Memorandum submitted by Spring Wells Heritage
Group
SYNOPSIS
Our detailed comments on the Draft National
Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3) are
given below using the same layout as the document itself.
To be helpful however we first summarise some
of our key arguments as to what is wrong with the statement and
how it can be improved. This synopsis does not cover all the points
we are making and should not be taken to represent the whole of
our representation. All our synopsis comments relate to on-shore
wind power:
1. It is necessary to know who determines whether
an application is 50MW or over. Wind farm operators clearly see
the IPC route as more favourable than a local authority route
to consent and there is evidence that they are therefore saying
that their proposals are 50MW. Given that EN3 (wrongly) encourages
flexibility, developers can go down the IPC route and then later
change to a smaller scheme making a mockery of the Act. How will
the IPC be required to check out the power generation capacity?
Surely it cannot just take the power company's word?
2. "Good design" is a hollow
principle when it comes to wind turbines. Wind turbines will always
be designed to achieve the greatest efficiency in power generation
at the lowest cost (often at the sacrifice of noise considerations)
and considering their ever increasing size and industrial nature
their visual design will play no part and it is cynical of EN
3 to suggest that it will
3. Electricity grid connections must be required
to be detailed in the main application as their impacts on communities,
especially when overground, can be as great as the turbines themselves.
4. The final minor roads and tracks giving access
to windfarms should be required to have any "improvements"
removed after the windfarm construction phase. Over zealous highways
authorities should not be allowed to insist on concrete kerbs/radii,
metalled or concrete roads or hard drainage as all of these can
add up to threatening urbanisation of the countryside and can
even be used as a pretext for further development. We believe
that the industrialization and urbanization of our fast disappearing
English countryside is just as affected, in an insidious way,
by the access works to windfarms as by the turbines themselves.
Indeed if the windfarms truly are temporary as the author would
have us believe then these impacts threaten to last longer than
they do.
5. We have great concern about EN3 setting
up the perception that somehow windfarms are temporary and for
this reason their impacts are less serious. 25 years is after
all a generation. If for example there are adverse effects upon
an historic landscape it should not be an offsetting argument
(as advocated) to say that they do not matter because they will
only be for 25 years. That is ridiculous! If the historic
landscape is important then it is important for every generation
and one cannot be missed out! It is simply wrong to steer the
IPC in the direction of lessening the importance of adverse effects
upon landscape, visual amenity and historic assets on the grounds
of temporariness, when the life is expected to be at least 25 years.
This does not happen in the whole Town and Country Planning System
with any other form of development. Temporary should only be a
label for a development with a life of less than three years.
It is outrageous to suggest that somehow any indirect effects
on historic environment features such as effects on setting will
not be permanent and therefore should not count as much in
weighing up the decision. Does this mean that if one wants to
experience the beauty of a Cistercian Abbey in its setting one
might have to come back in 30 years time (if still alive)?
Does this mean that the IPC should allow windfarms all around
Stonehenge? What about the thousands of other less well known
historic settings that this country is known for?
6. We object to the way that flexibility for
applications is advocated. There is no logical reason why windfarm
applications should have greater flexibility than any other
planning application—indeed because the impacts are potentially
much wider, if anything they should have less flexibility. For
example the mechanism for driving the rotors can vary greatly
in its noise generation and this is not just to do with its MW
capacity. In order to decide whether to support or object to a
local application the local community and other consultees need
to know precise details of the development. If the developer is
able to say in debate or at the hearing that "this is just
an example and the final product could be different" it will
be impossible for objectors (and the IPC/local planning authority)
to pin him down and there will be no sensible debate. There is
no less reason for a wind farm developer to not know the layout
of his windfarm than for a housing developer not to know the layout
of his housing estate.
7. In its attempt to support a flexible approach
EN3 advocates that the 'maximum' scheme that could be built
should be appraised. (This also encourages the applicant to go
down the IPC route when he may intend to build a smaller development—see
point 1) But what does maximum mean and this is not such a clever
solution as it sounds because a smaller and cheaper turbine, which
the applicant would be allowed to switch to, could well be noisier.
The scheme should be the actual scheme.
8. A tolerance of up to 50 metres in the
"micrositing" of turbines is unacceptable and
could have unexamined effects on noise, archaeology or the historic
environment. This does not happen with any other development requiring
consent—what is different?
9. EN3 proposes giving special consideration
to impacts affecting sites of "national designation"
including listed buildings but it talks about where application
sites are "in" these sites. To prevent applicants drawing
their application boundaries around such designations as listed
buildings or monuments the consideration needs to apply to sites
which contain or are close to nationally recognised designations.
It should be borne in mind that other planning legislation and
advice (PPGs) refers to the importance of "the setting"
of listed buildings and ancient monuments as well as the structures
themselves. This important concept should also be incorporated
here. The aim to weigh up any harmful impacts with environmental,
social and economic benefits is admirable and is what decision
making on development is all about. EN3 should make it clear
that this approach should apply to all application sites and not
just those within or close to national designations.
10. It is illogical to suggest that windfarms
will bear greater scrutiny in greenbelts - greenbelts were introduced
to stop urban sprawl and to achieve the separation of cities.
There are no greenbelts where there are no cities but this does
not mean to say that the countryside is any less precious—it
belongs to all the citizens of this increasingly crowded country.
The circumstance of greenbelts, when it comes to windfarms are
therefore not "very special" relative to anywhere else.
11. All other things being equal there is no
reason why a sequential approach should not be applied
to windfarms meaning there is no reason why priority should not
be given to siting turbines on previously developed land. If this
approach is specifically banned then it will simply mean that
windfarm operators will always go for the cheapest solution which
means constructing on greenfield land.
12. Considerations regarding birds is not just
a question of the risk of collision with turbine blades. It is
also a question of not interrupting large open spaces important
for the winter grazing of such species as golden plover and lapwing
which require uninterrupted space to land flocks of 1,000 or
more birds.
13. Potential adverse impacts which are missing
from EN3 include:
— effects of large concrete foundations
on aquifers used for drinking water (eg the South kesteven fen
margin in Lincolnshire);
— effects of large concrete foundations
on drainage and on carbon release in their manufacture;
— effects upon radar at airports and airfields
(these have been used by local planning authorities and the MOD
as reasons to refuse applications); and
— effects in areas heavily used by light
aviation.
14. There should be a requirement for the land
on which windfarms stand to be reinstated when they become disused
for a given period of time (say a year) and not just when the
consent period runs out. This is to prevent the possibility of
windturbines, towers and infrastructure standing disused for many
years when their operation might cease because of changes in the
economics and sources of power supply
15. Concerning the effects of noise, keeping
turbines at a safe distance from homes is a key requirement. EN3 should
set a minimum distance between turbines and any residential accommodation.
This would then save a great deal of work and argument by the
IPC, the power companies and by communities who otherwise might
be in opposition and make the whole business of approving windfarms
easier, which seems to be the Government's objective. This distance
should be 2km. This is the distance recommended by La Societee
de Medicins in France and it has been the distance for the search
criteria for windfarm sites issued in planning advice by the Scottish
Government. If there are one or two isolated homes within the
2 kilometre radius of a turbine then there should be a compulsory
purchase power in order to move and compensate that home (at present
there is no such power and some home owners who have been much
closer than 2km have been forced to leave their homes—such
as the Davis family in Deeping, Lincolnshire.
16. The reliance on the standard known as ETSU-R-97 for
the testing of noise effects from windfarms is unreliable because
it dates from 1996 when there were very few and much smaller
wind turbines in the UK. Much more is now known internationally
about the noise effects from windfarms and their repercussions
for human health including vibro acoustic disease. This 14 year
old standard must be urgently reviewed in the light of empirical
evidence including that of families who have been forced to leave
their homes. However this complication and arguments over the
complex business of measuring noise noise could be completely
removed if a minimum distance of 2km between turbines and human
habitation was adopted.
17. It is stated that "The IPC should use
ETSU-R-97 to satisfy itself that the noise from the operation
of the wind turbines is within acceptable levels" but will
the IPC really carry out its own independent tests? Experience
has shown that it is very easy for applicants to contrive the
results of noise tests. This is particularly the case because
the practice has developed of using laboratory/workshop readings
for noise from particular turbines and this does not simulate
the actual field conditions neither does it simulate the cumulative
effect of several turbines combined with wind noise. The actual
arrangement of the turbines on site can significantly affect noise
generation. It is vital that the noise tests are taken from the
same operational turbines that the applicant proposes to construct.
If a new machine is envisaged then it should not be accepted until
field tested in real operational conditions.
18. As advocated IPC should condition consents
in respect of the maximum noise levels of machines. But control
is much more effective and easier before a consent is given. How
is the IPC going to monitor noise levels after developments have
been constructed? Is it really going to close down turbines that
are too noisy? This amounts to shutting the stable door after
the horse has bolted.
19. Requiring wind turbines to be a minimum distance
of 2km from any human habitation would obviate the need for any
complex testing and control of shadow flicker
1. THE PURPOSE
OF ENERGY
NATIONAL POLICY
STATEMENTS
Introduction
1.1.1 The Government's transition to
a low-carbon economy sounds like fait accompli in terms of
policy. It needs to be recognised that whereas many of the measures
to effect a low carbon economy are desirable anyway, they are
not all (for example covering the whole of England's countryside
with wind farms) and it should be recognised that many people
still question the evidence for man-made global warming and the
effects of carbon dioxide and that consequently the Government's
policy may be wrong and may have to be changed. It can be dangerous
to back the measures to carry out a policy without constantly
re-examining the policy itself, especially when there are many
vested interests in the policy, both financial and political.
In this way the low carbon economy is like the Emperor's New Clothes.
Role of the NPS in the Planning System
1.2.1 and 1.4.1 It is evident that
the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) is being required
to have primary regard to the NPSs and EN3 and therefore
if the NPSs in general (and EN3 in particular) are too heavily
bent towards Government Policy without allowing a fair consideration
of wider social, economic and environmental considerations then
the IPC will not be a truly independent body but simply a puppet
of the Government ( a dangerous step towards totalitarianism).
The document must be equitable both in allowing the weighing up
of the costs and benefits of planning decisions and in allowing
both sides of the argument on a proposed development to be heard
in a balanced way. This has been an important attribute of the
British Town and Country Planning System since 1947. The law may
well have been changed but this does not throw out the principles
of equity.
Infrastructure covered by this NPS
1.7 The Act itself makes it clear that any
renewable energy project for onshore wind of over 50MW is covered.
By implication any project under this limit will go down the route
of a normal planning application to a local authority in which
case the NPSs will not be the primary determinant of the result?
But who decides the size of the project in MW? This is not as
simple as it seems especially as the draft EN3 itself and
the IPC (see letter to me attached) are both advocating flexibility
and it is clearly evident at present that windfarm developers
will want to push all applications down the IPC route because
they will expect a more favourable result. Is it just sufficient
to say that the power generation is over 50MW? If impacts are
to be considered for a maximum size rather than an actual size
then applicants will tend to exaggerate the possible sizes of
their developments just to get consent (and then be free to switch
to something smaller). That would make a mockery of the system
and of Parliament.
2. ASSESSMENT
AND TECHNOLOGY—SPECIFIC
INFORMATION
2.1.1 This seems to be saying that the need
for any application coming before the IPC cannot be questioned.
This seems to be saying that both man-made global warming is proven
beyond doubt and that wind turbines (or any other specific technology
forming an application) are the best means of provision of renewable
energy. One or both of these statements may well not be true and
it is not equitable for the Government to try to close down any
debate on these matters. History shows that planning inspectors
and judges have found it inequitable to adopt a position that
one important aspect of a decision (ie need) cannot be debated.
All planning decisions are about weighing up benefits with costs
and by costs we mean social, economic and environmental costs.
If the benefits cannot be examined then how can they be weighed
up with the costs? The author's stance is approaching totalitarian.
2.2.1 Even the least articulate applicant
will have no difficulty in stating how his or her application
"fits" with the NPS. That will be what is called
a "no-brainer"!
Good Design
2.4.1 and 2.4.2 "Good design"
is a hollow principle when it comes to wind turbines. Wind turbines
will always be designed to achieve the greatest efficiency in
power generation at the lowest cost (often at the sacrifice of
noise considerations) and considering their ever increasing size
and industrial nature their visual design will play no part and
it is cynical of EN 3 to suggest that it will. This is virtually
acknowledged in para 2.7.3.!
2.7—ONSHORE
WIND
2.7.1 Just because windfarms are "the
most established large scale sources of renewable energy
in the UK" does not mean that they are the best, nor
that they should continue to be the main source. The reason why
they are the most established is entirely a result of the Government's
financial regime which favours power companies building them—they
are not naturally economic and they represent old technology,
not new. In Gordon Brown's tele-conferencing input to the post
Copenhagen de-briefing conference at the Queen Elizabeth Conference
centre he talked about "low-carbon investment" being
"one of Britain's main industries with half a million jobs".
But we have missed the boat with wind turbines having closed our
last manufacturing plant and we should be concentrating on new
technologies in wave and tidal power which also have the advantage
of not intruding on residents everyday lives. These options should
be financially incentivised much more, not wind turbines.
Predicted Wind Speed
2.7.7 It is agreed that wind speed increases
with height above ground level, which is the reason why turbines
are becoming taller. Wind speed does not vary hugely across the
country however and is less likely to be the reason for a particular
siting of a windfarm than the perceived sparsity and inarticulateness
of the local population. Indeed the latter is probably the key
factor in power companies siting their projects but is not mentioned
in EN-3.
Electricity Grid connections
2.7.12 should also say that the grid connection,
especially where overground by using pylons, can have considerable
adverse impacts on the amenity of residents and on landscapes.
All applicants should be required to set out detailed proposals
for these connections at the time of the main application for
the wind farm. Because of the possible adverse impacts it is not
acceptable for electricity grid connections to form subsequent
applications once the development is approved.
Access Tracks
2.7.15 Access tracks should be required
to be largely removed and the land re-instated once construction
has taken place. This is to protect the countryside because creating
urban type roads with metalled surfaces and concrete kerbs is
one of the most sinister effects of onshore windfarms in terms
of erosion of countryside character. Ironically it is often likely
to be an over zealous local highways department which wrongly
insists on these urban type standards
Project Lifetimes
2.7.16 EN3 should positively state
that consents should be conditioned so that upon decommissioning
wind turbines should have their concrete foundations removed to
at least one metre's depth.
2.7.17 and 2.7.18 It is not just a
question of requiring decommissioning after a set life of say
25 years. Technology may change fast and the turbines may
stop being used after a much shorter period. There should therefore
be conditions that require any turbines that have not been generating
electricity for a specified period (eg one year) to be decommissioned
and removed. This is to prevent the countryside from being littered
in future with dead turbines or their towers just because the
act of finally removing them and reinstating the ground is too
costly for their owners. 2.7.18 has not been thought through
sufficiently.
2.7.19 We object strongly to the first sentence
of this paragraph, if not the whole of it.
We have great concern about EN3 setting
up the perception that somehow windfarms are temporary and for
this reason their impacts are less serious. 25 years is after
all a generation. If for example there are adverse effects upon
an historic landscape it should not be an offsetting argument
to say that they are lessened because they will only be for 25 years.
It the historic landscape is important then it is important for
every generation and one cannot be missed out!
Britain's world leading role in Town and Country
Planning since the innovative Act of 1947 has many time considered
the definition of a "temporary" planning permission.
This has always varied between one and three years and has never
been considered for as long as 25 years. In the planning
of housing the life of a house has often been considered as 30 years,
yet houses are never regarded as temporary! To say that wind turbines
are temporary when they should have a life of 25 years and
when in any case they are likely to be replaced with new machines
is not a credible argument in their support.
It is simply wrong to steer the IPC in the direction
of lessening the importance of adverse effects upon landscape,
visual amenity and historic assets on the grounds of temporariness,
when the life is expected to be at least 25 years. This does
not happen in the whole Town and Country Planning System with
any other form of development. Temporary should only be a label
for a development with a life of less than 3 years.
Flexibility in the Project Details
2.7.20 The fact that "many different
makes and models of on-shore wind turbines are available"
does not require the flexible and lax attitude to these developments
promulgated in the following four paragraphs (2.7.21 to 2.7.24).
This seems to be just an excuse for giving the power companies
a licence to do what they want and for making generic and vague
applications which presumably the author thinks will be able to
be made quicker. There are many makes and types of home available
in the provision of housing but, if anything, matters there are
going the other way, requiring more and more detail with any planning
application as this country becomes more and more crowded. How
much more important is the detail and fixing the detail in these
industrial scale developments which have the ability to affect
many people's daily lives.
2.7.21 This paragraph shows great naivety.
There is no logical reason why windfarm applications should have
greater flexibility than any other planning application - indeed
because the impacts are potentially much wider, if anything they
should have less flexibility. For example the mechanism for driving
the rotors can vary greatly in its noise generation and this is
not just to do with its MW capacity. In order to decide whether
to support or object to a local application the local community
and other consultees need to know precise details of the development.
If the developer is able to say in debate or at the hearing that
"this is just an example and the final product could be different"
it will be impossible for objectors (and the IPC/local planning
authority) to pin him down. Also in response to an objection the
developer can say that he will alter the design (at some vague
point in the future) whereas in practice there is very little
that a developer can do to alter the design of a windfarm.
Why should the wind farm operators not know
which turbine they will use? They should be forced to, otherwise
it cannot be tested properly—for noise and other effects.
The aim of this paragraph seems to be to give operators a charter
for applying for one thing and building another. For example what
will happen if these paragraphs stand is that the application
could be for a relatively quiet turbine, only to be replaced by
a much noisier (and cheaper) one once the work is tendered following
consent. This is like applying to extend a listed building in
natural stone and then building it in concrete blocks.
Are these paragraphs (2.7.20 to 2.7.24)
written so that the windfarm operators can keep their costs down
rather than the best development (if any) achieved?
2.7.22 The author must have been hoodwinked
here by the power companies. There is no less reason for a wind
farm developer to not know the layout of his windfarm than for
a housing developer not to know the layout of his housing estate.
The answer is that precise permissions should be given for precise
developments and if circumstances change thereafter then variations
can be sought. We are not trying to speed windfarms through the
planning process at any cost. The forestry example is extremely
weak.
2.7.23 This paragraph should be removed
(as should the whole section on flexibility) as it merely encourages
applicants to invent reasons why their applications are vague
and endorses a lazy or even arrogant approach
2.7.24 The author evidently thought that
assessing the "maximum case" was a clever way around
any criticism of a flexible approach. This clearly has not been
thought through. We strongly object to the notion that if something
bigger is evaluated as being acceptable then something smaller
must be as well. This is flawed logic. For when it comes to maximum
do we mean maximum generating capacity of turbines, height of
turbines, noise of turbines, numbers of turbines, area of windfarm
etc etc.? As written it would be perfectly possible for a windfarm
operator to apply for a windfarm of say 18 3MW turbines and
then once approved to replace it with 18 much noisier and
cheaper 2.3MW machines. This would make a mockery of the crucial
noise section of the Environmental Assessment as the wrong machines
would have been tested. Please believe us that noise emissions
vary considerably between machines and not necessarily in proportion
to their generating capacity. Moreover it is no good saying that
if changes need to be made later these can be run past the IPC
(or LPA) because once granted permission it will be very difficult
to refuse such changes, especially if the flexibility provision
in EN3 is allowed to stand (note that in several places the
draft EN3 states that on technical matters the windfarm operator
knows best anyway).
Stating that the maximum adverse effects
should be considered rather than the accurately assessed effects
of a specific development gives the windfarm operator an unfair
advantage in the debate with consultees and the examination of
the proposal by the IPC. This is because when challenged he can
constantly revert to saying "well the effects could be this
but actually we very much intend that they won't so they should
be less". Such a stance then becomes almost impossible to
argue against as the applicant can just keep moving the goalposts.
The Environmental Impact Assessment, required by law, is meant
to be a serious scientific assessment but it can only be so if
the development is precisely defined—the flexibility argued
in this section will make a mockery of any EIA and the developer
himself will be able to decry it by saying that it is only appraising
a theoretical scheme and not the one he is actually likely to
build.
Micrositing
2.7.25 and 2.7.26 Our comments on
paras 2.7.22 to 2.7.24 apply equally here. Why should
there be this degree of flexibility in siting the turbines or
other infrastructure which is unprecedented in the tried and tested
British Town and Country Planning System. If someone applying
for a house was to be allowed to move it by 30m to 50m without
a new or amended consent all hell would be let loose. What is
the difference? Why do windfarms require any greater flexibility
than any other development? If there is uncertainty on the part
of the operator this uncertainty should be removed at the preparatory
stage of the detailed plans and EIA. Encouraging such flexibility
is encouraging an attitude where the operator simply sticks something
in for approval in order to gain approval and then thinks about
what he really wants to construct. "Unforeseen events"
can arise with any development.
Para 2.7.26 seems to be backtracking by
saying that the IPC may decide that the so-called tolerance or
flexibility of the design of the scheme might be restricted. This
just muddles the point of this sub section further. "Tolerence"
is the wrong word as in technical use it implies something that
cannot be helped (as in manufacturing tolerance)—in this
day and age siting can be assessed down to 30cm to 50cm or finer
never mind 30m to 50m.
This whole sub section should be removed.
Repowering
2.7.27 and 2.7.28 Of course the proposal
to re-power is a "commercial matter for the applicant".
What are we being told here? Who would have thought otherwise?
The proposal to construct any development is a commercial matter
for the applicant. This is unnecessary and incredibly naïve.
2.7.29 and 2.7.30 Of course re-powering
requires a new application.
National designations
2.7.32 This paragraph starts by using the
words "in sites" with various designations. Surely
this does not just refer to the boundary of the site which the
applicant has drawn for his application? For he could draw his
site boundary to deliberately miss such designations such as listed
buildings. The start should be changed to "In sites which
contain or are close to nationally recognised designations...
." Bear in mind that other planning legislation and advice
(PPGs) refers to the importance of 'the setting' of listed buildings
and ancient monuments as well as the structures themselves. This
important concept should also be incorporated here. The last part
of this long sentence clearly and correctly mentions weighing
up any disbenefits of harm to say listed buildings (should be
and their settings) with any "environmental, social and
economic benefits". This allows an examination of the
need for the electricity generation and the amount of it which
is right in equity but which seems to have been ruled out at the
beginning of EN3. Weighing up costs and benefits is the only way
to resolve such dilemmas and nothing can be off the agenda.
Green Belts
2.7.33 This paragraph is interesting and
should be applauded for wanting a wide and equitable discussion
of the arguments for and against a windfarm. It expresses the
same approach as for national designations above. There is no
reason why such an approach should not apply everywhere in open
countryside because many other areas of the country are protected
by local planning policies often embodied in statutory development
plans. It is illogical to suggest that windfarms will bear greater
scrutiny in greenbelts—greenbelts were introduced to stop
urban sprawl and to achieve the separation of cities. There are
no greenbelts where there are no cities but this does not mean
to say that the countryside is any less precious—it belongs
to all the citizens of this increasingly crowded country. The
circumstance of greenbelts, when it comes to windfarms are therefore
not "very special" relative to anywhere else.
We hope that the government is not suggesting here
that the view of windfarms in greenbelts might be abhorrent to
city dwellers but that they are quite acceptable in other countryside.
The increasing demand for power is predominantly from our increasing
population which lives in cities. It is not equitable for the
source of this power to be simply pushed out of sight into country
areas.
Other locational considerations
2.7.34 This paragraph seeks to give carte
blanche to wind farm operators to apply for windfarms wherever
they see fit on the pretence that the wind generation circumstances
of a particular location are so crucial. If this is the case then
the government is having the wool pulled over its eyes by the
power companies. Wind speeds and currents do not vary that much
over the UK and in particular over a local area and there is every
reason to encourage windfarms to be moved to previously developed
land or land where the impacts are not so severe.
The sequential test should therefore apply exactly
as it does to other development all other considerations being
equal—ie approximate wind speeds, separation distances from
homes etc.
The sequential test should not simply be dropped
but should be offset by the special siting considerations that
apply to windfarms.
If the sequential test is dropped then this
will make a charter for windfarm operators to be simply lazy.
They will choose that land which is easiest and cheapest to develop
(ie greenfield) hiding behind the pretence that this is the only
place where the windspeed is just right.
BIODIVERSITY AND
GEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
2.7.36 and 2.7.38 to 2.7.41 It
is not just that birds and bats might be struck by rotating blades.
The introduction of massed turbines into previously open winter
grazing spaces for birds like lapwing and golden plover can render
those spaces useless as there is not enough clear space to get
the flock down. These species graze at about 7 metre centres
so a very large uninterrupted area is required to land a flock
of 1000 birds.
IPC Decision making
2.7.43 It is strange how this section picks
out birds, bats and peat as if these are the only considerations
of particular importance to windfarms under the heading of Biodiversity
and Geological Conservation. Another very important consideration
is the effect of the large concrete foundations on aquifiers (groundwater
used for drinking) and ground drainage.
Mitigation
2.7.44 and 2.7.44 This sub section
is naïve and has absolutely nothing to say. Has it been written
by a child?
Future Surveys and Monitoring
2.7.46 Such monitoring requirements are
a good idea but it is naïve to think that the IPC by simply
placing a monitoring requirement on the wind farm operator will
achieve objective results. Any monitoring must be independent
and not instructed by the windfarm operator who clearly is biased.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
Applicant's assessment
2.7.48 Yes, "visualisations"
usually will be required! But please do not think that these are
in any way objective or scientific—they have a tendency
to do the job that the applicant wants them to do. Local authorities
often have to appoint their own specialist consultants to evaluate
independently the work of the applicant in the EIA—this
raises the question of whether the IPC will be required to do
that and whether the results will be publicly available.
IPC Decision Making
2.7.49 It is absurd to state that "onshore
wind turbines are not permanent features in the landscape".
With a life stated as typically 25 years and the chance
that they will be continuously renovated or replaced, wind turbines
are as permanent as houses. As stated before the Town and Country
Planning system recognizes temporary uses as those with a life
of up to only three years. This statement is ridiculous. 25 years
is a generation. It is outrageous to suggest that somehow any
indirect effects on historic environment features such as effects
on setting will not be permanent and therefore should not
count as much in weighing up the decision. Does this mean that
if one wants to experience the beauty of a Cistercian Abbey in
its setting one might have to come back in 30 years time
(if still alive)? Does this mean that the IPC should allow windfarms
all around Stonehenge? What about the thousands of other less
well known historic settings that this country is known for?
There should be a requirement for the land on
which windfarms stand to be reinstated when they become disused
for a given period of time (say a year) and not just when the
consent period runs out (it is pointless having a long consent
period as we show next). This is to prevent the possibility of
wind turbines, towers and infrastructure standing disused for
25 years when their operation might cease for a host of unknown
reasons.
2.7.50 See our remarks under 2.7.49. This
just repeats the Philistine attitude of the author. The "length
of time consent is sought for" is a total red herring
- in any other planning application there is no requirement to
say how long the development is for because all development is
regarded as permanent (unless it is a temporary consent for up
to three years). Indeed if after a long period of time a building
needs replacing the planning system usually allows it to be replaced
once planning consent has been given in the first place. There
is no reason to suppose that windfarms will be any different—indeed
EN3, earlier, encourages replacement. Where on earth has this
idea of windfarms having their impacts lowered in importance because
they are not permanent come from? The reason why we protect and
conserve our historic landscapes is so that people can enjoy them—to
take them out of the equation for 25 years or longer is simply
not an option.
Mitigation
2.7.51 This is a non-sequitor. The NPS has
not mentioned below ground archaeology so far. In any case
the injury to below ground archaeology can be indirect and does
not have to be below the actual works. This paragraph achieves
nothing—indeed it perhaps encourages applicants not to research
such things completely in advance of starting work.
2.7.52 The naïve approach returns.
This basically says it does not really matter if we do not research
the archaeology properly because we can always move things later!
2.7.53 The naivety gets worse. This just
re-emphasises the approach that things can always be moved (precisely
sited) later (so it doesn't really matter if we get them wrong
first time). If this principle was applied to the whole 50 year
old Town and Country Planning system in Britain it would fall
down. Applicants would only show roughly what they intended to
do and then they could do almost anything by way of correction.
Once consent is given control goes.
LANDSCAPE AND
VISUAL
2.7.57 Having just said, correctly, in para
2.7.56 that wind turbines are large structures and will always
be visible in the landscape it is suggested here that by "careful
design" and "arrangement" of the turbines
on the site the adverse effects on landscape can be minimized.
If the effects are adverse the only real solution is to choose
another site—the author is clutching at straws if he thinks
that moving around 130metre high turbines within a site is going
to make any significant difference to their landscape and visual
impact.
2.7.58 Keeping turbines at a safe distance
from homes is a key requirement. This concerns noise impacts even
more than visual amenity. EN3 should set a minimum distance
between turbines and any residential accommodation. This would
then save a great deal of work and argument by the IPC, the power
companies and by communities who otherwise might be in opposition
and make the whole business of approving windfarms easier which
seems to be the Government's objective. This distance should be
2km. This is the distance recommended by La Societee de Medicins
in France and it is the distance for the search criteria for windfarm
sites issued by the Scottish Government. If there are one or two
isolated homes within the 2 kilometre radius of a turbine
then there should be a compulsory purchase power in order to move
and compensate that home (at present there is no such power and
some home owners who have been much closer than 2km have been
forced to leave their homes—such as the Gray family in Deeping,
Lincolnshire).
2.7.59 Having just said in 2.7.57 that
windfarms might be rearranged to minimize landscape impacts (
a contention which we have argued is likely to make little difference
considering their height) the proposition is then taken away in
this paragraph. Why is reducing the electricity generating capacity
of the windfarm apparently made off the agenda by this paragraph?
Surely if compromise can be achieved between adverse impacts and
electricity production it should be. It is ridiculous to suggest
that the design of a windfarm might be changed to accommodate
adverse landscape impacts (in 2.7.57) and then contradict this
to say so long as the power production is not affected. Is the
maximum power production such a holy cow that it cannot be changed?
As we have said earlier many applicants may well play the game
of submitting 'maximum' schemes only to build smaller and cheaper
schemes when they come to tender the turbine provision. So presumably
the author is thinking that the windfarm might be made smaller
in terms of power production if the developer is happy but not
if he is unhappy. This is not equitable. He cannot be forced to
construct in any case.
NOISE
Applicant's Assessment
2.7.63 to 2.7.68 The reliance on ETSU-R-97 in
this and following paragraphs for the testing of noise effects
from windfarms is unreliable because it dates from 1996 when
there were very few and much smaller wind turbines in the UK.
Much more is now known internationally about the noise effects
from windfarms and their repercussions for human health including
vibro acoustic disease. This 14 year old standard must be
urgently reviewed in the light of empirical evidence including
that of families who have been forced to leave their homes (such
as the Davis family at Market Deeping in Lincolnshire) or whose
lives have been made a misery (such as the Rashleigh family near
to the Bicker windfarm in Lincolnshire—see precognition
by Steve Rashleigh, attached at Appendix 1)
2.7.65 It is stated that 'The IPC should
use ETSU-R-97 to satisfy itself that the noise from the operation
of the wind turbines is within acceptable levels' but will
the IPC really carry out its own independent tests? Experience
has shown that it is very easy for applicants to contrive the
results of noise tests. This is particularly the case because
the practice has developed of using laboratory/workshop readings
for noise from particular turbines and this does not simulate
the actual field conditions neither does it simulate the cumulative
effect of several turbines combined with wind noise. The actual
arrangement of the turbines on site can significantly affect noise
generation. It is vital that the noise tests are taken from the
same operational turbines that the applicant proposes to construct.
If a new machine is envisaged then it should not be accepted until
field tested in real operational conditions.
2.7.68 A correction is required. The words
ground transmitted must be inserted before low frequency
in the last line (as earlier in the paragraph) because all
noise from turbines is low frequency.
Mitigation
2.7.69 This mitigation in order to reduce
ambient noise can be achieved by so-called 'good design'
but it should be spelt out that the variables of this design which
will change noise effects are (a) the precise type of turbine
(b) the height of the turbine and (c) the distance from any human
habitation. It is therefore extremely important that these variables
are pinned down in the application and consent and not subject
to the flexibility advocated earlier in EN3.
A great deal of time and effort in studying, debating
and testing noise effects could be saved (and possibly ETSU-97-R
not reviewed) if a set minimum distance between any turbine and
any place of human habitation was made.
Keeping turbines at a safe distance from homes
is a key requirement. EN3 should set a minimum distance between
turbines and any residential accommodation. This would then save
a great deal of work and argument by the IPC, the power companies
and by communities who otherwise might be in opposition and make
the whole business of approving windfarms easier which seems to
be the Government's objective. This distance should be 2km. This
is the distance recommended by La Societee de Medicins in France
and it has been the distance for the search criteria for windfarm
sites issued in planning advice by the Scottish Government. If
there are one or two isolated homes within the 2 kilometre
radius of a turbine then there should be a compulsory purchase
power in order to move and compensate that home (at present there
is no such power and some home owners who have been much closer
than 2km have been forced to leave their homes—such as the
Davis family in Deeping, Lincolnshire.
2.7.70 and 2.7.71 This is weak. Yes
the IPC should condition consents in respect of the maximum noise
levels of machines. But control is much more effective and easier
before a consent is given. How is the IPC going to monitor noise
levels after developments have been constructed? Is it really
going to close down turbines that are too noisy? This amounts
to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. This provision
would be much more effective if the application and consent was
required to be for specific machines and turbine locations—it
is the concept of flexibility earlier in EN3 that contradicts
the recognized need to control noise levels. All these details
should be fixed at the time of application (they can always be
changed with a new application or amendment just like normal planning
applications)
SHADOW FLICKER
This section needs to have its logic broken
down. Shadow flicker is a real problem, as the section acknowledges
(see evidence of Steve Rashleigh at Appendix 1 in relation
to the Bicker windfarm).
If it is right that shadow flicker only occurs
within 8 rotor diameters of a turbine then we agree that
a zone of 10 rotor diameters should be drawn (2.7.75). But
because shadow flicker can occur in this area under certain conditions
then no amount of testing will remove this possibility. The whole
problem is therefore solved and unnecessary work for the applicant
and the IPC avoided by simply stating that because of the risk
of shadow flicker no turbine shall be constructed within 10 rotor
blade diameters of a human habitation.
Of course if our proposal to limit all turbines
to a minimum distance of 2km from any human habitation this has
the advantage of removing any concerns about shadow flicker as
well as noise.
Mitigation
2.7.80 This is naïve. No condition
can remove the possibility of shadow flicker except through requiring
relocation of the turbine to the distance where the risk cannot
occur (10 rotor diameters as stated above).
TRAFFIC AND
TRANSPORT
We believe that the author has got the guidance
right in this section in respect of the possible adverse effects
on communities of heavy traffic during the construction period.
This largely applies to where traffic is using the existing main
highways through villages and close to homes and one aspect of
this possible impact (in addition to disturbance, noise and road
safety effects) is the effect on the stability of older buildings,
many of which, built before the 19th Century, do not have proper
foundations. This impact should be acknowledged.
However there is one very important adverse
impact which the section does not identify. This is the threat
of the increased urbanization of the countryside brought about
by the new construction or so-called improvement of minor roads
and tracks right up to the windfarms. In para 2.7.91 the
statement correctly identifies that after construction the use
of these final sections of access roads is very light. If these
roads are required by the highway authority to be widened, given
black-top concrete surfaces and (worst of all) given concrete
kerbs and radii and hard drainage then there will be an immediate
and sinister erosion of the rural nature of these areas (someone
may even start arguing that these roads are used for other forms
of development).
All works to widen and "improve" minor
rural roads and tracks for the purposes of construction traffic
should be conditioned to be removed once the windfarm is operational.
Our concern is that over zealous highway authorities will get
their standards books out and require everything to be upgraded
to an urban standard. Much heavy machinery—combine harvesters,
drainage equipment etc uses these routes already and the routes
simply recover. This should be the same for windfarms. No permanent
improvements should be required.
We believe that the industrialization and urbanization
of our fast disappearing English countryside is just as affected,
in an insidious way, by the access works to windfarms as by the
turbines themselves. Indeed if the windfarms truly are temporary
as the author would have us believe then these impacts threaten
to last longer than they do.
2.7.95 This paragraph importantly acknowledges
the need for "non-permanent highway improvements"
which reflects the point we are making about therefore not
requiring (urban) highway standards that would be required for
permanent routes (concrete kerbs etc) . However it is worrying
that the IPC is being guided in the direction of keeping these
routes just in case a future windfarm comes along in the vicinity.
This will tend to lead to the routes becoming permanent and therefore
subject to the creeping highways urbanization that we so fear.
OTHER IMPACTS
EN3 should mention other possible adverse
impacts including:
1. The adverse effect of turbines upon radar
at airports and airfields (safety consideration)—see Appendix
2 where South Kesteven District Council in association with
the MOD has used this as a recommendation for refusal of a windfarm
2. The adverse effect of turbines in areas with
frequent light aviation use (safety consideration)—see Appendix
2
3. The effect of the large concrete foundations
upon the water table—both aquifers for drinking water and
upon ground drainage
4. The effect of large concrete foundations upon
carbon generation
January 2010
| 
