GET WRITING!

As part of the National Day of Action for Nature, we would like all our supporters to write to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband (as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero) and members of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee (which include East Thanet's MP Polly Billington) and urge them to say no to National Grid's disastrous plans for Thanet.

We have written the letters for you so all you have to do is copy and paste them. Feel free to use them as a starting point and edit them as you wish.

Please drop us a line (or BCC us) at smm@saveminstermarshes.com to let us know you've written.

Letter 1: 

https://contact.no10.gov.uk/ (please note that this is the only way to contact the Prime Minister and the contact form is limited to 1000 characters):

I understand why the Climate and Nature Bill did not proceed to a second reading.

Earlier this year you assured the nation that development would prioritise brownfield and “grey belt” land. This assurance is hard to square with National Grid’s planned converter station at Minster Marshes in Thanet, where over 12 ha. of high–water-table BMV arable land would be sealed under concrete.

This is productive farmland that is a vital habitat for threatened wildlife. Once lost, it cannot be restored. The project also proposes drilling beneath Pegwell Bay, a National Nature Reserve with multiple designations to safeguard it from harm.

I believe the project’s Needs Case contains fundamental flaws and prioritising returns to institutional investors over genuine environmental outcomes and progress to Net Zero. We all want a faster transition to clean energy but public confidence depends on it not damaging the very environment it aims to protect.

Letter 2: 

secretary.state@energysecurity.gov.uk

Dear Mr Miliband,

It has been a turbulent start to 2026 for the world and for your department. I recognise the effort involved in navigating complex national challenges, but I am writing to urge further attention to an issue where your action could make a meaningful difference.

I understand why the Climate and Nature Bill did not proceed to a second reading: its scope was broad, aspects were unenforceable, and much is already covered by existing legislation. But its underlying aims have broad public support, and your department’s mission—to make the UK a clean energy superpower through Clean Power by 2030 and Accelerate to Net Zero, while enhancing energy security, protecting billpayers, creating growth and jobs, and cutting emissions—is widely shared.

I support these aims. What I cannot reconcile is pursuing them without an explicit commitment to protecting nature—especially when some projects being advanced risk damaging it. In your State of Climate and Nature Statement to the House of Commons on 14 July 2025 you said: “The fight to protect our home is a deeply British cause … Only by bringing down carbon emissions, protecting nature, and working internationally can we deliver energy security today, and climate security for future generations.”

You also said: “This puts the UK on the path to clean power by 2030 … creating thousands of good jobs … whilst restoring our natural environment and tackling the climate crisis.” (House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS817))

These commitments are hard to square with the proposed development at Minster Marshes in Thanet, where over 12 hectares of high–water-table BMV arable land would be permanently sealed beneath concrete for National Grid’s Sea Link converter station.

This is not degraded land: it is productive farmland that supports red- and amber-listed birds and protected species including beavers, water voles, grass snakes, slow worms and hares. Once lost, this landscape cannot be restored.

The project also proposes drilling beneath Pegwell Bay — a National Nature Reserve with SSSI, RAMSAR and Special Protection Area designations — created explicitly to safeguard it from harm.

I believe the project’s Needs Case contains fundamental flaws, and I am confident these can be demonstrated. Proceeding in its current form risks committing the UK to a solution that prioritises returns to large, mainly overseas, institutional investors over genuine environmental outcomes.

We all want a faster transition to clean energy. That transition will only retain public confidence if it does not undermine the very natural systems it is intended to protect.

I appreciate your consideration of these points and your ongoing service to the nation. Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours sincerely

[Your Name]

[Contact Information]

Letter 3: 

commonsesnz@parliament.uk and if you live in her constituency, you can also copy it to: polly.billington.mp@parliament.uk

Dear

I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding National Grid’s Sea Link project. This is not a localised issue. Its implications extend far beyond Thanet and East Anglia and will affect communities, taxpayers, and the natural environment across the UK. For that reason, I believe it merits the Committee’s urgent and detailed scrutiny.

I want to be clear that my objection is not rooted in opposition to clean energy infrastructure. I fully support the Government’s ambition to make the UK a clean-energy superpower through Clean Power by 2030 and Accelerate to Net Zero. However, these goals must not be pursued at the expense of the very natural assets they are intended to protect. When decision-making becomes driven primarily by short-term economics rather than long-term environmental stewardship, the public loses confidence—and the transition itself is put at risk. The British public need a pathway that delivers energy security while placing nature and value-for-money at the centre of every decision.

National Grid, a profit-driven company with predominantly overseas shareholders, is proposing to spend £59 billion on this programme. It has already received substantial Early Construction Funding, yet OFGEM does not publish these figures, leaving the public unable to scrutinise how their money is being used.

Since the project’s inception, the energy landscape has changed dramatically. Several of the offshore wind developments originally used to justify Sea Link are no longer proceeding. At the same time, new interconnectors have been approved and are already under way. These developments materially alter the need case. Yet the project continues to advance as though none of these changes have occurred.

The result is a scheme that appears oversized, outdated, and increasingly misaligned with current energy realities. Despite widespread public opposition and a weakening rationale, millions of pounds of taxpayer money have already been spent, and costs continue to escalate—without transparency in the project documentation.

There is a real risk that Sea Link becomes another HS2-style cautionary tale: a project launched with good intentions but allowed to drift far beyond its original purpose, consuming vast public funds while inflicting irreversible damage on the environment it claims to safeguard.

I respectfully urge the Committee to examine this issue as part of its ongoing work. I would welcome the opportunity to provide further detail on the weaknesses in the current need case and the evidence for this.

Kind regards,

[Your Name]

[Contact Information]