Wind farm plan scaled back

By a County Press reporter

Thursday, February 6, 2014

 

Wind farm plan scaled back

From left to right; Chris Lisher, Yarmouth Harbour chief executive and harbour master with Navitus Bay project manager Sean Matthews and Isle of Wight Council cabinet member for sustainability Cllr Luisa Hillard.

CONTROVERSIAL plans for a huge offshore wind park off the south-west of the Island have been scaled back for a second time.

Navitus Bay Developments Ltd announced yesterday (Thursday) it would remove the northernmost part of the £3.5 billion windfarm — the top triangle — to move the site up to 2.6 miles further away from the shore.

The latest change, when combined with the previous scaling back of the project in December 2012, would significantly reduce the visual impact of the wind park from all viewpoints along the coast, including the IW, the developer claimed.

It said the new boundary would:

•Reduce the maximum number of turbines, assuming the use of the 5MW model, from 218 to 194.

•Increase the distance of the boundary to the Needles by 2.3 miles, from 8.6 miles to 10.9 miles.

• Open up a clear gap between the southern coast of the IW and the development.

Mike Unsworth, project director at Navitus Bay, said: "As we move towards submitting our final application for planning permission, we believe this latest boundary change is a positive step, ensuring the project reflects local views while bringing considerable benefits to the region."

If approved, the wind park would generate enough energy to power around 710,000 homes.

Yarmouth is one of three south coast ports competing to become a supply base for the windfarm, which could create around 160 long-term Isle of Wight jobs.

Concerns have been raised however, that the development could have a negative impact on tourism and spoil iconic views of the Needles.

Comments

Log-in or register to comment on this story. See our House Rules here.

By ticking "Remember me" you agree to a cookie being stored on your computer - no personal data is shared.

Forgotten your password?
Displaying the last 10 of 30 comments - Show All Comments

Log-in to Report

by Keven Ball

9th February 2014, at 17:33:21

If your speaking skills are like your writing ones Neil I'll pass thanks... You can buy me a pint though if you want to? Cannot you explain yourself here or do you like the personal touch?

Log-in to Report

by Keven Ball

7th February 2014, at 20:03:44

I will wait for the reply then 'neil'?

Log-in to Report

by Don Prescott

7th February 2014, at 16:42:21

@ jy,

"the usual less well informed comment from those who know too little to know how little they know"

ain't that the truth!

Log-in to Report

by Keven Ball

7th February 2014, at 16:12:57

*post

Log-in to Report

by Keven Ball

7th February 2014, at 16:12:41

Robert, what on earth is your posy about? "THEY would either just blow up or have to be taken off line for their safety." They will not blow-up, as they are designed for the wind I am sure they are quite safe.

Log-in to Report

by Keven Ball

7th February 2014, at 16:10:51

Hi Neil,

Lol, what on earth are you talking about now? Getting personal is the first sign of losing it my old son... do you back the wind farms or not and why? Can you try and read the title before posting pointlessly (if capable)?

Log-in to Report

by James McAdder

7th February 2014, at 07:36:34

Please post some links to you information re sound propagation.

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

6th February 2014, at 23:44:43

Navitus Bay Development Ltd, although registered in England, is in effect jointly owned by the French and Dutch Governments. I suspect the second "scaling down" has always been a part the plan to gain public acceptability, but the noise levels onshore at Durlston, the SW of the Island and perhaps Bournemouth would still be above the UK limits as defined by ETSU-R-97.

The developers seem to have little understanding of the acoustics of offshore wind farms. The combined effects of acoustic reflection from the sea and acoustic refraction from wind shear cause offshore propagation of low frequency sound to follow cylindrical rather than spherical geometric divergence, which greatly decreases the attenuation per km.

Pleasing to see some well informed comment here, to compete with the usual less well informed comment from those who know too little to know how little they know. Not really their fault, with such a ruthless wind lobby and such poor science education in our scho

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

6th February 2014, at 23:16:22

I thought Matthew Hampshire comment was quite amusing until I saw his second comment, and realised that his first one was serious. Matthew, the Needles light could perhaps be converted to a wind turbine, but it would not be a big wind turbine, just a rather small one.

Log-in to Report

by ROBERT SMITH

6th February 2014, at 23:12:39

These windfarms are a TOTAL WASTE of money.
BECAUSE with the high winds we are currently having, THEY would either just blow up or have to be taken off line for their safety. THEREFORE NO ELECTRICITY.

Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.

Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Delicious Icon

More News

1 - 2 - 3 - 4

Most Read

  1. Woman suffers serious injuries

    Wednesday, April 23, 2014

  2. Dairy ends milk processing after 30 years

    Wednesday, April 23, 2014

  3. Motorcyclist injured in crash

    Wednesday, April 23, 2014

  4. Hospital criticised after death of five year old

    Thursday, April 24, 2014

  5. Recommendations for ferry companies

    Thursday, April 24, 2014

View our Elgin Traffic & Travel Map