MP opposes wind farm

MP opposes wind farm

MP opposes wind farm

First published in News

AN MP has added his voice to opposition to one of the world’s largest offshore wind farms.

Brighton Kemptown MP Simon Kirby has written to Energy Secretary Ed Davey MP asking him to look again at the recent decision to approve the Rampion wind farm eight miles off the coast of Sussex.

The 175-turbine farm is expected to bring in £2 billion of investment, create 750 jobs and could provide power for up to 45,000 homes.

The MP is worried about the impact on wildlife and visual intrusion from the land.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:46pm Tue 29 Jul 14

G Wiley says...

It is so easy to find someone against anything these days - roads, trains, rail links, airports, houses, supermarkets, wind farms, power stations, fracking, cycle lanes, bus lanes, etc. because it affects the view from their mansion and they don't want it happen where they live.

They are, of course, quite happy for these to happen in someone else's back garden - preferably in another country.

So an MP is worried that the wind farm would spoil the view of a wind farm 8 miles from the coast!

We have to move forward (it's called progress) and this means changes to the environment and this is bound to affect somebody and give the chance for every nimby/activist to come up with a reason (real or imaginary) to oppose it.

I've just been watching some of Michael Portillo's British Railway Journey's where railway lines, stations. bridges and aqueducts have been built across the country for hundreds of years to provide transportation and are now looked on as being beautiful parts of the scenery. In fact these 'blots' have provided new views and given the ability to see vistas that were not possible to see before they were introduced.

I imagine all such progressive changes be opposed now by minority group?

Perhaps the wind farm will actually be a thing of beauty to see as the vanes turn in the distance and we can see value in how this will (hopefully) help reduce global emissions.
It is so easy to find someone against anything these days - roads, trains, rail links, airports, houses, supermarkets, wind farms, power stations, fracking, cycle lanes, bus lanes, etc. because it affects the view from their mansion and they don't want it happen where they live. They are, of course, quite happy for these to happen in someone else's back garden - preferably in another country. So an MP is worried that the wind farm would spoil the view of a wind farm 8 miles from the coast! We have to move forward (it's called progress) and this means changes to the environment and this is bound to affect somebody and give the chance for every nimby/activist to come up with a reason (real or imaginary) to oppose it. I've just been watching some of Michael Portillo's British Railway Journey's where railway lines, stations. bridges and aqueducts have been built across the country for hundreds of years to provide transportation and are now looked on as being beautiful parts of the scenery. In fact these 'blots' have provided new views and given the ability to see vistas that were not possible to see before they were introduced. I imagine all such progressive changes be opposed now by minority group? Perhaps the wind farm will actually be a thing of beauty to see as the vanes turn in the distance and we can see value in how this will (hopefully) help reduce global emissions. G Wiley
  • Score: 3

2:51pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Is that it Mr Kirby, you are worried about visual intrusion and the impact on wildlife? Guess you'd prefer to see fracking.....(as long as it wasn't in Kemptown)! Time to move on from this it's going to happen and will be good in so many ways. Have a chat with Norman Baker about it Simon!
Is that it Mr Kirby, you are worried about visual intrusion and the impact on wildlife? Guess you'd prefer to see fracking.....(as long as it wasn't in Kemptown)! Time to move on from this it's going to happen and will be good in so many ways. Have a chat with Norman Baker about it Simon! Nikski
  • Score: 3

5:59pm Tue 29 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

The Tories care little about the environment and have been busy trying to dismantle planning rules and climate change commitments. If Kirby was that bothered about wildlife, he would have rebelled against a government that has bent over forwards to support their Lego land housing developer friends and funders.
The Tories care little about the environment and have been busy trying to dismantle planning rules and climate change commitments. If Kirby was that bothered about wildlife, he would have rebelled against a government that has bent over forwards to support their Lego land housing developer friends and funders. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:05pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Morpheus says...

Mr Kirby is correct to oppose this. Off-shore wind is one of the most expensive forms of energy. People complain about energy bills but don't seem to understand the cost of different energy sources. Just because wind doesn't cost anything doesn't mean that this is a good idea. The green blob hasn't clue about anything.
Mr Kirby is correct to oppose this. Off-shore wind is one of the most expensive forms of energy. People complain about energy bills but don't seem to understand the cost of different energy sources. Just because wind doesn't cost anything doesn't mean that this is a good idea. The green blob hasn't clue about anything. Morpheus
  • Score: -4

10:57pm Tue 29 Jul 14

rolivan says...

I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways.
I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways. rolivan
  • Score: 2

11:09pm Tue 29 Jul 14

rolivan says...

rolivan wrote:
I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways.
Sorry that should have been Asse in Germany any also check out Brenillis in France.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways.[/p][/quote]Sorry that should have been Asse in Germany any also check out Brenillis in France. rolivan
  • Score: 0

12:24am Wed 30 Jul 14

rolivan says...

rolivan wrote:
I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways.
Dungeness sorry predictive text got me again.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways.[/p][/quote]Dungeness sorry predictive text got me again. rolivan
  • Score: 0

7:43am Wed 30 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
rolivan wrote:
I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways.
Dungeness sorry predictive text got me again.
You are incorrect Rolivan, offshore wind is more expensive than coal, gas or PV generated electricity but cheaper than the new Hinkley C nuclear powerstation, when considered over the 35 years (starting in 2023) of subsidy and probably cheaper than fossil fuel carbon capture and storage.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: I have just watched a documentary about the decommissioning of nuclear Power Plants . It takes years and costs huge amounts of money . Not only that they showed the problems involved in storing the waste at places like Assessment in Germany . Also I read about the problems at Dunglass last year where it had to be closed down for 6 months whilst a Sea defence was built to keep possible Storm water out. Wind Farms might be a little more expensive but in the long term they would definitely be less expensive in all ways.[/p][/quote]Dungeness sorry predictive text got me again.[/p][/quote]You are incorrect Rolivan, offshore wind is more expensive than coal, gas or PV generated electricity but cheaper than the new Hinkley C nuclear powerstation, when considered over the 35 years (starting in 2023) of subsidy and probably cheaper than fossil fuel carbon capture and storage. HJarrs
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree