wind farms from the region. We hope that our government will take similar action here to honour its commitments to UNESCO. In IUCN’s words, “…it appears that there is ample opportunity to relocate the Project to other offshore Round 3 zones where any adverse impacts on the property and other sensitive coastal areas… could be entirely avoided. “
Our Region is Special
Parts of our region have so far escaped "industrialisation" of the landscape. Even though relatively close to London, it is internationally renowned for its bio-diversity and beauty and it has many official designations to prove it, including two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a World Heritage site. These havens of nature are valuable in our small and overcrowded nation. We think they are worth preserving for future generations if at all possible. We also know that energy supply for our voracious consumption is a problem, and that sustainable energy is needed. As with most things, there is a balance to be struck among conflicting demands.
The Department for Energy and Climate Change recognises these issues. Quoting from the June 2009 DECC's Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (OESEA) post-consultation report, "Reflecting the relative sensitivity of multiple receptors in coastal waters, it is recommended that the bulk of this new generation capacity should be sited away from the coast, generally outside 12 nautical miles (some 22km). This recommendation is not intended to exclude OWF from this area, since there may be scope for further offshore wind development within this area. It is proposed as mitigation for the potential environmental effects of development of the scale and technological uncertainty which may result from this draft plan/programme. The environmental sensitivity of coastal areas is not uniform, and in certain cases new offshore wind farm projects may be acceptable closer to the coast. Conversely, siting beyond 12nm may be justified for some areas/developments. Detailed site-specific information gathering and stakeholder consultation is required before the acceptability of specific major Round 3 or subsequent wind farm projects close to the coast can be assessed."
We would have thought that our region merited siting of a wind farm more than 13.8 miles (22km or 12nm) away, not 4.9 miles closer. If our region is not worthy of special care, then where would be?
The International Picture
It is somewhat ironic that in Eneco's home country of Holland, government policy is to avoid permanent structures within 12nm of the coast to preserve views to a clear horizon. In EDF's home country of France, there are smaller wind farms at a similar distance being planned, but the French government has acted to protect its World Heritage Site at Mont St Michel. In Germany, wind farms are typically placed even further out (more than 35km).
When Eneco built the Prinses Amalia wind farm off the Dutch coast, it posted the following message on its website. "In the North Sea off the Dutch coast of Ijmuiden we have developed and constructed Prinses Amalia Windpark. Situated 23km out to sea, in deep waters, this generates energy for approximately 125,000 households without spoiling the uninterrupted sea views enjoyed so much by beach goers. With this project we have shown that offshore wind farms can be safe and profitable". The Prinses Amalia wind farm is almost twice as far from the coast as the Navitus Bay development area, with just 60 turbines, 99m tall in an area less than 10% the size, so its effect is tiny by comparison.