The Littlehampton Society, other Littlehampton community groups and residents have evidence that the consultation led by RWE, the developer for Rampion 2, was NOT adequate.
Evidence and Submission below —
1) It was stated in RWE’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) that every property within 100m of the coastline would receive consultation information by mail. This was not done. As well, the 100m from the coastline fails to be inclusive to receptors. For perspective, there are no properties in Littlehampton town within 100m.
2) The consultation was during the summer of 2021. Social distancing guidelines were dropped in early July 2021. Despite calls from the public for face-to-face consultation meeting, RWE ignored the requests. Adaptation to the circumstances was specified in the SoCC, hence another breach of their own Statement.
3) The absence of visual animations and adequate static representations of turbines in virtual engagements and in digital videos and the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), compounded by the failure to meet standards for “Visual Representation of Wind farms” (SNH, 2017) which the Applicant falsely says were followed. Visual representations were requested by many groups and individuals throughout the consulting process. All were ignored.
4) The Applicant misrepresented the conformity to strategic advice and safeguards for visual buffers as provided in the Government’s own Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (OESEA) program.
5) The Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) when initially released and the version released after the conclusion of the consultation used selected out-of-date research studies on attitudes to windfarms, instead of undertaking actual resident & visitor and ecological surveys. The comparisons used were with windfarms of a completely different scale and relevance. The Report cited ‘Desk Study’ where it is obvious there should have been actual studies. These studies report that Rampion 2 has no impacts (negligible) on residents, visitors and the delicate ecology of Sussex coast and land.
6) General failure to meet the standards of consultation envisaged in the relevant governemnt guidance (MHCLG, 2015) in this experiment with virtual/digital only community consultation. The current arrangement is that Developers are responsible for their consultations “to ensure a more transparent and efficient examination process.” However, this also means the Developer has less supervision in this process. There are many groups that do not have access to virtual means for engagement, and there are those that perceive information best when face-to-face. This consultation failed these groups.
Other groups Protect Coastal Sussex (PCS) and Middleton on Sea Coastal Alliance (MOSCA) have also submitted Adequacy of Consultation statements
These can be found at
and