Plans to expand windfarm off Sussex coast given green light
Plans to expand a windfarm off the Sussex coast have been given the go-ahead by the government. The Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm will see a further 90 turbines erected near a site of 116 turbines. The turbines - which can be up to 325m (1,066ft) in height - are capable of producing enough clean electricity to power the equivalent of one million homes, says the government.The developer of the Rampion 2 project, Rampion Extension Development, said subsea cables will bring the power to shore under Climping Beach.
It added an underground cable route will take the power to a new substation at Oakendene near Cowfold, before reaching final connection into the transmission network at Bolney, Mid Sussex.The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, confirmed the government granted planning permission for the project on Friday.
When public hearings began on the plans, critics voiced concerns about the wind farm's impact on tourism.Construction was expected to start in 2027 and be completed by 2030.Umair Patel, from Rampion Extension Development, said: "This is a key milestone for the project and Rampion 2 is now set to play an important role in securing the UK's energy supplies from our abundant wind resource."The government believes this project will create up to 4,000 jobs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Britain needs reform
This week's spending review confirms that where there should be conviction, there is only confusion; where there should be vision, only a vacuum. The country is on the road to higher taxes, poorer services and a decaying public realm, with the bandits of the bond market lying in wait to extract their growing take from our declining share of global wealth. When every warning light is flashing red, the government is driving further and faster towards danger The Chancellor approached this spending review with her credibility already undermined. Promises not to raise taxes on working people translated into a tax on work itself which has driven up unemployment. A pledge to put growth first has been accompanied by changes to employment law that make the labour market more rigid and the cost of hiring workers commensurately greater. A party which excoriated the Conservatives for letting prices rise has pumped billions into public-sector wage hikes and seen inflation increase again. An apparent determination to take difficult decisions to control spending by removing pensioners' winter fuel payments has crumbled in the face of backbench pressure. The farcical retreat has only emboldened those in Labour who want to drive us deeper into debt. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are the most hopeless spending addicts but they are not the only departments to have wrung more from the Treasury than the nation can afford – or the Chancellor indicated she wanted. Ed Miliband has shown that, whatever other criticisms may be directed at him, he is brilliant at getting high on the taxpayers' supply – with generous subsidies for domestic decarbonisation and billions for the most expensive energy the markets can provide. The Department for Education has secured millions more to get the state to pay for families' food. Angela Rayner has extra billions, not to build new houses but to buy existing homes for the state. The Department for Transport also has a line of credit to pay for schemes no private sector investor would go near. And any lingering expectations that welfare reform would yield significant savings seems fanciful given the Prime Minister's desire to end the two-child cap on benefit payments. It is not as though this programme can be justified on the basis of an economy that's roaring back. Tax changes this government has introduced have led to a flight of the wealthy and a consequent depression in revenue. Alongside rises in inflation and unemployment, the cost of government borrowing is escalating to a level which causes international markets to demand a heftier risk premium. At a time when every warning light is flashing red, the government is determined to drive further and faster towards danger. Perhaps the greatest sin of this spending review is one of omission. There is no indication that all this additional expenditure will be accompanied by meaningful public-sector reform. The civil service headcount is growing. In education, the greater autonomy and accountability which drove up school standards is being abandoned. Our shoddily inefficient criminal justice system remains a mess of unaccountable fiefdoms: lamentably inadequate chief constables hide their failures behind the alibi of 'operational independence', the Crown Prosecution Service is a creaking liability and courts are hidebound by a judiciary that resists effective management of their operations. The additional money for defence is going to a department whose procurement policies are hardly a model of prudence. And despite the best efforts of Wes Streeting, one cabinet minister who is at least intent on reform, the extra cash for the NHS risks being swallowed whole by staff unions rather than being used to create incentives for change. The failure to fundamentally reform the functioning of government is all too visible in every operation of the state. Britain desperately needs reform. But our government offers only the inadequate management of accelerating decline. Licences to kill While the state proves incapable of reform, our parliament is attempting to prove it is world-leading in terminating innocent lives. Legislation to make it easier to kill the ill and elderly (the private member's bill to encourage suicide) appears still to enjoy majority support. And next week Labour MPs seek to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to decriminalise abortion. The state should undoubtedly treat any decision to terminate a pregnancy with sensitivity. But this amendment is an invitation to abusive partners to coerce vulnerable women into late-stage abortions and removes one of the last protections unborn children still have. Do we really want this decade to be one in which the only thing we do more efficiently than ever is kill innocent souls?
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Great British Energy's budget has been nuked
There was a weirdness in the government's welcome announcement earlier this week that Rolls-Royce SMR had been selected as preferred bidder to build the UK's first small modular nuclear reactors, and that £2.5bn of public money would be thrown behind the project. The government body backing the project was something called Great British Energy – Nuclear. This, it turned out, was the new name for Great British Nuclear, the unit set up in 2023 by the last government to oversee delivery of the nuclear programme. But why risk confusion with Great British Energy, Ed Miliband's publicly-owned company for investing, we thought, in renewables projects such as wind, solar and hydro with a side-mission to ensure that lots of the kit is manufactured in the UK? The confusion, it seems, was deliberate. The chancellor's spending review revealed that every penny of the £2.5bn for SMRs is coming from GB Energy's £8.3bn budget. That is 30% of the pot to SMRs in one gulp. One could argue, as Labour folk did, that nuclear and renewables are all part of the same low-carbon clean energy mix, so they go hand-in-hand and were always intended to do so. It's true that past descriptions of GB Energy's role have sometimes mentioned nuclear, but never as the headline act. It was never spelled out, for example, that the entirety of public support for SMRs would come from GB Energy's budget, which would be a relevant fact to mention if you were worried that the Tories had set up Great British Nuclear but not given it funding. It rather looks as if GB Energy's budget has been nuked by the Treasury. 'Labour will capitalise Great British Energy with £8.3bn over the next parliament,' said the manifesto and, strictly speaking, that pledge is still being honoured. It's just that GB Energy will be directing almost a third of its allocation to the nuclear body that we had previously regarded as a separate unit. But it does make GB Energy a strange beast if it is now the main government vehicle for investing in SMRs, a cutting-edge technology that tends to involve permanently big numbers and follow-on rounds of funding. GB Energy's initial adventures, note, have been low-key and local – funding for installing solar panels on schools and hospitals, for example. Worthy stuff, but a million miles away from the development of next-generation nuclear technology. GB Energy will be expanding into new and exciting areas later this year, say Labour insiders. We'll see what that brings. The company's core mission seems to be a work-in-progress.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's spending review: the chancellor tightened belts and loosened seams
Brexit's ghost haunts a Labour spending review intended to lay the foundations for a second term. Its headlines echo the twin themes of the referendum campaign: control immigration, fund the NHS. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said she would end the use of hotels for asylum seekers 'in this parliament' saving £1bn a year, while NHS spending will rise by 3% a year. Ms Reeves framed it as a politics of security and compassion. Yet it reads as Brexit's populist promises, filtered through Westminster orthodoxy. The risk is that this is all slogan and very little solution. The asylum savings are speculative, and the annual increase in NHS budgets is below its historical average. There are also real-terms cuts or essentially flat budgets for key departments such as transport, education and local government. The Home Office faces cuts deeper than asylum savings alone, prompting alarm from police and the London mayor, Sadiq Khan. Plainly, what looks good today for the chancellor may feel insufficient tomorrow on hospital wards, high streets or in the classroom. The everyday experience of voters will shape their judgment. That is why there were nods from Ms Reeves to cost-of-living pressures by keeping the cap on bus fares and the insistence that police and council funding would see 'spending power' rises. Despite negative briefing, Ed Miliband secured significant wins in the review, notably protecting the £13bn Warm Homes insulation scheme and cementing his influence over the GB Energy agenda, while bolstering the UK's net‑zero energy strategy. Ms Reeves shrewdly tightened belts and loosened seams. Britain, under Labour, will be a place where 'every pound is spent wisely' while billions in capital investment would level up the country. This is down to a welcome change in the fiscal rules brought in by the chancellor last October that allows more room for such investment. That shift enables the fanfare of the review: the nuclear reactors, the affordable housing and the new Manchester-to-Liverpool railway. What has not changed is the government's rule that says its current budget must be in surplus by the end of the forecast. This restricts the state's day-to-day spending and – despite being relaxed next year – leads to real-terms cuts in departments as well as curbing options to directly boost household income. The spending review is a bet that infrastructure spending will lead to higher productivity. But it lacks the demand-side fuel to make these projects generate inclusive growth within this parliament. That makes it harder to hit the government's economic mission milestone of higher disposable household income and GDP per capita. Ms Reeves will probably have to raise taxes to meet her fiscal rules, not least because the government's promises keep stacking up and money needs to be found to restore winter fuel payments and reconsider the two-child benefit cap. Yet neither the prime minister nor the chancellor dares to say it aloud. Higher taxes, especially on wealth, would be a good thing. These may become inevitable as Ms Reeves' calculations rest upon £14bn of projected efficiency gains – as if cuts can be pain-free. Political storytelling only goes so far when the effects of policy show up in threadbare services and flatlining household incomes. For all the investment, the worry must be voters see more drift than renewal. Without a shift in fiscal doctrine, Labour risks governing in prose while the public still waits for the poetry it was promised.
