|
Memorandum submitted by Spring Wells
Heritage Group (NPS 80)
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 3 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 1000 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 )
· 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 countrytside 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 (e.g. 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
Appendix 1
PRECOGNITION BY
STEVE RASHLEIGH
MONTREATHMONT
PUBLIC INQUIRY
1. My name is
Steve Rashleigh, my wife and I live at White House Barn, North Drove, Bicker
Fen PE20 3BQ. Our home is on the Fens
and has two and a half acres of land.
Our family run a double glazing business.
2. During the
summer Wind Prospect erected thirteen REpower 2mw wind turbines at Bicker
Fen. From the beginning they were
noisy. We complained and were told it
was early days and it was only a temporary problem. When the remaining turbines were erected and
it was operating properly there would not be a problem.
3. We waited but
when the development was completed the noise problem was worse.
4. Our home is
approximately 800m from the closest turbine.
It is a barn conversation and has buildings on three sides. The noise seems to enter the courtyard and
bounce round the buildings. The noise we
experience sounds just like an old steam train.
5. The noise is
almost constant as the noise we receive comes with the prevailing wind.
6. We were told
that we would not notice the noise so much when it was windy. This is not the case, when it is windy the
noise is very much worse. It is a
thumping noise like an old steam train coming in.
7. During the day
when we are moving around and the television is on, it is bearable. At night it is not. The thumping noise just goes on all night. Sometimes it is impossible for us to get to
sleep.
8. We have done
everything we can to try to kill the noise.
We already had double glazing but, at our own expense, we installed 6mm
secondary double glazing. We now have
four layers of glass at our windows.
This has reduced the noise a little but it is still unbearable at
night. Unfortunately our bedroom windows
face the turbines.
9. We have also
spent £1000 and planted trees between us and the turbines but of course it will
be some time before we know whether they will have an effect on the level of
the noise.
10. We wrote to Wind
Prospect and asked them whether they would pay for these trees but they did not
reply.
11. We have spent a
considerable sum to try and reduce the noise from the windfarm and have
received no help whatsoever from the developers/operator.
12. In contrast,
when E.On built a substation near to other properties to take the power from
the turbines to the grid they provided eight neighbouring properties with
double glazing free of charge - We know this is correct because our company
installed the double glazing.
13. Although the
noise is the main problem we have with these turbines we also suffer from
shadow flicker.
14. We can suffer
shadow flicker for over an hour. It is
very difficult to cope with this. We close
the curtains but you can still see the shadows flickering. We are particularly concerned about the
shadow flicker as our son is epileptic.
He is not living at home at the moment but we have to be very careful
when he visits.
15. We have
complained to Trevor Gait of Fenland Wind Farms/Wind Prospect but he has done
nothing.
16. We have
complained repeatedly to Boston Borough Council. They have been reluctant to act but at last
we understand that they are now obliging Fenland Wind Farms to commission a
noise investigation. This is due to
commence on 6th December 2008.
We cannot understand why they are allowing the turbine developer to
undertake this survey. We believe this
should have been commissioned by the Council and undertaken by independent
noise consultants.
17. At the moment
life is unbearable and we are worried that in the event we ever wished to sell
our home it would not be possible to find a buyer.
18. We are very
disappointed with the lack of concern shown by Wind Prospect/Fenland Wind Farms
and hope that between them and Boston Borough Council something will be done to
reduce the noise and shadow flicker and improve the quality of our lives.
19. In view of the
problems we have experienced, we wish to warn people of what can happen and at
the same time object to the Montreathmont development. We were assured that noise would not be a
problem and this has not been the case.
This Company is obviously unable to ensure that noise is not a problem
with their turbines and we do not believe that they should be allowed to erect
further turbines until they have resolved the problems at their existing
operating developments.
Appendix 2
Proposed Neslam Windfarm,
South Kesteven Lincolnshire. Report to the Development
Control Committee. September 2009
The reasons for recommended
refusal are:
1. The
Defence Estates have advised that the proposed development would have a
detrimental impact on the Air Traffic Control radar at RAF Cottesmore, and RAF
Cranwell. The proposed development would also adversely affect the Precision
Approach Radar at RAF Cottesmore, to such an extent that the RAF would be
unable to provide a full air traffic service in the area of the proposed wind
farm. There are also two locally operated aerodromes in the area and it is
considered that any degradation of the radar systems in this area would be
detrimental to air traffic safety. Acceptance of the proposed development would
therefore be contrary to the advice contained within Planning Policy Statement
22 (PPS22).
2. It
is considered that the erection of six 125m high wind turbines at Neslam Farm,
would have significant and detrimental impact on the setting and visual amenity
of a number of heritage assets in the area including St Andrews Church
Sempringham, St Andrews Church Billingborough, and Sempringham Priory. The
proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the guidance
contained within PPG15, PPG16 and PPS22, and policies 26, 27 and 40 of the East
Midlands Regional Plan 2009, and policies EN1, C1 and C2 of the saved policies
of the South Kesteven Local Plan. Consideration has been given to the wider
environmental and economic benefits of the proposal but it is considered that
they do not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the setting of the
heritage assets in this area.
3. The
proposed development would be located within 580m of Dove Cottage a residential
property on Neslam Road. The noise assessment contained within the submitted
Environmental Statement (ES) is based on a candidate turbine (Vestas V90 2MW
turbine operating in mode 2). Based on the guidance contained within ETSU-R-97
it is considered that an appropriate upper daytime limit would be 38dB(A) given
that the site is located within a tranquil rural location. The noise assessment
contained in the ES indicates that the candidate turbine could only just
achieve this level operating in a quite running mode. Given that the assessment
is based on a candidate turbine and this may not be the final turbine used the
Council is concerned that the proposed development would be unable to comply
with any conditions restricting the noise output to 38dB(A). Given the lack of
certainty in the ability of the development to comply with the necessary noise
conditions it is considered that the proposed development would result in an adverse
impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of Dove Cottage due to
increase noise disturbance. It is therefore considered that the proposed
development would be contrary to the guidance contained within PPS22, policy 40
of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009, and policy EN1 of the saved policies
of the South Kesteven Local Plan.
4. The
proposed 125m high turbines would because of their height, and movement of the
blades appear intrusive and oppressive in the outlook from Dove Cottage, Herron
Lodge, Neslam Fen Farm, Gosdale Farm House, Gosdale Farm and Church Farm. It is
considered that the proposed development would have a significantly detrimental
impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of these properties. The
proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the Guidance
contained within Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22)
Author:
Michael King MRTPI
michael.john.king@virgin.net
| 