Leading conservation organisations and campaigners call for withdrawal of flawed Sea Link proposal - Kent Wildlife Trust
Coalition, backed by Sir Roger Gale MP, warn flawed application places unreasonable burden on charities, local authorities, and communities.
A coalition of conservation organisations and local campaign groups – including Kent Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Energy Action Solutions, CPRE Kent, Save Minster Marshes, the Seal Research Trust, British Divers Marine Life Rescue, the Suffolk Preservation Society, Walberswick Against Lion Link, Saxmundham Against Needless Destruction and Sir Roger Gale MP Herne Bay and Sandwich – have formally written to the Examining Authority requesting that National Grid’s Sea Link Development Consent Order (DCO) application be withdrawn, citing serious legal, procedural, and environmental failings.
Sea Link is a proposed £1.1 billion high-voltage subsea cable project, designed to connect Suffolk and Kent to strengthen the UK’s electricity grid. The cables are due to make landfall at two highly sensitive locations: RSPB’s North Warren Nature Reserve in Suffolk and Kent Wildlife Trust’s Sandwich and Pegwell Bay National Nature Reserve in Kent. Both sites sit within landscapes of multiple national and international conservation designations. In Suffolk, the plans include a large 26m high converter station near Saxmundham, while in Kent, proposals include a new 28m high converter station and associated infrastructure at Minster Marshes.
The letter highlights serious legal, procedural, and environmental failings in the application, as documented by the Examining Authority in correspondence on 8th July and 5th August 2025. With over 500 documents, the DCO application contains fundamental errors and omissions, including:
- inadequate ecological surveys
- factual errors in reporting, missing or inconsistent documentation, and
- failure to meet statutory consultation requirements.
The coalition warns that the sheer volume of flawed material places an unreasonable burden on charities, local authorities, and communities, who must spend time and resources cross-checking an application that should have been complete and reliable at the point of submission.