SCOPING OUT REQUEST FROM NATIONAL GRID TO PLANNING INSPECTORATE

Below are the areas National Grid requested to scope out of further scrutiny from the Planning Inspectorate in 2022, along with the Planning Inspectorate response:

4.1 Landscape and Visual:

• Assess Operational Lighting at Converter Station (Operation): Do not scope out operational lighting assessment at this stage.

• Alteration to visual amenity from the Operational HVAC overhead line (to be decided) (operation): Scope assessment in for wirescape effects.

• Alteration to landscape character and visual amenity from operational HVDC underground cable (and HVAC if underground): The Inspectorate considers that the ES should address the potential for permanent landscape character effects due to any planting restrictions for easement requirements.

• Permanent alteration to landscape character and perceptual qualities as a result of the operational converter station on specific receptors: The Inspectorate agrees that TDLCA LCA A1: Manston Chalk Plateau, and Dover District Council (DDLCA) LCAs B1: Great Stour Sandwich Corridor, D1: Preston, and H1 Richborough Buff: Can be scoped out

• Representative Viewpoints: Viewpoints should be agreed with relevant consultation bodies, including the Local Authorities. The Applicant's attention is directed to the comments of Thanet District Council's comments in Appendix 2 of this Opinion with regards to requested additional viewpoints.

• Viewpoints and cultural heritage receptors: The Applicant is advised to consider and include heritage specific viewpoints to support the heritage assessment. Suitable cross-referencing between LVIA and Cultural Heritage chapters should be included.

4.2 Ecology and Biodiversity:

• Permanent habitat loss (intertidal) as a result of construction: The Inspectorate does not agree to scope out assessment of permanent habitat loss in the intertidal zone at this stage due to a lack of information on likely activities and habitats present. The ES should include an assessment of permanent habitat loss in the intertidal area.

• Temporary habitat loss/disturbance (terrestrial and intertidal) from temporary works areas and traffic movements during maintenance works (operation): The Inspectorate agrees that operational habitat loss/disturbance can be scoped out but clarifies that 'traffic movements during maintenance works' during construction and maintenance stages should be scoped in.

• Permanent habitat loss to Margate and Long Sands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Outer Thames Estuary SPA (all stages): The Inspectorate agrees these sites can be scoped out of the Kent Onshore Scheme assessment due to no likely effect pathway from onshore activities, with offshore impacts considered elsewhere in the document.

• Permanent habitat loss to Stodmarsh SAC and Thanet Coast SAC (all stages): Stodmarsh SAC and Thanet Coast SAC are stated to be screened out due to an absence of impact pathway. The ES should include evidence to demonstrate that activities during construction, operation and decommissioning would have no potential to affect these sites or their features. If this information is provided the Inspectorate agrees to scope out the assessment of permanent habitat loss to these designated sites from the ES.

• Permanent habitat loss of Notable Habitats (all stages): The Inspectorate cannot agree to scope out permanent loss of notable habitats at this stage due to a lack of information on location, routing, installation, and mitigation. The ES should include an assessment of this matter, where likely significant effects could occur.

• Incidental mortality of protected or notable: invertebrate species, intertidal and terrestrial non-breeding bird species, riparian mammal species (otter, water vole and beaver): The Inspectorate cannot agree to scope out this matter.

• Study area for designated sites: The ES should clearly define and justify the study area, based on the Zone of Influence (ZoI) from the Proposed Development.

• Surveys for bird species: The ES should confirm the extent of bird surveys undertaken, supported by clear figures.

• Baseline and effects on waterbodies, fish and freshwater species: The ES should state if fish and other freshwater species are important receptors and include an assessment of effects, where likely significant effects could occur. This should be supported by desk study information and surveys as necessary. Effort should be made to agree the methodology with the relevant consultation bodies.

• Confidential Annexes: Public bodies have a responsibility to avoid releasing sensitive ecological information, which should be provided in the ES as a confidential annex.

• Beaver: The Applicant should note that from 1 October 2022, Eurasian beavers in England became a European Protected Species.

4.3 Cultural Heritage:

• Physical impacts on non-designated assets (maintenance and decommissioning): The ES should clearly state the approach to non-designated assets encountered during construction and consider potential effects during maintenance and decommissioning stages.

• Temporary impacts on the setting of heritage assets from plant/machinery (maintenance and decommissioning) and construction compounds introducing light and noise pollution (decommissioning): The Inspectorate agrees that significant setting effects on heritage assets arising from light and noise are unlikely. The ES should outline the mitigation measures required for decommissioning and the likely duration of decommissioning activities to demonstrate why such effects would not be significant.

• Sources of construction impacts - groundwater: The ES should consider and assess effects to archaeological receptors resulting from impacts to groundwater level impacts from the Proposed Development, where likely significant effects could occur. The ES should include suitable cross-references between the Cultural Heritage and the Geology and Hydrogeology aspect chapter.

• Proposed assessment methodology: The Inspectorate notes that the need for any additional survey work will be determined following the desk-based assessment (DBA). Investigative works should be accompanied by a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), it is recommended that a draft WSI by provided with the ES. The Applicant is advised to seek to agree the scope of the site investigations and WSI with relevant consultation bodies, including the Local Authority and Historic England.

• Assessment methodology – heritage value: The ES should consider likely effects on the setting of the scheduled monument ‘A Saxon Shore fort, Roman port and associated remains at Richborough’ (1014642), where likely significant effects could occur. Although this scheduled monument is located beyond the 2km study area, the Inspectorate notes the settings assessment will be informed by the ZTV and the statement that some assets beyond the ZTV and 2km study area may also be considered. Cross-referencing to relevant information in the LVIA aspect chapter and/or supporting appendices should be included.

• Wantsum Sea Channel: Kent County Council (at Appendix 2 to this Opinion) have identified Wantsum Sea Channel as a heritage asset that should be included in the assessment but is not identified in Scoping Report Chapter 3.4 or in Appendix 3.4.A. The Applicant should seek to agree the heritage receptors to be included within the heritage assessment with relevant consultation bodies and include an assessment on this receptor where significant effects are likely to occur.

4.4 Water Environment:

• Various – Proposed scope of the assessment: The ES should include robust justification for scoping matters out, clarifying discrepancies in tables and phases of development in scoping decisions.

• Pollution of watercourses associated with operational discharges and runoff from above ground infrastructure (AGI) – water quality effects (operation): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway given treatment through SUDs provision.

• Increased flood risk from operational discharges and runoff from AGI and loss of floodplain storage (operation): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway given attenuation of runoff through SuDS provision.

• Physical disturbance, impact to flow regimes (watercourse crossings) from operational infrastructure (AGI and watercourse crossings) (operation): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that there would be no impact pathway, as there would be no physical disturbance during operation.

• Increased surface water runoff from converter station drainage during operation on receptors ‘existing land uses and infrastructure’ for specific converter site options: This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway, given the attenuation of runoff through the SuDS provision.

• Increased flood risk due to permanent loss of floodplain storage/impediment of floodplain flows on receptors ‘Fluvial and coastal floodplain’ for specific converter site options: Scoped out on the basis that there would be no impact pathway as there would be no above ground operational infrastructure in the floodplain and therefore no construction works required in the flood plain. Provided this is demonstrated in the ES, supported by the FRA, the Inspectorate agrees to scope this matter out.

• Permanent physical disturbance and change to flow regime on ‘Unnamed ordinary watercourses’ for specific converter site option: This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that there would be no impact pathway as cables would be buried.

• Pollution of watercourses and physical disturbance during maintenance on the following receptors (maintenance): This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis of no impact pathway for a significant effect given the likely nature and scale of maintenance activities.

• Temporary loss of floodplain storage/impediment of floodplain flows due to spoil storage during construction and decommissioning on receptors ‘Coastal and fluvial floodplain’ for specific converter site options: This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that areas of floodplain are very localised and could be avoided.

• Reduced water availability to support abstractions and assimilate discharges (‘existing water interests’) for all stages and all options: The existence, location and number of abstraction sites in the Kent Onshore Scheme scoping boundary are currently unknown and are proposed to be determined through review of the EA’s register. The Suffolk Onshore Scheme at Table 2.5.9 requested to scope out ‘Reduced water availability to support abstractions and assimilate discharges’ on ‘existing water interests’, although this does not feature in the scoping in/out tables for the Kent Onshore Scheme. The ES should provide information on the water abstractions/interests that may be affected by the Proposed Development and include an assessment on these receptors, where likely significant effects could occur..

• Study area: The ES should clearly define and justify the study area, based on the ZoI from the Proposed Development, together with a justification for the selection.

• Embedded measures/design – watercourse crossings: The Applicant's attention is directed to the comments of the EA at Appendix 2 to this Opinion with regards to the culverting of watercourses, which the EA would oppose.

• Receptors: The ES should provide justification for the receptors identified for the assessment.

• Assessment methodology – magnitude criteria: The Water Environment aspect chapter of the ES should include appropriate cross-references to other relevant aspect chapters such as Ecology and Biodiversity.

4.5 Geology and Hydrogeology:

• Connection of two aquifer units at trenchless crossings as a result of the excavation of trenchless crossings (construction): T This matter is proposed to be scoped out on the basis that it is not likely to result in a significant effect due to the incorporation of the mitigation by design. Table 3.6.2 does not expand on the specific ‘mitigation by design’ proposed to ensure this does not occur. It is noted that CoCP measure GH02 comprises “Construction methods such as appropriate piling techniques (if required) to minimise the risk of mixing of aquifer bodies through the creation of new pathways…” However, it is unclear whether this reference to piling methods would apply to trenchless crossings such that it would mitigate for effects. In the absence of supporting information on the location of crossings, proposed techniques including depths, and mitigation, the Inspectorate cannot agree to scope out this matter. The ES should include an assessment where likely significant effects could occur or provide further justification as to why this would not arise.

• Introduction of new potential contaminants to the environment from leaks, spills, fuels and oils from construction activities (construction, maintenance, and decommissioning): Provided specific mitigation details are provided in the ES and secured in the dDCO and protocols/measures are in place to prevent break outs or frack-outs of bentonite during HDD activities, this matter can be scoped out.

• Physical and chemical changes to groundwater as a result of discharge of groundwater from dewatering (construction): Provided control measures are applied to ensure no change to physical and chemical changes to groundwater, and these measures are described in the ES, this matter can be scoped out.

• Effects on construction activities and the built development (at the operational phase) from natural geological hazards (ie dissolution features/soft ground/landslides/ aggressive ground conditions etc) (construction): Provided natural hazards are considered during engineering design of the Proposed Development and avoided where possible, the Inspectorate is in agreement that this matter can be scoped out of the ES. The Applicant should clearly describe this consideration in the ES.

• Sterilisation of safeguarded minerals for all converter site options (maintenance and decommissioning): On the basis that the nearest feature of any designated sites of geological importance is located approximately 9km from the Suffolk Scoping Boundary and there are no potential effect pathways, the Inspectorate agrees that this matter can be scoped out of the assessment for all converter site options.

• Assessment methodology: The Applicant should seek to agree the methodology with relevant consultation bodies, including the EA.

• Mitigation by design and scoping out: The ES should make clear what measures are being relied upon to avoid/reduce impacts, and how these are to be delivered/secured through the dDCO.

4.6 Agriculture and Soils:

• Temporary removal of land from agricultural production - construction, maintenance and decommissioning: Effects of temporary removal may be scoped out from further assessment; however, the ES should provide an estimate of the quantity of BMV land affected by temporary works, duration of works, and long term changes in land use.

• Permanent removal of land from agricultural production - operation: Provided the ES confirms the amount of agricultural land to be permanently lost is 'limited' and not likely to lead to significant effects, this matter can be scoped out. Reinstatement, soil management, and handling measures should be clearly described and secured in the dDCO.

• Temporary disruption and disturbance to agricultural operations - construction, maintenance and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees to scope out this matter on this basis.

• Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) on land use - operation: On this basis, the Inspectorate agrees to scope out operational effects from EMFs on land use.

• Economic effects on landowners – construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees that significant effects are unlikely and is therefore content that this matter can be scoped out of further assessment.

• Temporary loss of BMV land and temporary disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services – construction, maintenance, and decommissioning: The ES should include the necessary information to demonstrate impacts can be avoided or reduced to exclude significant effects or provide an assessment where likely significant effects could occur.

• Permanent loss of BMV land and permanent disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services - operation: The Inspectorate is satisfied with this approach.

• Temporary loss of BMV land and temporary disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services – maintenance: The ES should clearly define the scope for the aspect and the Inspectorate considers that an assessment of the effects arising from the temporary loss of BMV land and temporary disturbance to soils and associated ecosystem services should be included within the ES, where significant effects are likely to occur.

4.7 Traffic and Transport:

• Traffic and Transport effects – operational and maintenance phase: The Inspectorate agrees that on this basis, this matter can be scoped out from further assessment. The ES should provide a description of the likely number and type of vehicles required during all phases of development to support this conclusion.

• Hazardous loads – operational and maintenance phase: The Inspectorate agrees to scope this matter out but would expect the ES to provide a reasoned justification as to why such loads are likely to be infrequent during the operation and maintenance phase.

• Driver delay on PRoW and National/regional walking and cycling routes for all converter site options – construction and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees to scope these matters out on the basis that PRoW and national and regional walking and cycling routes are not utilised by drivers limiting the impact pathway.

• PRoW diversions or closures impacts to road links, road junctions and national/regional walking and cycling routes for all converter site options – construction and decommissioning: The Inspectorate agrees that significant effects on road links, road junctions and national/regional walking and cycling routes as a result of closures or diversions of PRoW during construction and decommissioning are unlikely and this matter can be scoped out.

• Study area: While it is acknowledged that the study area is yet to be confirmed, this should be informed by the extent of the affected road network.

• Receptors – ‘England Coast Path’ National Trail: The Applicant’s attention is directed to the comments of Suffolk County Council and Natural England at Appendix 2 to this Opinion with regards to the recent approval of the England Coast Path National Trail within Suffolk, which is located within the Suffolk Onshore Scoping Boundary. The ES should include an assessment of effects on this proposed National Trail, where likely significant effects could occur.

4.8 Air Quality:

• Air quality impacts from an increase in vehicle emissions - construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning: The Inspectorate would expect the ES to provide a detailed explanation of the likely traffic flows during all phases of the Proposed Development to justify not undertaking further assessment. Cross-reference should be made to the assessments of effects on Ecology and Biodiversity and on Human Health.

• Emissions from Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) - construction and decommissioning: Whilst the Inspectorate considers that emissions from NRMM are unlikely to be significant in most cases, in the absence of detail regarding the location of construction works with respect to receptors and the type and duration of NRMM to be deployed, the Inspectorate does not consider that this matter may be scoped out based on current evidence. The ES should include an assessment of emissions from NRMM on sensitive receptors where significant effects are likely.

4.9 Noise and Vibration:

• Operational vibration – all options: The Inspectorate does not agree to scope this matter out. The ES should provide an assessment or information demonstrating agreement with relevant stakeholders and absence of likely significant effects.

• Operational road traffic noise and vibration – all options: The Inspectorate agrees to scope this matter out on the basis that operational traffic movements are likely to be infrequent and unlikely to give rise to likely significant effects.

• Construction traffic vibration: The Inspectorate does not agree to scope out construction traffic vibration at this time.

• Switchgear operational noise: The Inspectorate agrees that this matter can be scoped out of further assessment.

• Operational noise and vibration from underground cables - operation: The Inspectorate agrees that this matter can be scoped out of the ES.

• Overhead line noise (operation): The Inspectorate agrees to scope out the operational effects of overheard line noise based on distance to receptors and noise emissions.

• Mitigation measures: The ES should address the potential adverse effects of noise mitigation measures (e.g. screening and enclosures) in relevant aspect chapters of the ES (e.g. Landscape and Visual) where significant effects are likely to occur.

4.11 Health and Wellbeing:

• All phases – EMF: The Inspectorate agrees this matter can be scoped out on the basis that the ES demonstrates the design is compliant with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines (1998) in ensuring that the threshold for impacts to humans is not met/exceeded.

• Census data: Where new census data from 2021 is available, this should be used to inform baseline data and the ES assessment.

• Study area (Severance): The assessment of potential severance impacts should consider the entirety of the affected road network.

• Judgement of significance: The ES should describe the methodology for determining the significance of effects and report the significance of effects on human health.

4.12 Cumulative Effects:

• Intra-cumulative/intra-project effects on ecological, notable habitats, and non-designated heritage assets: The ES should appropriately justify where impacts are omitted from the intra-cumulative assessment or else include them in the assessment.

• Projects to be included in the assessment: The ES should ensure these lists are consistent and effort is made to agree them with relevant statutory consultees.

Main Sealink Issues for resolution

Every developer applying for a Development Consent Order is now required to produce and maintain a pre-application Programme Document. The document sets out the main steps that the applicant anticipates taking during the preparation of the application and must be published on the applicant’s website.

Here we have highlighted the main issues for resolution from the document.

Main issues for resolution

Landscape and visual effects (Suffolk and Kent converter stations)

Consideration of landscape and visual effects at both converter station sites, and possible mitigation including siting, planting & design approaches.

Heritage effects (Suffolk and Kent converter stations)

Consideration of heritage effects at both converter station sites, and possible mitigating further to trial trenching and assessment.

Socio-economic and tourism effects (Suffolk and Kent)

In respect of onshore proposals, the likely effects on socio-economic receptors, and tourism.

Coordination with other projects (predominantly Suffolk)

Approach to coordinating with various other developers (particularly in Suffolk) including National Grid Ventures.

Proposed access route to converter station (Suffolk)

Approach to accessing the proposed converter station, including considering alternative accesses, the crossing of the River Fromus (including the scale of the bridge and associated heritage and landscape setting impacts), construction traffic, methodology for AILs, local road network, and inter-project traffic effects.

Construction hours (Suffolk)

Working hours of Monday to Friday 0700 -1900 and Saturday, Sunday and Bank holidays 0700-1700 to be included in the DCO. Hours are more restrictive for percussive piling and HGV movements. Consideration of the impact in the area.

Ecology at proposed site for Kent converter station

Ecological effects of proposals, including those associated with the Kent converter station at proposed site near Richborough Substation.

Surface water and ground conditions (Kent)

At the proposed site of the Kent converter station, likely effects in terms of flooding, surface water, and ground conditions.

New overhead line section (Kent)

Ecology and landscape implications of section of new overhead line required to link proposed converter station to the network.

Marine issues

Including benthic ecology, fish and shellfish ecology and marine mammals.

Full document is on the documents home page – unable to link directly, document is called Sea Link Programme Document (February 2025) on this page:

https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade/sea-link/document-library

Humpback whale spotted off Margate coast today

Today 26th February 2025 it has been reported a humpback whale has been spotted off Margate coast:

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1Cyc4sowvX/

The Guardian has highlighted the increasing numbers passing through in this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/18/humpback-whale-sightings-kent-isles-of-scilly

“The humpbacks’ appearance off the Kent coast is also raising fears about the impact of new subsea electricity cables for new offshore windfarms on marine mammals.

Emma Waller, planning and policy officer for Kent Wildlife Trust, said that National Grid’s Sea Link project, which plans to install an underwater cable between Kent and Suffolk, had not undertaken enough research on its impact on whales, seals and other marine mammals and its landfall at Pegwell Bay could disrupt marine ecosystems.

“The sightings underline the need for these large offshore projects like Sea Link to fully consider their impacts on marine mammals,” said Waller. “Their current approach lacks adequate mitigation for marine mammals. Renewable energy is vital, but it must not come at the expense of wildlife when alternative options are available.

“There needs to be a review of the standards of ecological surveys for such projects – we need to understand what these impacts and implications are going to be.”

February update

SMM and many of you have also participated in (yet another!) consultation. This one was to Ofgem’s request for feedback on National Grid’s business plans. Again, thank you to everyone who responded and to those who copied us in. We’re blown away by what an articulate and passionate group of members we have.

We’re delighted to report that our feedback to Ofgem about some of the legacy damage caused by the Nemo project has resulted in National Grid starting to initiate repairs when all earlier requests fell on deaf ears. We’re hopeful that this is a positive indication of the level of scrutiny we can expect of National Grid’s plans.

Since our December email, Kent Wildlife Trust has met with Polly Billington again who is providing them with very helpful advice on their end of the project (as a reminder, Pegwell Bay falls into Polly’s constituency, while Minster Marshes are within Sir Roger Gale’s). KWT has become increasingly concerned about the lack of mitigation and surveys of our marine mammals, particularly since the recent sighting of a humpback whale off the coast of Deal. There is evidence that humpbacks are moving further round the coast, with another sighted off the coast of Eastbourne within an hour of the one spotted at Deal, meaning there are at least two around our shoreline.

Most recently, many of you will have seen the February 2025 ‘Community Update’ that National Grid has sent to people living nearest the planned site of construction. We don’t think it’s very truthful – not least because it doesn’t mention Pegwell Bay at all and describes the converter station as being built ‘near’ Minster marshes rather than on them which we feel is rather stretching the truth! If you didn’t get a copy through your door, you can read it in the Files section of our Facebook group or, if you’re not on Facebook, just reply to this email and ask us to send you a PDF by email.

What’s next

We may seem quiet at the moment but we’re beavering away in the background. We’re talking to the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) who are providing us with legal advice and to various other specialists who will be able to support us in our formal response to the application if it is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. Once the DCO is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate has 28 days to decide to accept or reject the application. After that, we enter the pre-examination stage which is when National Grid’s plans will be published, and we can register as interested parties to comment on them.

DCO Process

We’ll obviously keep you up to date with developments as we hear about them. Although ELF have been giving us pro bono advice so far, they won’t be able to continue that forever.  We’ve already raised a fantastic £6,745 for legal advice but we’re likely to need considerably more to pursue a legal challenge. Until the next stage of the process, we’re not entirely sure what that will involve.

So until then, please continue to share and follow our Save Minster Marshes campaign page on Facebook and Instagram as it really is helping to raise awareness of our campaign. Since launching in December, our Facebook campaign page has now had more than 50,000 views and reached nearly 14,000 people which is amazing! Our Bird of the Day posts are proving very popular (and we have many more birds – plus other threatened species of flora and fauna – still to share!).

Save Minster Marshes response to Ofgem on NGET business plan

Submission to Ofgem’s call for evidence RIIO-T31

a) Organisation: Save Minster Marshes campaign

b) Commenting on National Grid Electricity Transmission’s (NGET) RIIO-T3 business plan2

STRATEGY

We were interested to read about the overarching strategy for a sustainable and balanced mix of new types of power generation. We were disappointed to find:

● the “hydrogen strategy” appears once only on page 11 in relation to Humber Zero

● nuclear generation is mentioned in passing in the Executive Summary, in the summary of some of the regions’ plans in relation to existing uranium driven nuclear provision only, despite it being a carbon free method of delivering power.

● there is no mention of investment and research into Thorium Nuclear power, which is being developed at scale in China and possibly India3 and which produces less long lived radioactive waste.

The DNV Energy Forecast4 states:

“Due to the high capital costs, nuclear power is expensive from a levelized cost perspective, as Figure 6.13 shows. As an illustration, it is almost always more than twice as expensive as offshore bottom-fixed wind through to 2050. High capital costs and lengthy lead times will continue to be important barriers for nuclear power. The absence of long-term, viable solutions for managing nuclear waste and the rising costs and construction times, especially because of increased safety concerns, will limit new nuclear power’s ability to compete with other renewables in the short term from an exclusively economic perspective.

Policy is therefore the key driving force behind capacity additions in nuclear, especially given recently heightened energy security concerns following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis.

Many countries are once again considering nuclear as a viable option free of fluctuations and dependency on other countries. This has also led the UK government to consider extending nuclear plant lifetimes through upgrades and life-extension measures. The government is also set to announce up to £157 million in funding for nuclear projects. This includes up to £77.1 million for advanced nuclear business development and £58 million for the development of advanced modular reactors (AMRs) which run at higher temperatures.”

How is the plan addressing and contributing to Government Policy on this matter?

● Carbon Capture and Storage is mentioned only once in the document in relation to research in Wales and in an ellipsis on the graphic on the Executive Summary 1.3

● The DNV Energy Forecast5 predicts that “We expect installed solar capacity to grow from 16 GW today to 30 GW in 2035 and 57 GW in 2050”. Our experience of solar farm proliferation with associated large scale battery storage at Richborough (Kent end of Sea Link) highlights the lack of coordinated planning and contempt for the cumulative impact of these schemes. In the Executive Summary 1.3. an increase from 15 to 47 GW in solar is predicted. But it only warrants two other mentions in the plan.

● Biomass generation is only mentioned twice in the Business Plan, once in the graphic in the Executive Summary and once in passing on page 13 (Midlands Region plan). The DRAX facility has recently admitted to importing old growth primary forest for pelletising and burning at its facility in Yorkshire. See quotes below from BBC article accessed 09/02/20256

“The government's scientific advisors on the Climate Change Committee - an independent non-departmental public body - warned that subsidies for burning wood pellets should not be extended beyond 2027.”

“The company doesn't dispute that it is still taking wood from old-growth sites that are not priority deferral areas.”

“In fact, the power station emits about 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, but under international rules the UK doesn't have to count these emissions.”

“Drax helps the UK government meet its climate targets because, on paper at least, the power station is treated as emission-free. This is because international carbon accounting rules state that greenhouse gas emissions from burning wood are counted in the country where the trees are felled as opposed to where they are burned.”

Where is the planning for phasing out the use of use of Biomass, which has been proved to contribute directly to greenhouse gas emissions? NGET fail to mention this dirty part of the problem with their concentration on wind power. It is surely OFGEM’s responsibility to ensure that NGET consider and plan for phasing this out? The current ‘do nothing’ approach is not adequate.

● It appears that the driver for NGET’s disappointing programme is in the following statement from their Plan

“ Up to c.£19bn for increasing network capacity, the majority of which is part of the ASTI regime which Ofgem created in 2023. This increase in network capacity is time critical. Consumers are bearing billions of pounds of constraint costs because the network to transport energy is not available yet.”

The ‘wild west’ that deregulation of the industry let loose on the UK has led to a proliferation of foreign owned wind power companies delivering power that cannot be used when at peak capacity leading to the government paying them constraint costs. This is the main driver of the current plan; reduce the constraint costs and become a net energy exporter.

What this plan fails to remark on (or plan for) is that all the other operators in this space in Europe are working to the same end - so the export market post 2050 may be a chimera.

We make further comments on two specific areas where we know that NGET does not deliver on its promises below: community engagement and transparency; and environment.

Community engagement and transparency

We believe that National Grid (NGET) has breached the Gunning Principles in a number of ways and are taking legal advice on this.

NGET only consulted after it had decided on the preferred option at Richborough and discarded other options. See documentation online of the pre-inception meeting with the Inspectorate that show Richborough was the only option on the table in 2019 for the Kent landfall well before the consultation began. It is not a consultation if the outcome was already decided, and NGET is using the consultation as a ‘box ticking’ exercise. 8

A 10,500 signature petition against the scheme was completely ignored although we know that it was delivered within the deadline for the 2023/24 consultation.

The only advertising about the consultation process that we are aware of was in the Isle of Thanet News online page and Kent Online. As news readership is now fragmented, we understand that it is difficult to engage. But there were no posters in any of the towns and door to door leafleting was haphazard.

The majority of the Public Information Events were held during business hours, which limited those who work away being able to attend the meetings. Answers to questions were hard to come by from the staff who manned the events, some of whom appeared aggressive when challenged over the assumption that the project would go ahead without any amendment.

Consultation documents that were available from libraries were only available on request. NGET excluded Broadstairs library from their distribution list for reasons which are not at all clear, particularly when Broadstairs is closer geographically to Richborough than Margate. While there was no legal requirement for NGET to provide information in either Margate or Broadstairs libraries, it is odd that Broadstairs was excluded while Margate was not, despite being further away. NGET also count Margate library twice as a consultation location (once called Margate and once called Thanet when they are the same library).

Our own polling of all residents of Cliffsend (within the red target zone for the consultation) found that fewer than 1 in 10 people had received anything at all through their door about Sea Link. Many when questioned were aghast, as they had no idea about the project and its likely impact for the 5 years of the build. As the scale of the project and length of the construction period has become more apparent, residents of Cliffsend are now finding their houses are difficult to sell because of the Sea Link project blight.

Hard copies of all the proposals can only be obtained from NGET at a cost of £350 – putting it outside the reach of those stakeholders who are not online and unable to afford such an outlay.

Community relations are very poor. Emails to the project team with direct questions have gone unanswered. Some people have had responses that are trite and are clearly designed to stonewall. There has been no attempt to truly answer any of the questions raised and requests for meetings have been ignored.

The last additional round of consultation in November 2024 was kept quiet. Stakeholders were narrowly described as those who had a ‘land interest’. Residents of Pegwell, Cliffsend and Minster were not made aware of the new consultation and indeed one affected land holder was also ignored.

The new area of ‘mitigation’ for wildlife was not circulated to those who had previously commented and is widely believed to be totally unsuitable as it is not functionally linked land.

Stakeholders who have responded to the consultation have been variously ignored, or fobbed off with stock phrases and none of their direct questions answered. Requests for meetings have gone unanswered.

1.6 Delivery Constraint 4: Community acceptance

Stakeholders, including our two MPs for both constituencies impacted by the proposed landfall in Kent, have been asking for:

- A true examination of the alternative landfall points for Kent showing full and transparent cost comparisons between the alternative sites.

- The rationale behind why an integrated offshore grid was discounted. This has not been explored by NGET despite offering known cost-savings and reductions in infrastructure. This is currently the approach taken in Europe.

- The opportunity for co-location with Nautilus was discounted early on and then reinstated. This change has not been explained.

- The last major change to the Richborough end of Sea Link is to plan for 20m deep piling across 9 hectares of the marsh to stabilise the unsuitable marsh land and then build up a concrete raft 2 meters in depth for the foundations of the converter station building. The additional cost of this part of the project has not been made public and would have a considerable bearing on their assertion that Richborough is the cheapest option.

- The proposal for mitigation is arguably worse as it is not functionally linked land to Pegwell Bay and is surrounded by industry. The rationale for this change of mitigation is weak.

None of the stakeholders were aware of digital 3D visualisations. Virtual reality headsets were certainly not in evidence at any events and the original information packs failed to show how the converter would look from key vantage points.

Indeed, the model at the public information events did not show any of the pylons, because it had apparently been too difficult to create them with the 3D printer – so they were simply not shown.

The model at the public information events did not include the functionally linked saltmarsh land at Pegwell Bay, making it difficult for people to understand the location and its relationship to the RAMSAR, SSSI, SAC and NNR sites.

Further, the visuals are from distant footpaths and little used roads where the lie of the land means the height of the converter station is concealed, rather than from locations where the converter will be easily seen, such as Sevenscore roundabout or Cottingham Hill. In fact, there are no visualisations at all from the major roads that are closest to the proposed site of the converter station, nor from those residential properties, recreation areas, businesses and open spaces identified in the PEIR as being most impacted by the development. This is not ‘showing the public how proposals could look in the local landscape’.

In addition, the visualisations were created when the proposed height of the converter station was 26 metres. The latest proposals increase this height to 28 metres, but no additional visualisations have been created.

4.2 Making a positive contribution to our communities and supporting consumers in vulnerable situations

Thanet is one of the most deprived communities in the South East as well as one of the most nature deprived. NGET has not made any assurance of delivering on social value for our community and the impact of the Sea Link project on our vital tourism industry will be immense. This has not been addressed, nor has any mitigation been suggested.

Further, tourism plays a vital role in our local economy and is a major source of employment and income. In the PEIR published in October 2023, NGET concluded: ‘No effects to private or community assets including, residential properties, business premises, community facilities, development land, open space and tourism attractions have been identified.’

We can only assume this is because of limited analysis or poor methodology on NGET’s part as the impact on residents, businesses, open spaces and tourism will be immense.

Building trust through data transparency

There has been a distinct lack of transparency in the way that NGET has approached the Sea Link project and in how it is sharing information with stakeholders in the RIIOT3 Business Plan.

Specifically, in its consultation on Sea Link:

● Refusal to share granular costings, even in the event of clear changes to the cost basis such as the new concrete piling and foundation at Richborough

● Inability to supply the carbon footprint calculations whilst touting the project as a ‘green’ scheme, premised on green energy that is better for the planet

● Inability to supply a Cumulative Impact Assessment of additional building and solar schemes for the Richborough area when asked.

In the RIIOT3 Business Plan:

● There is a lot of redacted data, making it impossible to have a complete picture;

● NGET has not published its Investment Decisions Pack, Engineering Justification Papers and CBA with the business plan for stakeholder scrutiny;

● Refusal of NGET to share risk register.

ENVIRONMENT

02 Nature Positive

“To respond to the global biodiversity crisis, we are taking a proactive approach to preserve, restore and enhance the natural environment.”

More than half the world’s flora and fauna rely on wetland and the UK has lost 90% of our wetland in the last 100 years.

Pegwell Bay has numerous legal protections such as RAMSAR, SSSI, NNR, SAC in recognition of its position as an internationally important wetland. Further, Minster Marshes are also a wetland, and are functionally linked to Pegwell Bay, meaning that numerous species of birds, including many on the UK’s red list will suffer from further habitat loss. The Sea Link project will directly contribute to species loss. In fact, it is harder to find a site which would have a more detrimental impact on biodiversity than the one NGET has chosen.

The section on the RIIO-T3 Environmental Investment has been heavily redacted so we are unable to comment further.

Environmental commitments required by OFGEM

In NGET’s EAP the word ‘protection’ appears only 5 times and never in respect of legal protections such as RAMSAR, SSSI, NNR, SAC, which they appear keen to ignore in the case of the Sea Link project’s southern landfall at Richborough.

The Government is seeking to position the Sea Link project and the Great Grid Upgrade as a Green Energy Project directly contributing to Net Zero by 2030. However, the calculations that show how turning 16 hectares of important carbon sink marshland into concrete for the Sea Link project will reduce carbon emissions have not been provided despite our requests for them. The project has been going since 2019.

Landfall at Kent for the Sea Link Project is via a site that has SSSI, RAMSAR, NNR and SAC protection because they say it is the cheapest. None of these important environmental protections are being respected and they are ignoring local consumers and stakeholders.

The carbon capture numbers within their business plan are redacted. NGET positions Sea Link and the Great Grid Upgrade as a requirement to get to net zero by 2030, but carbon calculations are not provided in any of the consultation packs for the project.

There is nothing in the Sea Link project plan about the carbon footprint or turbine blades and the problems with disposal, showing how easy it is to write plans and then fail to deliver them during a project.

There is no mention of circular economies and sustainability of the wind farms in their current plan 2030 is not covered because the companies are not directly owned by NGET and ‘having a commitment to work with’ these companies is not showing the leadership that is needed. OFGEM has a responsibility to push the companies to work together.

We have evidence from the most recently completed NGET project in our area NEMO LINK Ltd (2013) of significant harm to the environment that has not been mitigated 5 years later:

● There was no security on the temporary bridge NGET constructed across the Stour despite multiple requests from the landowner. Children were jumping into the notoriously dangerous river from the bridge on multiple occasions.

● Following removal of the bridge, the bank was damaged. Despite continual requests, repairs have not been made. This has contributed to significant and increased flooding of the fields. Over 25 requests for repairs have been made and ignored.

● Trees were planted without permission or consultation and have been left with no aftercare. The success rate is appalling.

● The entrance holes to barn owl boxes (in use) were taped up without permission to prove that there were no nesting barn owls present.

● The trenching through the salt marsh has left a large scar even after 9 years. The ‘garage pool’ was previously brackish water, rather than saline, but damage to this area has caused it to become tidal and saline, changing a habitat overnight that has taken decades to create.

● In agreement with the landowner and the local conservation organisation who manage Stonelees National Nature Reserve, NGET agreed to install the HVDC cables from the NEMO scheme on top of the land and cover them with a chalk bund. In a condition from Thanet District Council, it was agreed that this would “marry with existing levels” and that it would be left to self-seed naturally, rather than be turfed and re-seeded. However, the material used for the chalk bund that was created bears very little resemblance to chalk. It no longer functions like chalk. The resulting material is a highly compacted, very poorly drained material that bakes solid in the summer and then turns into a slippery mess in the winter, which is the key reason natural colonisation of plants has been so poor. It certainly doesn’t marry with existing levels and is a somewhat dangerous eyesore with zero environmental benefit. This is yet another example of NGET’s cavalier attitude to environmental mitigation.

● Thanet District Council also issued conditions requiring follow up monitoring of the condition of the salt marsh. As far as we can tell from our requests to TDC, this follow up monitoring has not been undertaken.

● The current plans for Sea Link will, we believe, require significant quantities of bentonite to lubricate the drill. As drilling will be under the water table, we are dismayed to see no mitigation for these activities.

4.5.1

We have been unable to find an Annual Environment Report on NGET’s website.

As far as we can see NGET has no power to influence the carbon waste footprint of the wind farm generators.

Turbine Blades at end of life need a solution. They are currently made of fibreglass and are being buried in land based tips or buried at end of life. A rush to wind-power when they have no control

4.5.3

As far as we can see NGET has no power to influence the carbon waste footprint of the wind farm generators.

Turbine Blades at end of life need a solution. They are currently made of fibreglass and are being buried in land based tips or buried at end of life. A rush to wind-power when they have no control over this will nullify this claim. They must be held to account over this.

Whilst so much of the Business plan is redacted, we can have no confidence in its trustworthiness.

4.5.5

No carbon data has been provided for the important Sea Link project despite this being a push for decarbonisation. The data in the Business Plan is redacted.

Additionally important calculations for the Sea Link project such as the value of marshland as a carbon sink are ignored. Without the data and given their past performance, we have no confidence that they are able or willing to deliver carbon reduction truthfully.

A commitment to collaborating with the supply chain is not enough. Requests for information about the sustainability and plans for turbine blades have been ignored.

We cannot find ‘materiality threshold’ mentioned anywhere in their Business Plan, which speaks volumes in itself.

In conclusion, we believe that NGET is a short term low cost options at the expense of the environment, the British taxpayer and the UK government. Ofgem must take a much more decisive role in driving the ‘great grid upgrade’ to ensure it delivers maximum value to the people and environment of the UK. We have the potential to create the blueprint of how to deliver a net zero strategy which is the envy of every other nation seeking to balance environmental with growth and energy demands. We have one chance to get this right.

Let’s not blow it.

Save Minster Marshes February 2025

Sir Roger Gale MP

Sir Roger Gale has contacted National Grid's Chief Executive, Alice Delahunty, again, showing concern about the inadequate planning for the grid and additional infrastructure.

Letter here

Working with Suffolk

We're in dialogue with a number of other local campaign groups around the country who are opposing National Grid's plans in their own areas. Most importantly, we're working with the SEAS campaign in Suffolk who are at the other end of the proposed Sea Link route to explore ways in which we can work together for mutual benefit. 

Watch this space for further developments on that score

Response to December 2024 Consultation

We are disappointed that National Grid did not contact our campaign group in this latest round of consultation for the Sea Link project.

National Grid has repeatedly stated that public consultation is key to developing its plans, but by overlooking the local community who will be directly impacted by Sea Link, these statements seem rather hollow. Nonetheless, we share our views below on your revised plans below. Lack of consultation/information made publicly available.

As this is the final round of consultation before National Grid submits its DCO application to the Planning Inspectorate, we believe that National Grid has a responsibility to be much more transparent to the public and should have provided more information about the impact on both communities and the environment of the proposed Sea Link project in Kent at the pre-application stage.

In particular:

• A full project costing has not been made available

• Visual mock-ups from surrounding roads, homes and amenities have not been provided

• Traffic impacts have been underestimated

• A Cumulative Impact Assessment has not been provided

• A carbon footprint report has not been provided (and this is key when destroying marshland, which is itself a carbon sink). Unsuitability of the new mitigation area.

The newly proposed mitigation area is completely unsuitable and is very unlikely to provide 10% net gain in biodiversity.

This is for a number of reasons:

• Distance: it is not functionally linked to Pegwell Bay which is what makes Minster Marshes so vital to the wildlife which depend on the marshes and the bay. At 3 miles from the bay, it is outside the flight range of the endangered Golden Plover which heavily rely on Minster Marshes at high tide. Adapting existing farming practices will not compensate for this.

• Light pollution: the area already has high levels of light pollution from Thanet Waste, Stevens & Carlotti, Discovery Park and Kent Renewable Energy plant. This will be further exacerbated by 112 newly consented houses across the road at Discovery Park which will cause further light pollution and bring domestic cats – the bane of wild birds.

• Disturbance from human activity: the site is directly adjacent to the A256 Sandwich Bypass, a very busy dual carriageway, with its associated pollution and noise. On the opposite boundary of the site, the Stour’s bank is completely filled with moored houseboats, creating additional disturbance.

• Access to the site appears to be via a new access road through an area of scrub and trees, destroying more existing habitat which will not be mitigated by the planned mitigation area.

Continued use of the former Hoverport

We are pleased that National Grid is no longer considering using the former Hoverport as a compound but dismayed that the revised plans include using it as an access route to Pegwell Bay. This too is functionally linked land to Pegwell Bay and provides a rare habitat for a wide range of endangered species of flora and fauna including the critically endangered Lizard orchid. In addition, the site provides a valuable space for the people of Thanet to engage with their natural environment.

As a peninsula, and one of the most deprived areas in the South East, access to wild space is crucial to residents’ well-being. It will also mean the closure of the newly created King Charles III coastal path for a protracted period of time.

Comment on overall plans

While the remaining elements of National Grid’s proposals have not changed since the last consultation, we reiterate our view that the plans to site Sea Link at Pegwell Bay and Minster Marshes are catastrophic for the environment, for the local economy and our local population. The government has committed to halting species decline by 2030 and increase abundance by 10% by 2042, reducing the risk of species extinction. 1 National Grid’s plans for Sea Link will directly lead to species decline by destroying unique and irreplaceable habitats for wildlife at Pegwell Bay & Minster Marshes.

These include significant populations of 29 red listed bird species, 40 amber listed birds, and 74 other species, including orchids, European Eels and beavers.

Our list of species we have counted on Minster Marshes is attached as an appendix to this submission. No mitigation measures can ever replace or restore the fragile habitats these species rely on. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. In addition, the increased pylon heights and additional pylons will lead to catastrophic bird deaths as this area is part of Europe’s migration ‘superhighway’ for a wide number of migrating birds. We have already seen 179 mute swans killed in a single incident on National Grid’s existing pylon network in the area.

As National Grid is aware, Pegwell Bay is a nationally and internationally protected wetland in recognition of the unique habitat it provides for vast number of species. The legal protections of RAMSAR, NNR, SSSI and SAC are being ignored in these proposals. National Grid ignored these protections in the NEMO link project and failed to implement any of the promised mitigation measures. Pegwell Bay has never recovered from the damage caused by the NEMO construction. Thanet as a region depends heavily on tourism, with 19% of local employment reliant on our tourist industry.

Building a 28m high, 9 hectare converter station will have a hugely detrimental impact on our local economy and landscape, partly due to the construction traffic, road and footpath closures and lengthy construction period. Once constructed, the planned edifice will be vastly out of scale and character with the limited industrial low level buildings in the area.

Natural England’s State of Natural Capital Report for England 2024/3 , published in October 2024, emphasises the capital value of nature and makes clear that marine, coastal margins and wetlands are at particularly high risk and protection of these assets must be of the highest priority. National Grid’s Sea Link plans fly in the face of these recommendations

Position of the converter station

Siting the converter station on marshland will not only contribute to global warming by destroying marshland, which is an essential component of natural carbon capture, but also requires substantially more construction materials (again contributing to global warming) than were the converter to be constructed on stable ground.

National Grid’s own guidance on where to construct substations states ‘land that is prone to floods cannot be considered, or land that is boggy in nature. Equally, land subject to subsidence … cannot be considered.’

As Minster Marshes floods regularly, is boggy and is predicted to suffer from subsidence according to research by the British Geological Survey, we remain baffled that National Grid is pressing ahead with its plans, in the full knowledge that this site is entirely geographically unsuitable.

Further, the additional costs related to constructing on such unstable ground have not been accounted for. We believe that National Grid has not thoroughly evaluated other sites. It is clear that Richborough sub station was identified as the connection point before the Routeing and Siting Study was subsequently carried out.

Credible alternatives on brownfield sites such as Isle of Grain, Kingsnorth, and other areas that could connect easily to Sellindge were discounted too early. The relocation of the NAUTILUS project to the Isle of Grain demonstrates that it is a suitable location for building new infrastructure to support the expansion of the grid and will have a much reduced impact on the environment.

The Sellindge link to Europe is already established so we cannot understand why the Sizewell to Sellindge link was discounted on cost of the undersea cabling alone, when the current plan will now require a huge cost increase from raising the level of the marsh by two meters over at least 9 hectares.

Furthermore, NESO’s plans post 2030 include building another massive undersea cable from Scotland to Richborough which they are apparently happy to finance without problem. It appears that National Grid’s teams are siloed across the many different projects that form part of the ‘Great Grid Upgrade’ and that there are substantial efficiencies and reduced environmental impact that could be delivered through co-location and taking a more joined up and strategic approach. The drive to Net Zero does not need to be and indeed must not be at the expense of the environment and threatened species. There is a better and more sustainable approach, and it should begin with meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders – not a headlong rush to DCO.

Public Meeting Sandwich Bay Bird Observatory- Thurs 5th Dec 7.30pm

Save Minster Marshes is having a public meeting at Sandwich Bay Bird Observatory. Thursday 5th Dec at 7.30pm. Location: https://w3w.co/closet.splints.staple

Public Meeting Royal Temple Yacht Club - Wednesday 18th September, 6:30pm

Booking essential. Click image below to book tickets  #saveminstermarshes #rethinksealink

https://tinyurl.com/roger-morgan-grenville

Public Meeting Cliffsend Village Hall - Thurs 25th July 7pm

Save Minster Marshes is having a public meeting at Cliffsend Village Hall on Thursday 25th July at 7pm.

Public Meeting Minster Village Hall - Wed 17th July 6pm

Save Minster Marshes is having a public meeting at Minster Village Hall on wed 17th july at 6pm.

Public Consultation reopened until Aug 11th 2024

National grid has reopened their public consultation until August 11th 2024. Several changes have been made to the existing plan following the previous consultation. The height of the Converter Station has been increased and additional compounds have been proposed at the hoverport site.

If you have not received the SeaLink project update through the post - you can download it here. https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/152401/download refer to pages 26, 27 and 28 for the Kent update.

Objections can be emailed to :

contact@sealink.nationalgrid.com or write to FREEPOST Sea Link

ed.miliband.mp@parliament.uk

hello@pollybillington.org.uk or polly.billington.mp@parliament.uk

feedback@planninginspectorate.gov.uk

SMM at Restore Nature Now - London 22nd June 2024

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Photo Credit : Helen Stewart & Maggie Wilcox

SMM supporters were in London carrying the Save Minster Marshes banner at the estimated 80 - 100,000 people Restore Nature Now protest march.

Crowd Justice for Minster Marshes

Save Minster Marshes is moving into the next phase. We're appointing a legal representative from the Environmental Law Foundation to challenge the National Grid's unfair consultation process.

The consultation lacked transparency and failed to properly consider the community's voice. We believe a fair process should include clear and accurate information with opportunities for meaningful response.

Please support the fight to Save Minster Marshes. National Grid's plans for environmentally damaging infrastructure threaten ecologically sensitive marshes and nationally important coast and wetland areas.  Alternative brownfield sites or offshore locations will have a much lower impact and are possible.

Your donation, no matter the amount, will help us fund legal costs and fight for a fair consultation process. Please donate today by using the link below.

CROWD JUSTICE 

If we don't raise our initial target of £2,500, your pledge will be refunded.

NOTE:

Crowd Justice use SSL encrypted technology to take payments. Stripe is a world class payment processor, for processing transactions. (You can read about their security policy here). They don't at any time hold or see your card details.

Rare duck winters on Minster Marshes

A rare Long-tailed duck has been spotted wintering on one of the dykes on Minster Marshes. This illustrates just how important this habitat is for our wildlife.

The RSPB describes the duck below:

The Long-tailed Duck is a small, neat sea duck. They have small round heads and steep foreheads. In winter, the male is mainly white with some brownish-black markings. It also has greatly elongated tail feathers which give it its name. Females are browner. When in flight, they show their all dark wings and white bellies. They don't breed in the UK, but protection of their wintering sites is important, because they're vulnerable to oil pollution at sea. They're a winter visitor and passage migrant to the UK, most commonly from Northumberland to northern Scotland. Long-tailed Ducks are listed as a Schedule 1 species under The Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Video: Keith Ross

Support from local MP

We're delighted to have backing from Sir Roger Gale, MP for North Thanet, who has expressed his dismay at National Grid's proposals for Sea Link in the strongest terms. You can read his letter to Alice Delahunty, National Grid president, below.

Kent Wildlife Trust launches campaign to oppose SeaLink!

We’re really pleased to let you know that Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) launches their campaign today which urges National Grid to Rethink SeaLink.

This is great news for Save Minster Marshes – by working together, we have a much greater chance of overturning National Grid’s plans, meaning we can protect the unique interconnected ecosystems of the Marshes, Pegwell Bay and Goodwin Sands. 

• Read more about KWT’s Rethink Sea Link campaign HERE

• Read their previous response to National Grid’s plans HERE

• Watch a video featuring KWT Sandwich and Pegwell Bay warden Nina Jones HERE

Please sign up to their mailing list to show your support for their campaign – it’s really important that we work together to secure the future of this special part of Thanet.  

Public consultation ends on 18th December

1. If you prefer to send your comments to National Grid by email rather then filling out their forms which a lot of people are finding difficult to use they have provided this email address to comment: contact@sealink.nationalgrid.com feel free to copy in saveminstermarshes@gmail.com
   
   

2. We’ve updated our consultation guidance again!

   If you haven’t yet completed your consultation feedback form, our handy guide will help remind you of all the reasons why National Grid must think again when giving them your feedback.

   Click here to download our guide. These are just suggestions so use your own words.

3. You can fill out the feedback form online on the National Grid Website.
   With the video below to guide you through.

   https://sealink.consultationonline.co.uk/

Video on how to fill our National Grid response forms