Windfarm not answer
IN answer to Judith Randall's letter regarding Westfield Lane giant (near Blackpool Tower height) turbine Windfarm proposal. I live at West Park adjacent to the proposed site.
Much turbine noise or night time amplitude modulation thumping effects are incalculable; 200 hours of shadow flicker will occur.
Planners accept single subjects per letter from objectors and supporters. Supporters obtain signatures ignoring our circumstances.
Professor Mariana Alves-Periera and Lisbon University have established a strong probability of irreversible physiological cell damage (vibro acoustic disease or VAD) affecting nearby residents. Thickening arteries may occur.
The DBERR who formulate turbine set back distances are reluctant to take account of this research carried out over 27 years with "valid and robust scientific data".
Turbines burn owing to lightning or worn parts. They are too high for fire authorities to extinguish. They blow over uprooting giant foundations. Brakes fail causing rotors to clip towers and turbines to disintegrate.
A smaller fallen turbine shook the earth in Weatherford, Oklahoma, three to four kilometres away. Turbines may leak hydraulic oil, shed ice blocks or sheared 45 metre 12 tonne rotors which could blow across the A1. Three motorists in Germany have died owing to distraction.
Britain's carbon footprint is two per cent of the world's. Turbines produce half to one per cent of our electricity. Much less carbon reduction is achieved.
Revolutionary solar technology from Silicone Valley are: printed aluminium foil; flexible, light and five times more efficient than conventional panels; much cheaper to purchase; producing much cheaper electricity.
Government should re-direct subsidies accordingly.
JOHN DENISON
Darrington
Issue new guidelines
WHEN a contractor applies to build a windfarm the only criteria that council planning departments apply are existing government guidelines and planning law.
No consideration of a financial feasibility is used, but it is our money in the form of large subsidies and the renewable price levy on our electricity bills that will pay for it.
Who polices this money to see that it is used efficiently and not squandered among developers intent on making large profits, with little consideration for people who will have to live underneath these large industrial machines? No one.
We don't begrudge a company making an honest buck, the economy depends on it as well as our jobs. But there has to be a balance that protects the public.
The government needs to step in and issue new guidelines designed to protect the people it serves – us. Guidelines from 1993 were put in when turbines were small and need to take into account the massive size of the new generation of turbines now being deployed.
Extensive research from Portugal has found that the low frequency noise emitted by turbines can physically harm people living, or working, near a windfarm.
We need to tell the government change is needed now before irreparable harm is done to towns, villages, countryside and people as well as our wallets.
Write to your MP, sign up on the Downing Street "e" petitions on the PWAG and DATED websites, lobby your local councils and make your friends do the same.
PETER DRIFFIELD
Darrington Road
East Hardwick
"Do we resist or agree to be sacrificed for dogma?".
When I started to hear about the scale and the potential impact of the Bank's proposal to install industrial wind turbines on Went Edge, like many I was startled. I know that there is a huge concern expressed about global warming and our future energy needs and all the political parties have emerging views about the need to come up with viable alternative scources.
The more that I learned however, the more concerned I became that the people on the eastern side of the district were to be sacrificed for a tick in a government box and a bit of global posturing.
When you look at the implications of the Bank's proposal there a number of major reasons that under normal circumstances would rule out such a development. However over recent years our Labour Government has set out to erode the planning laws and guidance so that "things get done".
In fact as I understand it Ministers only last week signed an order at council (Queens Council/Ministerial edict) which allows the latest big idea of Eco towns or Growth Points (urban extensions as WMDC describe them) to utilise green belt so that the governments big new project of 3,000,000 new houses by 2020 gets delivered.
What is the linkage? Whether it is multiple industrial wind turbines over 425 feet high or 20,000 new houses they could arrive on a piece of green belt near you.
Peter Box, Leader of the council has come out against Darringfield but has agreed to a Government scheme of Growth Points with a target building up to 1900 new houses a year up until 2020, which will deliver more houses than Darringfield again predominantly in the Five Towns area and in reality this will take green belt or precious open spaces, will we have the infrastructure improvements? Well I am really not sure.
Whether it is industrial scale wind farms or massive housing developements it looks as if this Government is set to get its way in this part of the world because they can, unless we demand consultation and fight these tractor factory style targets.
Our local MP has gone on record about the need to meet the global challenge and quotes the Stern review as a compelling reason, she supports Government policy based on a report by an economist. I would feel more comfortable if Sir Nicholas was a scientist.
She was also the minister sponsoring Eco-Towns and the Growth Points programme that Wakefield is keen to support. One would hope that a constituency MP would support the needs of her people, but it seems to me that career and government programmes have a higher call on her and therefore apart from telling us that we will be consulted she gives no comfort when government inspectors overturn local democratic decisions and processes.
At this point people may feel that I am being political, biased and defeatist. Well I have a clear view on what I think is going on. Defeatist no, we have to fight the Bank's proposal and keep fighting until this flawed thinking runs out of steam.
At a local level we need the political will to stop sacrificing our communities to government dictat. Whilst we have a local consensus about the Wind Farm, I am getting very mixed messages from our Labour controlled council and our MP about their position.
With regard to council we will only be sure of a result when we know that they are not block voting to support a government initiative, the electorate can alter the WMDC block vote and send a clear message on May the 1st by seeing ruling group heads roll.
At a parliamentary level we have had a Labour MP since 1935, if ever there was time for change it seems to me that the next general election will give us a chance to look at electing a local candidate who has neither the distractions of a joint ministerial careers or the complication of where the heart is.
My final comments are we need to stand and fight the current application and that people need to register their objections to this damaging and speculative developement.
For the record my objection filed with WMDC planners for the Banks developement is as follows.
Application Summary
Application Number:
07/01338/FUL
Address:
Westfield Lane (Land Off)
Darrington
West Yorkshire
Proposal:
Erection of 6 wind turbines, highway access, junction improvement and ancillary development.
Case Officer:Becky Walker
Customer Details
Name:Cllr G M Walsh - District Councillor Pontefract South
Address:
Town Hall,
Wakefield,
West Yorkshire
Postcode: WF1 2HQ
Email: gwalsh@wakefield.gov.uk
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Phone Number:01977 733975
Comments
Submission Type:Customer objects to the Planning Application.
Comments:
Based on studying the elements of this application and others of its type and having received representations from other elected members and members of parish councils and residents of Pontefract, East Hardwick, Darrington, Carleton, Wentbridge, Ackworth, Badsworth, Knottingley, Ferrybridge and Selby District, I wish to formally object to this application and ask that you put the following points forward to the planning committee for their consideration:
1. That application concerned is an inappropriate development in line with PPG2 Para 3.2 and 3.12 and as such this proposed development will be by definition a development on green belt that is harmful to the green belt, it further conflicts with local planning guidelines.
2. Visual Amenity: In PPG2 Para 3.15 it is stated that the visual amenities of the green belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which might be visually detrimental by reason of their siteing, materials or design. At 125 metres in height it will not be possible to mask these six industrial wind generators from view and they will be visible from a distance and from several local locations including the West Park Residences and are therefore impermissible.
3. Archaeological impact. I am advised by the past Chairman of the Council for British Archaeology (Yorkshire) that "the land has a number of archaeological sites beneath it, probably of Iron Age and Romano British Date. Building works of any kind will destroy these." This proposed application is likely to result in unacceptable damage to the Archaeological environment.
PPG 16 Section A 3. States Archaeological remains are irreplaceable. Further in section A 8. The guidance calls for planning authorities where nationally important remains whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.
The plateau has a significant number of finds and there are additional features still to be explored, some within 50 metres of this proposed application site and it should be remembered that further along the contour line of this edge of the hills as part of the A1M improvements an iron age chariot was discovered. As such on the grounds of preserving the important archaeology of the area this application should be rejected.
4.The villages of Wentbridge and Darrington and the smaller community of West Park already live with significant background noise caused by the flow of traffic on the A1/A1M which runs alongside the proposed location these generators will add further low frequency sound to the noise spectrum adding wind related low frequency and strobe effects which will have a particular impact on residents sleep patterns as other noises drop away through the night.
The group that provided the current DTI guidance on noise nuisance in 1997 have confirmed that the original guidance was based on typically smaller industrial wind generators than those selected for this proposal and the council therefore has a duty of care to confirm that the health and well-being of residents will not be damaged by this installation. If that cannot be done then this application should be deferred or rejected until such time as that may be possible.
5.The location adjacent to the A1 would also offer significant road safety risk particularly by the distraction of motorists through a section of the A1 with several exits and access points where driver concentration is critical. This linked to Bank's own comment about strobing effect and shadow flicker will create a significant danger especially on bright sunny days or at sunset and dusk.
6. In the UDP Volume 1 OL20 the WMDC policy on renewable energy states that "Proposals for the development of renewable energy sources will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that effects on:
i) The Local Community
ii) The Landscape of the area
iii) The Ecology of the area
iv) Existing and proposed land uses in the locality
Are Acceptable
It is clear from the amount of concern raised in local communities across the district and the number of individual objections raised by local residents that this application does not meet point i) of OL20 The application if approved will contravene national legislation listed 1 & 2 above and as such the loss of amenity and damage to the views across the green belt mean that the application does not meet point ii) of OL20. The review of the ecology of the area does not have sufficient time spread to take account of the seasons and the ecology of the area and therefore point iii) of OL20 cannot be tested, as such the application should be deferred or rejected subject to a more detailed and extensive ecological review.
Finally on OL20 the application adversely effects existing and proposed land uses in the area in its impact on existing public footpaths and other rights of way, walks and the rides on Went Edge from the Equestrian Centre at Westfields' West Field Lane, Darrington, WF8 3AQ, the proposed future alteration to the path of the A1M by the Highways Agency and the Eco-Towns proposal of Darringfield and therefore does not meet the test of point iv) of OL20. Note OL20 remains listed in the Secretary of States direction of September 2007 is valid and should be given sufficient weight to reject when considering this application.
7. PPS 22 Principle 1.iv States that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects whatever their scale are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. Even taking account of that principle, there is insufficient environmental and economic benefit or national benefit provided by this particular application to set aside OL20 and that whilst taking account of PPS22 this application does not meet the vigorous tests mentioned in that document and should be rejected accordingly. These are my initial points of objection and should give sufficient grounds for rejection, please note however that I propose to put additional specific points forward for the consideration of the planning committee.
Geoff Walsh
District Councillor - Pontefract South Ward 13
Deputy Leader - Conservative Group WMDC
If you have not already registered your concerns about this proposal with WMDC planning department or our MP, please do so as soon as you can.
We all must feel responsible for looking into and considering various forms of energy. However, there has to be much analysis and consultation involved and not merely "band wagon jumping".
This proposal could cause severe distress and hardship amongst the people living in the hamlet of West Park. It could also greatly affect the quality of life of residents of the neighbouring villages. (I, myself, live half-a-mile from one of the proposed turbines in the Went Valley).
I am firmly against this proposal and will fight it "all the way". In my opinion, it is based on selfishness and greed.
The proposal directly contravenes, in my opinion, the Council's policy of 'Healthy Sustainable Communities'.
Wakefield Council's Planning Committee rejected even the Wind Monitoring Mast in a unanimous decision. This decision should have closed the door on such a proposal.
The Government's Minister should have endorsed this democratic decision, not unpick it!
I await with interest public and Ministry reaction to the new proposal for some huge turbines located around Ferrybridge Station, including one with a proposed siting six hundred metres east of the Ferry Fryston estate.
Trevor Izon
(Councillor for South Pontefract)
Most right-minded people would accept that harnessing the Earth’s natural wind resource to produce electricity, is a usefull tool in the continued search for low Carbon Emission power resources.
Whilst siting them off-shore makes the most sense, inland Windfarms are perhaps more economical to build, but their location will almost always raise local issues if they are too near to a rural population and communities or in an Area of Outstanding natural beauty.
In Scotland, where Windfarms have been prevalent for some time now, after careful study and analysis of the affects of existing Windfarms, it is now mandatory that they are positioned no nearer than 2kms from villages and urban areas. This seems to make sense, and allows the technology to be introduced without delay, but within a set of acceptable ground rules for everyone.
In Europe, most countries have also adopted this same minimum distance, while others do allow a 1.5km distance, but no less. So why is Wakefield Metropolitan District Council allowing Bank’s Development to erect them 500 metres from residential properties at West Park?
JON BOLDERSON
West Park Hamlet
Darrington
Debate Continues
SINCE the publication of my last letter about the speculative development proposal for Went Edge I have been made aware of a troubling possibility I need to bring to public attention.
Should the Banks’ proposal be passed and the wind farm be established, clearly part of it’s viability will link to support funding as a generator of spasmodic renewable energy. If the funding regime were th change because of some more effective renewable source or another initiative then the project could fail on site.
However, I am told that if the 125 metre high wind turbines have been installed, that would render this area of greenbelt as brownfield industrial status and it could then be open for any sort of development. The scheme is likely to be marginal at best and I urge readers to support the campaign to save our skyline by writing in objection to the initial measuring mast proposal to:
The Director of Planning
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 2TX
quoting 07/00212/FUL
Please also write to:
Yvette Cooper MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1 2QW
As in addition to being our MP, she is also Minister of Housing and Planning. Your objections count. Please help by making them heard.
Solidarity in opposition
THE Banks Development Company’s proposal for a wind turbine site has stirred up the tremendous community spirit that can emerge when peoples quality of life is threatened.
This spirit has been magnified by the solidarity shown by the rural communities of Carleton, Darrington, East Hardwick and Wentbridge in condemning the proposal.
Putting the energy debate to one side for the time being, let me highlight just two aspects how such a proposal would affect people’s lives: The wind turbine site would be located within one mile of the villages listed above. With the nearest turbine within 200 metres of houses in the West Park Homes site. Imagine having a 125 metre high “monster” some 200 metres away from your front room.
Drivers on the A1 northern carriageway will negotiate a wide bend on which the B6474 road forms a junction just beyond a lay-by. Another lay-by further up the road contains a bus stop. If the proposals go ahead, drivers coming out of this bend will be suddenly confronted with turbines starting 150 metre from the road side..
If this proposal is allowed to go ahead some homes will become valueless, others will suffer a loss in value. The quality of life of hundreds of residents will be affected; severely in some cases.
Also has anyone thought about the casualties and families of the people who would be killed or injured in the accidents which are bound to be caused by such a potential distraction?
In response to people’s concerns about Banks Developments’ plans to put in a speculative bid for up to eight 125 metre high wind turbines at Westfield Lane Darrington, I would like to make the following comments.
I am hugely concerned about this speculative proposal’s impact on the amenity of the people and communities of South Pontefract, the broader district and the economy, ecology, heritage, and quality of life across the area and I will contest it for the following reasons:
Abutted by the communities of Carleton, Darrington, East Hardwick, Wentbridge, and West Park (the latter within 100 metres of the application footprint), at 125 metres in height (11 metres higher than the cooling towers of the nearby power station) they cannot be masked. These devices will have significant visual intrusion and loss of visual amenity on communities within the district and neighbouring districts as far as Womersley, the Smeetons and Selby in the east and Thorpe Audlin, Ackworth and Badsworth in the west and will negatively impact quality of life for people in those areas.
The villages of Wentbridge and Darrington and the smaller community of West Park already live with significant background noise caused by the flow of traffic on the A1/A1M which runs alongside the proposed location.
These generators will add further low frequency sound to the noise spectrum adding wind-related low frequency and strobe effects that will have particular impact on the residents’ sleep patterns as other noises drop away through the night.
The location adjacent to the A1 would also offer significant road safety risk, particularly by the distraction of motorists through a section of the A1 with several exits and access points where driver concentration is critical.
This linked to Banks’ own comment about strobing effect and shadow flicker will create a significant danger especially on bright sunny days or at sunset and dusk.
The construction phase if this speculative proposal were to be granted would lead to significant disruption to local traffic and on local roads. Where materials or plant are delivered via the A1 these will cause major hazards to traffic flows and risks to public safety over an extended period.
There are a number of designated archaeological sites within the proposed site boundaries which are likely to be impacted by construction activity should the subsequent application be successful.
The impact on ecology remains to be determined, but as the largest of their kind it is likely that the birds other wildlife and the bats in Bluebell wood are likely to be impacted by a development of this nature.
There are already examples being quoted about the impact on local housing sales and values and as such until this application is resolved this will also have a negative impact blighting the local economy.
Viability, this application is purely based on government subsidised measures linked to relaxation of planning process and there is no indication given of how this would be removed if in the light of new HM Treasury policies causing the development to be viable.
The proposed developments 20 megawatts of output when wind conditions permit will be a patchy provision at best.
Nearby Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station currently can supply 2,000 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day 365 days a year, sufficient to meet the total domestic/industrial needs of two million people or almost the entire population of West Yorkshire, so this is not needed as a local resource.
If allowed to continue this speculative application is likely to result in significant costs to ratepayers as associated costs are incurred by WMDC.
Bearing in mind the above points and the fact that this proposed location is in green belt we need to fight this application as a community and stop it.
Coun GEOFF WALSH
Pontefract South
Many readers will already know of the proposal to build up to eight 406 feet high wind turbines on top of the “Pimple” running between Carleton and Wentbridge.
Without questioning the need for such wind-driven installations at this time or exploring the various merits of different forms of renewable energy, I would think there is a need to draw the attention of everyone in the Pontefract area to some important disadvantages that could eventually affect many of them even if they live well away from Westfield Lane.
These machines are huge. each is 35 feet higher than the nearby power station cooling towers, which themselves could each contain the main body of St Paul’s Cathedral in London.
The visual impact of the machines is partly down to individual opinion, but the flicker effect of viewing the sky through numerous blades all rotating at slightly different speeds and angles is definable and very disturbing. It is aggravated by sunlight shining from behind the windmills and of course depends on which direction the wind is causing them to face and the angle of the sun above the horizon, but with 406 ft high windmills standing on top of a ridge which itself is over 100 ft above surrounding land, the effect will be widespread.
They will generate noise, some of which may be detected many miles away from the windmills. The volume of this noise and any environmental impact arising from it cannot be accurately predicted, averaged readings are used in the design and these give no indication of the effect on individual people or locations. Sickness and health problems due to low frequency, barely discernible noise are becoming a major concern in Germany, which has led the field in building these windfarms.
The UK Noise Association recommends that no wind turbine should be built less than one mile from the nearest habitation. The Westfield lane proposal puts them at less than 500 yards.
The Profits to be made by building a wind farm are huge. They are backed by government sponsored subsidies which mean that even if a proposal would not meet any normally satisfactory engineering or economic criteria, large amounts of money can still be generated.
The installation is designed solely to maximise profit for developer and owner of the land on which the machines are built.
This is a private development, it has not been proposed by WMDC, it has not been weighed against alternative ways of meeting their renewable energy commitment.
There are many other sites in the district where such a wind farm could be built. If successful here the developer will undoubtedly go on to apply for planning permission on them as well and with success here it will be very difficult indeed for the authorities to block the proposals.
There is a great deal more that could be said and perhaps will be said if the developers keep pushing, but stopping them needs action now. Objections to the first test mast must be with Wakefield MDC before 9th March 2007.
Is there any open space near your house? if so, you could be next. We can all see how close the power stations are to people’s homes, don’t let them do the same with wind farms. Write to Wakefield Planning Department and object to application 07/00212/FUL, which is the first permission necessary for the developers to move towards starting construction.
R WATSON
Beech Crescent
Darrington
How much CO2 is saved by wind turbines?
How much CO2 is saved by wind turbines? What is happening to the furnaces at coal or gas-fired stations when the wind is blowing, and the wind turbines are generating?
Are they shut down or are they still firing, albeit at a lower rate?
How stable is the supply from these systems? Perhaps someone with experience of power generation can answer the question. If they are still being fired, then all the carbon emissions and the other obnoxious gases that are discharged into the atmosphere when the stations are generating, will continue to be discharged, so no benefits, however small, are gained from wind turbines.
Finally, also offset against any benefits, are the carbon emissions etc that are generated in the manufacture and installation of the turbines themselves. Hence the question. How much do they save?
R.M.WHITAKER
Pontefract
|
