Memorandum by Delia Jack
1. This submission is made by a member of
the public to provide evidence of the costs sustained by the public
in the government pursuing renewable generation of electricity
by promoting the development of on-shore wind farms.
2. I live in Cleveland where large areas
of the landscape have been desecrated by electricity pylons. Already
in this county, wind turbines are becoming a scar on the landscape
just like the electricity pylons. I fully support, in common with
many people, the drive for renewable energy, but when there is
the option of having off-shore wind farms then why continue to
desecrate the countryside? Why not move now to having all wind
farms off-shore?
3. As I drive around County Durham for work,
what strikes me is that for much of the time many of the wind
turbines are non operational. I understand this is because, South
of Scotland, apart from the odd site, there is insufficient wind
to run the wind turbines continually. Because of this, I understand
wind farms are falling far short of their targets. This suggests
again that off-shore farms should be the policy, as it is these
and not on-shore farms in England, which are most effective in
contributing to the targets we need to achieve for renewable energy
production.
4. Wind farms impact heavily on us all because
they are so huge and these days already no long journey can be
made without sighting wind turbines, but for those who live close
by the effects are considerable. The blight on people's houses
begins immediately the possibility of wind farm development nearby
becomes public. Perhaps the government should consider making
those who make profits from wind farms compensate local people
pound for pound for the financial losses they experience because
of their development.
5. As a member of the public I would ask
the committee to heed the evidence of the effect of the noise
and wind generated by the turbines on the people who live close
by. I understand people who are prone to epilepsy have particular
problems but all those living nearby are at increased risk of
emotional stress, physical ill health and certainly a reduced
quality of life. There is no need for the public to suffer in
this way when there is the alternative of placing wind farms off
shore.
6. The simple fact is that the growth in
on-shore wind farms is against the wishes of many members of the
public and the government should heed this. The first line of
action should be to consider whether wind farms need to be sited
on -shore at all. I would suggest doing so is misguided in terms
of the returns from such developments. If wind farms have to be
on land then the height of the turbines should be restricted and
the location should be a minimum of three miles away from any
hamlets or larger areas of habitation. I would also hope for a
similar restriction for ancient buildings, or monuments, and conservation
areas.
7. Undoubtedly various wildlife organizations
will provide evidence of the effect of wind turbines on birds,
bats and other wildlife, so I will restrict my comments to say
that, as a member of the voting public, I expect the government
to choose options for providing renewable energy which do not
have a negative effect on the wildlife of this country.
8. In a similar vein the committee needs
to heed the effect of wind turbines on the radar equipment of
aircraft. Safety in the air is of great importance to members
of the public, not just from a personal safety point of view,
but also because airports and the travel industry create jobs
for people. Placing wind farms too close to airports can impact
on safety and, in the future, restrict what might be much needed
expansion. I would suggest the minimum distance from an airport
needs to be much more than currently seems acceptable.
15 June 2008
| 
