Memorandum by the Two Moors Campaign
I write on behalf of the Two Moors Campaign,
a group set up to oppose the erection of wind turbines in one
of the most sensitive landscapes in Devon. We have over 200 active
supporters from the local area that is threatened by four separate
planning applications for the erection of a total of 24 industrial
wind turbine structures, along the southern fringes of Exmoor
National Park, near the village of Knowstone. (At the time of
writing none of these applications has yet been before a planning
committee.)
We are submitting this evidence to advise you
of the costs of the government's renewable energy policy, which
is essentially a wind policy and one of the most expensive renewables
policies in the world, to our rural community.
The benefits under the current Renewables Obligation
Certificate system are so lucrative that wind developers are keen
to erect turbines even in the most inappropriate areas and do
not let accuracy get in the way of a planning submission.
Our experience has been that wind developers
ignore government guidelines; some include deliberately misleading
information within their newsletters and their planning applications;
the planning applications are their supporting Environmental Statements
are frequently incomplete and in some instances deeply flawed.
(In one case an independent landscape assessment stated that:
"I do not consider that the ES reaches the required level
of accuracy for the local planning authority to make an informed
decision."
Moreover the visuals provided within the applications,
which is the publics' main guide to the predicted view of the
site, are not in accordance with best practice guidance and result,
deliberately in my opinion, in dramatically minimising their visual
impact. We have commissioned our own professional photomontages
which are spectacularly different from the developers images taken
from the same positions and prove this point.
Local authority planning officers have neither
the time nor the resources to ensure that all the information
put before them is accurate; there is no offence for providing
misleading information within an application.
The cost to our rural community of combating
these lies and inaccuracies, in landscape professional fees alone,
to date has been over £26,000. This does not include the
hours and hours of time put in by the community to examine the
implications of these applications, the enormous stress involved
and the personal commitment required.
Social cost to the community
Community consultation by one company referred
to "vociferous objectors", they deny they are noisy,
they have even publicly denied that the wind industry is subsidised,
commitments on websites disappear overnight when challenged to
fulfil them in public, one exhibition was held in a different
parish to the site and no photomontages available for the public
to see once they got to the exhibition.
Some developers have been relentless in their
attempts to suppress the opposition to their proposals, blogging
on local websites, letters to the papers failing to declare their
vested interests, extending and exaggerating the hockey stick
graph of climate change with their own lines showing an almost
vertical increase in climate to frighten people into agreeing
to their schemes.
Proposals have pitted family member against
family member, neighbours against neighbours, school children
have fought over the issue.
One landowner has personally told me that the
wind turbine developer raised the spectre of compulsory purchase
during the discussions to persuade him to sign up.
Rural communities are being bullied, threatened
and intimidated by ruthless multi-million pound developers all
under the guise of saving the planet
Noise is one of the most worrying aspects of
these developments. The Salford University report acknowledges
that amplitude modulation from wind turbines cannot be predicted
but the government has ignored its recommendation for further
research. Research into Vibro Acoustic Disease as a result of
wind turbines is becoming available but once again the government
is ignoring the implications in favour of meeting targets. Government
introduced preferred noise guidelines set out in ETSU-R-97 to
allow wind turbine development which would have been prohibited
under previous noise emission regulations. These guidelines were
established when turbines were half the size of the present monsters
and it was intended that the report be reviewed after two or three
years. That review has never taken place and it is clear that
the guidelines do not protect those living close to turbines from
their noise and health implications.
Tourism. Farm diversification has been encouraged
and in this area it is mostly into tourism. But this industry
will be the most affected by the introduction of massive wind
turbines on the southern edge of Exmoor National Park. The Small
Business Council Report places figures on the impact of industrial
wind turbines on the tourism industry in Devon. Devon is a major
tourist destination bringing in millions of pounds and employment
to the rural economy.
(Following the closure of the Small Business
Council, after its criticisms of government, the report can now
be viewed at:
Property prices—The findings of local
estate agents are backed by the 2004 Royal Institute of Chartered
Surveyors Report, which found that wind turbines have a lasting
negative impact on property prices. Property prices as the government
recognises nationally are important to people. In the rural economy
they may be more so because they provide many farmers with their
retirement fund, now much reduced.
Community benefits?—It has been acknowledged
by one developer that there is no immediate benefit to the community
from these developments. Vague statements have been made about
local contributions but none has been offered.
Costs to the Landscape—Landscape has a
value to both the appreciation of the natural environment and
as a national asset. To those landowners whose incomes are supplemented
to a large extent by outdoor pursuits the environment has a direct
correlation to their business activity. The costs to these landowners
and the country could be immense. Once lost the value of the landscape
will be gone forever. These will become industrial sites and carbuncles
on the landscape adjacent to one of the smallest National Parks
forever, thereby diminishing the character of that National Park.
And this is being repeated across the country.
Rural poverty: The rural community is being
asked to bear the costs of wind turbines on their hillsides with
the extra pylons for users at great distances from the point of
generation, with no compensation or local benefits. The increased
costs of this generation adds to the misery of low pay, high transport
costs, lack of bus services and the prospect of closure of local
post offices already inflicted on the rural community.
Costs to Local democracy—government diktats
to planning officials and quasi government bodies, such as Natural
England and the Environment Agency, to support all renewable energy
projects may mean that all town and parish councils within 10km
of the site who have objected strongly to the planning applications
may have the proposals foisted upon them nonetheless. At the same
time wind developers are lobbying government to have their applications
approved with more quickly! The rural voice is likely to be disenfranchised
once again.
Costs to wildlife—this southwest sanctuary
is a home to bats, otters, deer, badgers, hare and rabbits, foxes,
dormice, slow worms, great crested newts, fritillary butterflies,
starlings, golden plover, buzzards|. the list is huge as is the
value of this rich ecosystem. And all is under threat from industrial
wind turbine development.
And for what?
Costs to us as taxpayers and energy users: as
stated by Deiter Helm on The Politics Show on 7 December "It
is hard to think how you could design a renewables support policy
which could turn out to be so expensive and indeed actually produce
so little by way of capacity".
The concentration on wind power, an inherently
intermittent source of energy, inevitably means that any power
from this source must have back up for when the wind isn't blowing,
is not blowing enough or is blowing too much! As Eon have recently
confirmed in an article in The Guardian on 4 June 2008,
the planned growth in wind power will mean a massive expansion
in fossil fuel generation to back this up.
"E.ON said that it could take 50 gigawatts
of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But
it would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal
and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies
were not available. That would push Britain's installed power
base from the existing 76 gigawatts to 120 gigawatts."
This does not make economic sense. Paying most
expensively for wind energy and paying again for the back up to
be running inefficiently in the background is madness. Since we
need fossil fuels anyway the concentration of our scarce financial
resources should be aimed at clean fossil fuel energy production.
Ofgem, the National Audit Office and the Carbon
Trust say that pound for pound we could be reducing our CO2 emissions
by many more times than we are now through the current RO system.
Most of the projected £30 billion of RO
subsidy being spent on a renewable that won't save the planet
could instead be spent on finding technologies that will.
Wind energy is a mature industry—subsidies
should be directed to emerging new industries. We are surrounded
by sea with predictable tidal currents and wave power yet projects
like Pelmaris had to look abroad for further investment.
Since government figures for wind turbines are
recorded in their installed capacity, and not their load capacity
or capacity factor, it is clear that the targets are unlikely
to ever be met. This is particularly relevant when considering
the growth in energy demand.
(Note the average capacity factor for the country
is around 30% of installed capacity).
The turbines constructed in the UK have had
virtually no impact on CO2 emissions yet this is their very raison
d'etre! Experience from Germany is clear that because their back
up is provided by mostly old coal fired power stations carbon
emissions there have gone up as a result of the introduction of
large scale wind turbines.
Yet Germany has accompanied this investment
in wind energy with a massive investment to upgrade insulation
within their housing stock, thereby reducing demand and carbon
emissions. In Britain this invisible saving has been ignored in
favour of the huge very visible, ineffective industrial scale
wind turbine.
In conclusion I must point out that the environmental
cost to the countryside of trying to cover every hillside with
wind turbines is immense and far too high a cost to pay for the
pitiful emission savings.
12 June 2008
| 
