23 October 2015 - BBC reports the Crown Estate's comments
The BBC have reported that the Crown Estate has "no future development plans" for the Navitus Bay site.
19 October 2015 - NBDL has decided not to challenge the government's refusal of the Navitus Bay wind farm project.
NBDL has announced that it will not mount a legal challenge to the government's decision to refuse consent for the Navitus Bay wind farm proposal. This means that the project will NOT go ahead. The announcement can be found here.
We are pleased and relieved to have reached this final conclusion. The examiners' recommendation for refusal was unequivocal and carefully considered, as was the Secretary of State's decision, so it would have been surprising if there had been valid grounds for a legal challenge, but NBDL's decision is welcome. An enormous amount of effort went into the examination and it was not decided on a political whim, but on the balance of the proposal's merits.
Navitus Bay is the only offshore wind farm so far to have been refused consent under the National Infrastructure Project regime, and others still in the pipeline are likely to gain consent because they are situated on less sensitive and contentious sites.
Many thanks to all who supported us throughout this long campaign, particularly those who took part in the examination or whose generous donations enabled us to present our case in a professional manner. The decision shows that not every planning application is a foregone conclusion, and communities can ensure that their concerns are heard.
We are pleased and relieved to have reached this final conclusion. The examiners' recommendation for refusal was unequivocal and carefully considered, as was the Secretary of State's decision, so it would have been surprising if there had been valid grounds for a legal challenge, but NBDL's decision is welcome. An enormous amount of effort went into the examination and it was not decided on a political whim, but on the balance of the proposal's merits.
Navitus Bay is the only offshore wind farm so far to have been refused consent under the National Infrastructure Project regime, and others still in the pipeline are likely to gain consent because they are situated on less sensitive and contentious sites.
Many thanks to all who supported us throughout this long campaign, particularly those who took part in the examination or whose generous donations enabled us to present our case in a professional manner. The decision shows that not every planning application is a foregone conclusion, and communities can ensure that their concerns are heard.
11 September 2015 - The Secretary of State has REFUSED development consent
After a long and arduous process of consultation and examination, the government has decided to refuse development consent for EDF and Eneco to develop the Navitus Bay wind farm. The government followed the examiners' recommendation of refusal, so this is not simply a political decision.
This proposal was in one of the worst locations of all the new offshore wind farms and we are relieved that the government has agreed that the plan was ill-judged. With so many valid reasons for opposition, and unprecedented levels of objection, it would have been irrational to allow this scheme to proceed. The decision was based on the pros and cons of this particular proposal and should not be interpreted as a change in approach to National Infrastructure projects in general.
We regret that so much time and effort has been put into examining a proposal that was clearly flawed from the outset and in a zone that should never have been included in the national offshore wind farm plan. We call on the developer to accept the government's decision and abandon its plans for good.
The decision documents can be found here. More information on the process can be found on our Planning Process page.
There is only a 6 week period in which a Judicial Review can be lodged. This is a challenge to the way in which the decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the decision itself.
This proposal was in one of the worst locations of all the new offshore wind farms and we are relieved that the government has agreed that the plan was ill-judged. With so many valid reasons for opposition, and unprecedented levels of objection, it would have been irrational to allow this scheme to proceed. The decision was based on the pros and cons of this particular proposal and should not be interpreted as a change in approach to National Infrastructure projects in general.
We regret that so much time and effort has been put into examining a proposal that was clearly flawed from the outset and in a zone that should never have been included in the national offshore wind farm plan. We call on the developer to accept the government's decision and abandon its plans for good.
The decision documents can be found here. More information on the process can be found on our Planning Process page.
There is only a 6 week period in which a Judicial Review can be lodged. This is a challenge to the way in which the decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the decision itself.
12 August 2015 - Tourism boards' concerns over the local economic impacts of the Navitus Bay wind farm proposal.
We share Bournemouth and Poole tourism boards' concerns over the local economic impacts of the Navitus Bay wind farm proposal. Siting such a huge development so close to the protected landscapes of Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is bound to worry the 20,000+ people in the region whose jobs in tourism benefit from the exceptional natural environment.
From the developer's reports, the "minimum of 1700" new local jobs that has been claimed is actually a peak of temporary employment in one year during construction and the long term level in operation would be very much lower at 100-140 jobs. Even this depends on the full project being built and concrete turbine bases being chosen and built in a brand new local plant (at Portland). If the more usual steel bases were used, local jobs would drop to around 200 temporary construction jobs (peak) and 100-140 (in operation).
Because the local tourism economy is so large, it would take only a very small downturn to offset the local economic benefits that the wind farm could generate, and existing businesses would run the risk, not the developer. Tourism is not the only sector that could be affected, either.
The national benefits of wind farms arise wherever they are built, so it is hard to justify the industrialisation of areas that are both close to protected landscapes and have valuable local economies that are supported by those natural assets. We believe Navitus Bay is a bad compromise and should not be consented.
From the developer's reports, the "minimum of 1700" new local jobs that has been claimed is actually a peak of temporary employment in one year during construction and the long term level in operation would be very much lower at 100-140 jobs. Even this depends on the full project being built and concrete turbine bases being chosen and built in a brand new local plant (at Portland). If the more usual steel bases were used, local jobs would drop to around 200 temporary construction jobs (peak) and 100-140 (in operation).
Because the local tourism economy is so large, it would take only a very small downturn to offset the local economic benefits that the wind farm could generate, and existing businesses would run the risk, not the developer. Tourism is not the only sector that could be affected, either.
The national benefits of wind farms arise wherever they are built, so it is hard to justify the industrialisation of areas that are both close to protected landscapes and have valuable local economies that are supported by those natural assets. We believe Navitus Bay is a bad compromise and should not be consented.
7 August 2015 - NBDL "Hands back" unused seabed to the Crown Estate
The so-called "handing back" of unused seabed to the Crown Estate is entirely normal once the precise area for a wind farm has been defined and NBDL would not be permitted to develop outside their chosen area in any case. It does not guarantee that the remaining seabed will not be used in the future for other energy projects or oil & gas exploration. This announcement has no effect on the proposal for the Navitus Bay wind farm, which has not been approved yet by the government, and which we maintain is too big and too close to the protected landscapes of Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The zone arrangements for the Dogger Bank zone were also concluded. The Crown Estate's agreements are reported here.
31 July 2015 - NBDL select Siemens and VBMS (UK) Ltd as Electrical Transmission System Supplier
VBMS is a Dutch company and Siemens is German. They are both established multi-national players in the energy field. Whether this is good news for the UK depends upon what fraction of the contract value is actually spent in the UK and not on imports, and that has not been disclosed.
9 July 2015 - Local MPs meet the Prime Minister to discuss Navitus Bay
Local MPs - Richard Drax , Michael Tomlinson, Conor Burns, Tobias Ellwood and Christopher Chope had a brief meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron, to explain the nature and level of public concerns over the Navitus Bay proposal.
15 June 2015 - Adjournment debate in Parliament
Richard Drax (MP for South Dorset) held an adjournment debate in the House of Commons with local MPs attending. These debates are for local MPs to put a particular matter before the House. The purpose of this debate "was to impress upon the Government the contentious nature of the wind farm and how many people are opposed to it" said Mr Drax. The full text can be found in the official Hansard report (starting on page 85 of this pdf)
11 June 2015 - DECC receives Planners’ recommendations
The Planning Inspectorate has sent its recommendations to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The Government’s final decision will be announced on or before 11 September 2015 when the decision letter and the examiners' report will be published on the PINS page.
21 May 2015 Developer announces preferred turbine for Navitus Bay
EDF and Eneco (NBDL) announced preferred-supplier status for MHI Vestas to supply up to 121 8MW turbines for the Navitus Bay project if it gets the go-ahead.
NBDL originally applied for consent to build up to 194 turbines with a capacity of 970MW. They later added a smaller “turbine area mitigation option” with a capacity of 630MW and up to 105 turbines as a potential alternative to the original scheme. A decision by the government on these proposals is not expected until September 2015.
Today's provisional selection of a 121 x 8MW turbine array was one of the configurations already presented in the examination and is not new. These turbines are simply bigger than those in an alternative 194 x 5MW array (which was also presented) - both alternatives achieve the same total capacity. Similarly, alternatives of 76 x 8MW or 105 x 6MW turbine arrays were presented for the "mitigation option".
NBDL described the 8MW arrays during the planning examination as the REALISTIC WORST CASE SCENARIO for daytime visual impact, so today's announcement selects the option which the developer believes would have the greatest anticipated impact.
The blades of these turbines may be constructed at the MHI Vestas plant on the Isle of Wight where an order would help to support existing jobs, but it has not been disclosed where the expensive generators and towers would be built. Vestas is a Danish company, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is Japanese. It is good that at least a fraction of the turbine manufacturing might come to the UK, but this has to be balanced against the risk to our local economy from the position of Navitus Bay - particularly to the tens of thousands of local jobs dependent on tourism. This risk could be avoided if the wind farm were built in a less sensitive area, yet the benefits to UK manufacturing would still follow. We firmly maintain this wind farm would be an unnecessarily damaging development for its unique and highly valued location.
NBDL originally applied for consent to build up to 194 turbines with a capacity of 970MW. They later added a smaller “turbine area mitigation option” with a capacity of 630MW and up to 105 turbines as a potential alternative to the original scheme. A decision by the government on these proposals is not expected until September 2015.
Today's provisional selection of a 121 x 8MW turbine array was one of the configurations already presented in the examination and is not new. These turbines are simply bigger than those in an alternative 194 x 5MW array (which was also presented) - both alternatives achieve the same total capacity. Similarly, alternatives of 76 x 8MW or 105 x 6MW turbine arrays were presented for the "mitigation option".
NBDL described the 8MW arrays during the planning examination as the REALISTIC WORST CASE SCENARIO for daytime visual impact, so today's announcement selects the option which the developer believes would have the greatest anticipated impact.
The blades of these turbines may be constructed at the MHI Vestas plant on the Isle of Wight where an order would help to support existing jobs, but it has not been disclosed where the expensive generators and towers would be built. Vestas is a Danish company, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is Japanese. It is good that at least a fraction of the turbine manufacturing might come to the UK, but this has to be balanced against the risk to our local economy from the position of Navitus Bay - particularly to the tens of thousands of local jobs dependent on tourism. This risk could be avoided if the wind farm were built in a less sensitive area, yet the benefits to UK manufacturing would still follow. We firmly maintain this wind farm would be an unnecessarily damaging development for its unique and highly valued location.
11 March 2015 - The Planning examination has closed.
13 Jan 2015 The Examining Authority has determined that NBDL's additional proposal for a smaller wind farm (the Turbine Area Mitigation Option) does amount to a material change, but not to the point of constituting a new application. It will therefore be included in the examination as part of the application. Click here for their letter.
There will an opportunity for invited Interested Parties to make oral representations at an Issue Specific Hearing in Bournemouth on Thursday 22nd January, 2-5pm, click here for more details.
Interested Parties can respond in writing to PINS regarding the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option by Thursday 5th February. Those who did not register as Interested Parties can also make written representations,provided they relate only to the Turbine Area Mitigation Option.
We will continue to participate in the examination and will update this website so please check back.
12 / 16 Dec 2014: Update: Mitigation option
EDF and Eneco (NBDL) proposed an additional “mitigation option” for the Navitus Bay wind farm in November. This would be a smaller wind farm of 630MW capacity in the southern part of its area, but the current 970MW proposal has NOT been withdrawn and the examination of this option will continue. The developer wants the Secretary of State to have an alternative in case he / she decides not to consent the original plan.
This is an unusual step, and it has not been accepted yet by the examiners. The public consultation obviously did not cover the mitigation option, and it is questionable whether such a large change to the application during examination would be permissible.
You will see this referred to by the Examining Authority (the ExA) as the “mitigation option set out in Appendix 43 of the Applicant’s response to deadline III”. All the new information on the option was submitted for “Deadline IV” yesterday and will be available on the PINS Project page. A summary of this mitigation option can be found in the relevant Appendix 43 and its successor (the latter was loaded onto the PINS Project page on 15 Dec).
The Examining Authority wrote to all Interested Parties on 21 November concerning an amendment to the examination timetable. In the letter, Interested Parties were asked to submit their views on whether the mitigation option in Appendix 43 amounts to
The ExA aims to decide on 14 January whether to permit inclusion of this option. The afternoon of Thursday 22 January has been reserved for an Issue Specific Hearing at Bournemouth.
If you have any questions or to submit your views, please respond to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) directly, NavitusBay@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk, quoting your Interested Party number. If you didn’t register as an Interested Party you can still respond but the Examining Authority is not obliged to accept your submission.
We have been very busy attending all the Issue Specific Hearings and Site Visits, and responding to yesterday’s deadline for more comments on the original proposal so we haven’t had the time to study the option yet. We will need additional funds to take expert advice and present our case so any donations would be appreciated.
There will an opportunity for invited Interested Parties to make oral representations at an Issue Specific Hearing in Bournemouth on Thursday 22nd January, 2-5pm, click here for more details.
Interested Parties can respond in writing to PINS regarding the merits of the Turbine Area Mitigation Option by Thursday 5th February. Those who did not register as Interested Parties can also make written representations,provided they relate only to the Turbine Area Mitigation Option.
We will continue to participate in the examination and will update this website so please check back.
12 / 16 Dec 2014: Update: Mitigation option
EDF and Eneco (NBDL) proposed an additional “mitigation option” for the Navitus Bay wind farm in November. This would be a smaller wind farm of 630MW capacity in the southern part of its area, but the current 970MW proposal has NOT been withdrawn and the examination of this option will continue. The developer wants the Secretary of State to have an alternative in case he / she decides not to consent the original plan.
This is an unusual step, and it has not been accepted yet by the examiners. The public consultation obviously did not cover the mitigation option, and it is questionable whether such a large change to the application during examination would be permissible.
You will see this referred to by the Examining Authority (the ExA) as the “mitigation option set out in Appendix 43 of the Applicant’s response to deadline III”. All the new information on the option was submitted for “Deadline IV” yesterday and will be available on the PINS Project page. A summary of this mitigation option can be found in the relevant Appendix 43 and its successor (the latter was loaded onto the PINS Project page on 15 Dec).
The Examining Authority wrote to all Interested Parties on 21 November concerning an amendment to the examination timetable. In the letter, Interested Parties were asked to submit their views on whether the mitigation option in Appendix 43 amounts to
- a material change of such a degree that it constitutes a new project or
- whether it can still be considered under the existing application.
The ExA aims to decide on 14 January whether to permit inclusion of this option. The afternoon of Thursday 22 January has been reserved for an Issue Specific Hearing at Bournemouth.
If you have any questions or to submit your views, please respond to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) directly, NavitusBay@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk, quoting your Interested Party number. If you didn’t register as an Interested Party you can still respond but the Examining Authority is not obliged to accept your submission.
We have been very busy attending all the Issue Specific Hearings and Site Visits, and responding to yesterday’s deadline for more comments on the original proposal so we haven’t had the time to study the option yet. We will need additional funds to take expert advice and present our case so any donations would be appreciated.
8/11/14
The developer has made an unusual proposal for the option of a smaller wind farm of 630MW capacity in the southern part of its area if the main proposal for 970MW is found to be unacceptable by the Secretary of State. It is important to understand that this is just an additional option, it is NOT a replacement for the current plan. This "option" would effectively be a new project as it is so different from the original application and we are not sure how the examiners will respond to the developer's suggestion of running with both proposals at the same time. We'll keep you posted as the situation develops.
10/08/14: New guidance exposes weakness in Navitus Bay imagery
At long last, major changes to the guidance on visualisations for wind farms have been announced by Scottish Natural Heritage, author of the old guidance used by developer (NBDL) during the consultation on the Navitus Bay wind farm. The old methods often under-represented the size of developments, so the new guidance specifies larger-scale images to make them more accessible and realistic.
Controversy over the existing guidance has run for years, and it is highly regrettable that the changes have come too late for the Navitus Bay consultation. In our opinion the public has been denied a fair chance to assess this and many other proposals as a consequence.
Over a year ago Challenge Navitus published images in the formats now adopted by SNH. NBDL chose to stick with the old guidance although one of the new formats had already been applied to a similar offshore wind farm in Scotland. NBDL may claim that the change makes no difference to its visual impact assessment, and that they were only following industry protocol, but people just wanted realistic images to judge for themselves.
We have done our best to show the wind farm as it might really look with our videos and reference images, but it is the developer’s responsibility to inform the public properly.
Controversy over the existing guidance has run for years, and it is highly regrettable that the changes have come too late for the Navitus Bay consultation. In our opinion the public has been denied a fair chance to assess this and many other proposals as a consequence.
Over a year ago Challenge Navitus published images in the formats now adopted by SNH. NBDL chose to stick with the old guidance although one of the new formats had already been applied to a similar offshore wind farm in Scotland. NBDL may claim that the change makes no difference to its visual impact assessment, and that they were only following industry protocol, but people just wanted realistic images to judge for themselves.
We have done our best to show the wind farm as it might really look with our videos and reference images, but it is the developer’s responsibility to inform the public properly.
17/07/14: Rampion wind farm
The 700MW Rampion wind farm off Brighton and Worthing was given consent on Wednesday. The acceptance of the Rampion proposal has little bearing on the potential outcome of the Navitus Bay planning application. Each offshore wind farm is different, with its own specific issues and challenges. Comparing one area with another can be both irrelevant and misleading.
The New Forest National Park, the Purbeck and Tennyson Heritage Coasts and adoining Areas of Oustanding Natural Beauty are unique, and include England's only Natural World Heritage Site. These designations were granted specifically to protect against the kind of industrialisation that the Navitus Bay wind farm would bring and to preserve these special places for future generations. There would also be many other environmental and social impacts specific to Navitus Bay. The degree of concern over the Navitus Bay application is clear from the record number of people who formally registered to oppose the scheme.
The New Forest National Park, the Purbeck and Tennyson Heritage Coasts and adoining Areas of Oustanding Natural Beauty are unique, and include England's only Natural World Heritage Site. These designations were granted specifically to protect against the kind of industrialisation that the Navitus Bay wind farm would bring and to preserve these special places for future generations. There would also be many other environmental and social impacts specific to Navitus Bay. The degree of concern over the Navitus Bay application is clear from the record number of people who formally registered to oppose the scheme.
24/06/14: Registration for interested parties has now closed.
Our website will be updated as the examination progresses. The first step will be the Preliminary Meeting and everyone who has registered with the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) will be notified . Please see the PINS project page for up-to-date information and documents.
24/05/14: UNESCO has now responded to the government, raising serious concerns. More...
08/05/14: NBDL's planning application has been accepted for examination (this does NOT mean the wind farm has been approved)!
We now begin the year-long examination of the proposal. You will have a limited period in which to become an Interested Party and voice your concerns about this application in a representation. UPDATE: REGISTRATION CLOSES MONDAY 23rd JUNE. Please look at the reasons why we're challenging this proposal, view our animations and contact us if you have any questions.
Please stay in touch by subscribing and we'll keep you up to date.
We are disappointed, though not surprised, at the Planning Inspectorate's decision to proceed with the examination at this stage. We had factual objections to the accuracy and scope of some of NBDL's information used in the public consultation, but the Inspectors obviously concluded that they were not serious enough to require further consultation. We will still be able to raise issues that are relevant to the merits of the proposal during the examination itself. As it stands, English planning law seems to be remarkably vague about the quality and scope of information that should be presented to the public during a consultation, or how it should be judged for adequacy.
Please stay in touch by subscribing and we'll keep you up to date.
We are disappointed, though not surprised, at the Planning Inspectorate's decision to proceed with the examination at this stage. We had factual objections to the accuracy and scope of some of NBDL's information used in the public consultation, but the Inspectors obviously concluded that they were not serious enough to require further consultation. We will still be able to raise issues that are relevant to the merits of the proposal during the examination itself. As it stands, English planning law seems to be remarkably vague about the quality and scope of information that should be presented to the public during a consultation, or how it should be judged for adequacy.
06/02/14 NBDL announcement on new changes to the wind farm layout
06/02/14 NBDL have announced some bew changes to their proposal prior to submission of their planning application in the Spring.
The threats to the environment, tourism, birds and navigation remain largely unchanged, and the onshore disruption will be the same.
Any reduction of the scheme is welcome, but these changes will not radically alter the visual impact of the scheme. NBDL's change reduces the horizontal spread of the wind farm as seen from the World Heritage Site at Durlston Castle from 59 to 44 degrees. But from there, the wind farm would still span 1.8x the width of the entire Isle of Wight and stand up to 2.8x its height, so it would be a highly prominent industrial development in what is currently one of the best, unspoilt views on the south coast of England.
The proposal would need a far more radical rethink to address the issues raised in consultation, and it remains a bad plan in the wrong place.
We hae asked NBDL for more information and will be updating our website shortly.
NBDL's full announcement and map can be found on their website www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk
- The capacity of the wind farm has been reduced by 12% from 1100MW to 970MW, which is still 8% higher than the original "budget" of 900MW declared for this zone in the Round 3 wind farms plan.
- The area has reduced by the same amount, to 155 sq.km from 175 sq.km, primarily by cutting off the northern tip of the development area.
- The distance to the closest turbines has not changed for Swanage and Durlston, but it has been increased by up to 2.6 miles at Milford-on-Sea for example.
The threats to the environment, tourism, birds and navigation remain largely unchanged, and the onshore disruption will be the same.
Any reduction of the scheme is welcome, but these changes will not radically alter the visual impact of the scheme. NBDL's change reduces the horizontal spread of the wind farm as seen from the World Heritage Site at Durlston Castle from 59 to 44 degrees. But from there, the wind farm would still span 1.8x the width of the entire Isle of Wight and stand up to 2.8x its height, so it would be a highly prominent industrial development in what is currently one of the best, unspoilt views on the south coast of England.
The proposal would need a far more radical rethink to address the issues raised in consultation, and it remains a bad plan in the wrong place.
We hae asked NBDL for more information and will be updating our website shortly.
NBDL's full announcement and map can be found on their website www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk
26/11/13 The Atlantic Array Wind Farm has been abandoned by Developer RWE Npower
26/11/13 The developer of the Atlantic Array wind farm in the Bristol Channel has abandoned the project citing technical challenges and current market conditions. The Atlantic Array was further down the application route than Navitus Bay, and had also run into strong opposition from local people in Devon and Wales who were concerned by the size and proximity of the windfarm in such a beautiful area.
This windfarm was a similar size to the proposed Navitus Bay wind farm and had similar challenges, for example:
Other large Round 3 wind farms in less sensitive areas much further offshore seem to be progressing with fewer problems.
We hope that NBDL will take full account of all your concerns and conclude that its development would be inappropriate for our region. Until they make that decision, we need to continue to inform NBDL why its current proposal is unacceptable.
This windfarm was a similar size to the proposed Navitus Bay wind farm and had similar challenges, for example:
- It was close to highly sensitive coastlines of Devon and South Wales and would have been easily visible from both sides of the Bristol Channel
- It was close to bird habitats, expecially the island of Lundy
- Local economies are dependent on tourism.
Other large Round 3 wind farms in less sensitive areas much further offshore seem to be progressing with fewer problems.
We hope that NBDL will take full account of all your concerns and conclude that its development would be inappropriate for our region. Until they make that decision, we need to continue to inform NBDL why its current proposal is unacceptable.
Previous change to the windfarm area. December 2012.
IN December 2012, NBDL adjusted the windfarm's area as shown on the map below. We regard the change as relatively minor given the remaining scale of the development. It seems to have been made primarily to avoid obstructing the approach for ships to the Needles Channel. The change has moved the closest turbines further out to sea by variable amounts depending on where you are, but the closest turbines are still only 8.9 miles (14.3km) off the World Heritage Site at Durlston.
The Dec 2012 Revised Layout.
The Dec 2012 revised layout for the windfarm in relation to the leading light beams from Hurst Point.
NBDL's full announcement can be found on their website www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk .
The headline numbers are:
The headline numbers are:
- Maximum capacity reduced by 8% to 1100MW.
- Area reduced by 12.5% to 175 sq. km.
- "Small" 3.6MW turbines have been ruled out of consideration. The smallest will now be 5MW machines of around 165m (542ft) in height. The effect of this is that whereas there might have been up to 333 3.6MW turbines, now there might be up to 218, larger 5MW turbines. What matters, of course, is the number of turbines that would actually be installed, which is proportional to the windfarm's capacity, and that has been reduced by only 8%.
- The maximum turbine height has been set at 200m. This is not a significant change on the 205m maximum declared in the developer's Scoping Report of 2011.
- Hengistbury Head benefits most from the change in the development area. The closest turbine moves from 8.4 miles to 10.3 miles offshore. Durlston benefits less, with the closest turbine moving from 8.2 miles to 8.9 miles offshore. NBDL has made sure that no turbines would lie north of a line from St. Aldhelm's Head to St. Catherine's Point, so they would not interfere with line of sight between Purbeck and the Isle of Wight.
- At 1100MW, the windfarm is still 20% bigger than the 900MW capacity that the zone was originally attributed in 2010.
- On the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site at Durlston, the windfarm would span well over twice the apparent width of the Isle of Wight, and be up to nearly three times its apparent height. This is still a massive development which would be widely visible all around our region.
- The windfarm still lies on an important bird migration route, and in the middle of a busy maritime area.