Rethink Sea Link

Our response outlines these concerns:

• We are supportive of steps taken to develop renewable energy solutions, but it must not be at the cost of wildlife. 
• We are not convinced that the proposed route can be adequately mitigated. 
• Our concern at the use of desktop surveys as a replacement to fuller and more detailed ecological surveys. 
• The failure to carry out reptile, bat, water vole, otter, beaver, badger, invertebrate, and river aquatic surveys before the plans are submitted for a Development Consent Order (DCO). 
• The loss of connectivity for wildlife through the development of 13.6 hectares of wildlife-rich land. 

Our asks:

• We want National Grid to recognise the damage caused by Nemo Link and provide a detailed assessment to ensure improvements are made. 
• We urge National Grid to review alternative routes for Sea Link. 

You can still write to Secretary of State, Ed Miliband 

Those wishing to support the Rethink Sea Link Campaign can email Secretary of State, Ed Miliband via [email protected] 

Points to consider raising: 

• As a resident of Kent, you are concerned about the impact that National Grid’s Sea Link Project will have on wildlife when alternative routes are available. 
• The recent U-turn by Ofgem provides a viable alternative option is available to the project. 
• Examine bigger, joined up solutions - pooling offshore energy resources enable cost efficiencies, saving billions in infrastructure costs. 
• Transporting energy offshore from generation sites closer to demand reduces grid constraints and minimises reliance on fossil fuel backups. 
• Offshore energy transport streamlines planning processes, cutting costs tied to route permissions and compulsory land purchases. 
• Utilising brownfield onshore sites offers faster planning approvals, promotes local economic regeneration, and reduces environmental and community impacts. 

Read our blog

Supported by...