Thanet Extension denied consent due to shipping risks

Vattenfall’s 340MW Thanet Extension offshore windfarm has been denied a development consent order on the grounds that it would pose a risk to shipping in the Thames Estuary.

In the letter explaining the decision by secretary of state Alok Sharma, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) cited a section of the National Planning Statement for Renewable Infrastructure stipulating that projects should not be approved if they “pose unacceptable risks to navigational safety”.

Whilst noting that the area is both “a fishing ground and a location passed by a high density of service craft”, BEIS said the developer had failed to properly account for “turning manoeuvres, visibility and geographic constraints”. It said the company should “not rely on rule-based computation alone.”

The department said stakeholders had “vigorously contested” Vattenfall’s projections for traffic growth as being “substantially too low”, especially in relation to the frequency of larger ships. It said the dispute undermined the company’s case, which had been built around these forecasts.

It said the decision was swayed by the testimony of two groups: local mariners, who raised concerns over pilots transfer operations in area; and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which argued that although there were no internationally recognised sea lanes within its immediate vicinity, the windfarm would affect the efficiency and safety of nearby shipping routes.

The department said it considered them “more reliable” that Vattenfall’s own witnesses, who in its eyes failed to demonstrate the same level of practical expertise.

It also made reference to National Planning for Ports which says they must account for “short term demand peaks, the impact of adverse weather conditions, accidents, deliberate disruptive acts and other operational difficulties without causing economic disruption through impediment to the flow of imports and exports.”

“The applicant has not minimised navigation safety; as a consequent effect there is a probability of negative effects to the efficiency and resilience of continuing port operations as well as further port development,” the letter stated. “This is further compounded by the additional risk to or displacement of pilot transfer operations – which could have consequential adverse effects on passage times, berthing operations, reputation and competitiveness of some London ports.”

The decision was in line with the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate.

Danielle Lane, UK country manager for Vattenfall, said: “Naturally, we’re very disappointed by this decision and will consider how we proceed from here. We continue to believe that Thanet Extension would be an important development for the local area, for UK energy security and for the drive to reduce emissions.”

RenewableUK chief executive Hugh McNeal commented: “The UK urgently needs new generating capacity to replace old power stations which are going offline and to reach net zero emissions. The government has set a target of quadrupling offshore wind capacity to 40GW by 2030 and if that’s to be achieved we need new projects to progress.

“Offshore wind is regenerating coastal communities by providing billions of pounds of new investment and boosting employment, so it’s unfortunate that Kent won’t be able to benefit from those opportunities as a result of this decision”.

Earlier this week, BEIS delayed planning decisions on two offshore windfarms with a combined of 4.2GW, including Vattenfall’s 1.8GW Norfolk Vanguard project.

As with the Thanet Extension, the announcements were due to be made on Monday but were postponed by a month until 1 July. No reason has yet been given for the delay, although the Planning Inspectorate said the business and energy secretary Alok Sharma would make a statement to parliament “as soon as possible.”