To mark the official close of the examination period for EDF Energy and Eneco’s controversial Navitus Bay offshore wind farm, Bournemouth Borough Council has warned that the development will significantly harm the region’s natural beauty, the setting of two areas of outstanding natural beauty and remove significant employment from the resort. Bournemouth Council is calling for the project to be rejected on the grounds that it will cause irreparable damage to the tourism industry and the beauty of the bay and contravenes national planning policy.
In its final message to the government’s planning inspectorate, responsible for making a recommendation to the Secretary of State to approve or reject the offshore wind farm, Bournemouth Council fiercely condemned the vast offshore wind farm development proposed in Poole Bay:
– The industrial-scale, highly visible turbines, located in Poole Bay for over 25 years would be classed as permanent structures and fall into the highest category of harm in terms of visual assessment – further risking the international designation of the Jurassic Coast as a World Heritage Site. The Jurassic Coast is England’s first and only natural WHS.
– EDF and Eneco’s developer has provided inaccurate, misleading and biased information and assessments to the Planning Inspectorate by:
- Dismissing and discrediting its own research revealing over six million visitors will stop coming to Bournemouth while the wind farm is constructed. A tourist exodus on this scale will undermine the local economy to the tune of £100 million every year, yet Navitus Bay continues to argue that such an impact is ‘insignificant’;
- Classifying the estimated 4,923 jobs lost as a consequence of this project as ‘insignificant’ while claiming that the estimated 140 jobs created amount to a ‘significant’ benefit;
- Attempting to compare what would be one of the world’s largest wind farms in a thriving tourism resort to small and remote onshore wind farms or wind farms in resorts which are surely not comparable to Bournemouth and whose tourism appeal does not rely on beautiful, natural surroundings;
- Using non-site specific data and surveys to make spurious economic impact assessments;
- Adopting inconsistent methodologies to evaluate the employment effects in order to hide the jobs lost and promote the few jobs created.
– The area’s visitor economy is forecast to lose £6.3 billion over the life of the project with 4,923 people forced out of work. Yet the French giant – Electricite de France (EDF) and Eneco have failed to acknowledge or provide compensation for the damage it will cause.
Councillor John Beesley, Leader of Bournemouth Borough Council said:
“Navitus Bay threatens to industrialise and irrevocably damage the outstandingly beautiful and natural Dorset coast. Nearly 200 giant wind turbines, a third taller than the Isle of Wight as you look out to sea, will dominate Poole Bay. The area’s core tourism appeal offering an unspoilt bay with beautiful and natural views, will be lost. The life blood of local businesses will be sucked away – and the more vulnerable small independent businesses will be worst hit.
“The knock on effect of EDF Energy’s vast wind farm on our local economy will cause long-term harm. Navitus Bay itself admits that over six million tourists will avoid Bournemouth while the wind farm is constructed. The evidence shows that local businesses will see a 20% down turn in trade, 2,500 local people could lose their jobs and almost as many again in the other resorts around Poole Bay. Bournemouth’s tourism income will suffer to the tune of £100 million every year. These are the very real and sobering realities Bournemouth residents face if the wind farm is built.
“Navitus Bay hurts Bournemouth to its core. The sheer scale, location and risks of this development are unprecedented. Never before has a wind farm of this magnitude been proposed that also directly threatens Britain’s premier resort and jeopardises the Jurassic Coast’s status as a World Heritage Site.
“Renewable energy is important but should not need to come at the expense of a unique national asset, local jobs and businesses; nor should it force a thriving tourism economy into reverse.”
