I HAVE received a huge correspondence over the last couple of years about the proposed wind farm at Navitus Bay.

My submission to the Planning Inspectorate’s public inquiry, reproduced below, makes my position clear.

Written Submission to the Planning Inspectorate public inquiryin respect of Navitus Bay Wind Park (application dated 10/4/2014): I support the submission by The Poole and Christchurch Bays’ Association. In addition, I am in agreement with the oral evidence presented by my parliamentary colleague Tobias Ellewood MP.

Also, the International Union for Conservation of Nature considers the Navitus project will have adverse impacts detrimental to essential elements of the area’s “outstanding universal value”. In this submission however, I confine myself to the impact of the onshore works in my own parliamentary division of New Forest West.

This is not because of any perception that the visual and other impacts of the proposals at sea will have lesser consequences for amenity and for the tourist and leisure industries, but because I believe that these have been well-covered in the submissions and evidence referred to above and by others.

The sensitivity of both the landfall and the route for the cabling through the New Forest national park, areas dependent on tourism, and communications serving busy settlements, is such that I believe that the applicant must be required to submit detailed plans to the inquiry so that the consequences can be properly assessed against any proposals for mitigation. These are not matters that can be left to a later date: they are – of necessity – part of the assessment as to whether the proposed development should proceed in principle. Notwithstanding having attended a number of consultation events, as both MP, and as a “mystery shopper”, I have not seen any detailed drawings of the proposals for the cabling.

At that time I was not aware of any indication that the underground cabling represented a major undertaking, with 22 miles of clearances, fencing and its own service road.

The applicant has since indicated that the cleared zone above the cabling should be 40 metres, but I understand the industry standard recommendation is for 65 metres. The applicant needs to demonstrate how it can secure the route with a clearance of 62 per cent of the recommended standard.

I believe the applicant must provide details of its engineering solutions for the landfall where the cliff has been unstable and subject to erosion for generations. Detailed assessments of the impacts and potential mitigations must be had for the clearances that will affect the multiple sites of special scientific interest that the proposed route encounters. This must include the mires and the Avon Valley.

Such is the value of this habitat, it has been designated an internationally-recognised RAMSAR site. The applicant should demonstrate how such sites can remain undamaged and, in particular, what engineering solution it will implement to prevent cable ducts acting as drainage channels through sensitive wetlands.

A comprehensive understanding must be had from the applicant of the scheduling and of scale of construction disruption as the path of the cable clearance encounters the railway main line from Weymouth to London and the main roads A35, 31, 337, 338. The disruption on minor roads must also be assessed, together with the impact of the works.

A clear understanding must be had of the number of trees that will be felled, the habitat sacrificed, and the amenity lost by placing a fenced scar through 22 miles of our landscapes. The resulting measurement of the amenity and consequent economic loss is an integral part of the process of determining whether the application should be granted. The legal framework is such that areas of outstanding beauty are designated under the provisions of the 1949 National Parks Act to secure their permanent protection against development.

Consequently great weight must be placed by the planning system on conserving these landscapes and areas of natural beauty in national parks. Moreover, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 brought in new measures to further protect AONBs including the preparation of management plans to set out how they will be protected.

I believe the Navitus proposal and the cabling that will run through the New Forest and heathlands will disrupt biodiversity by loss and deterioration of irreplaceable habitats. I submit it is essential that planning systems take account of the duty not to detract from valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils, and to prevent the diminution of recreational opportunities and tourism, with detrimental effects on communities. My submission is the application should be denied on grounds of the consequences of these on-shore works alone, even before taking into account the profound impact of the proposals offshore.