SPR Planning Application Update

Just a quick update to let you know what we know about the SPR (ScottishPower Renewables) Planning Application for the miss-named Lenchwick Windfarm.

Despite statements by SPR at the SPR organised September sessions that it would be submitted in November, that then slipped to December and then to January, the latest information that we have received is that a Planning Application will be submitted late February.

They have recently been adding in some additional viewpoints for photomontages – including a view from The Lenches Club.

It is also likely to include an application for two alternative access points, one via Badgers Hill and the other via Harvington, Leys Road, The Hand and then across the fields from their.

We apologise that we are unable to give you any more information that this at present, unfortunately that is all that we know, – so much for ‘public consultation’ by SPR!

As soon as we know any more details, we will let you know.

Winter Walk on Sunday 3rd January

Winter Walk on Sunday 3rd January

10am

meet at The Lenches Club

CHOICE OF TWO LENGTHS OF WALKS

COME AND SUPPORT VVASP

THE WINDFARM PLANNING APPLICATION IS EXPECTED TO BE IN THE NEW YEAR

DROP IN SESSIONS WILL BE ARRANGED AS SOON AS WE HAVE A FIRM DATE

Wind turbine noise warnings were dismissed by civil servants

A warning about the health effects of noise from wind turbines was removed from a government study following pressure from civil servants.

original article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/6803823/Wind-turbine-noise-warnings-were-dismissed-by-civil-servants.html

Consultants recommended lowering night-time noise limits because the sounds made by spinning blades were enough to disrupt sleep patterns.

However, the advice, contained in a draft version of their 2006 report, was removed from the final submission which was eventually used in official guidance for local authorities ruling on planning applications from wind farm developers.

It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain built since 2006 have been allowed to continue generating high levels of noise.

Evidence of the changed advice was uncovered after a two-year battle using the Freedom of Information Act by campaigners opposed to a wind turbine development close to their home at in mid-Devon.

One of those campaigners, Mike Hulme, said: “This proves what we have been saying all along, that the noise guidelines should be reviewed. They haven’t changed substantially since 1997, in which time the design of turbines has changed and the number of wind farms has increased.

“Turbines used to be about 50 feet and now they are closer to 400 feet.

"Residents are afraid to complain to their council because the problem is then in the public domain and it becomes impossible to sell their house."

The noise warnings were made in a draft report by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP).

It was commissioned by the Department for Trade and Industry, since replaced by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, following a 2004 article in The Daily Telegraph that identified wind turbines at a Cornish wind farm as giving rise to health problems associated with low frequency noise emissions.

It said the sound caused by “aerodynamic modulation” – the rhythmic ‘whump whump’ of the blades – was enough to disturb the sleep of nearby residents, creating an "adverse" impact on their health, and recommended the night noise limited be cut from 43 decibels to 38.

However, an anonymous government official then inserted remarks querying the impact of the proposed change. “What will the impact of this be?,” the civil servant wrote. “Are we saying that this is the situation for all wind farms … I think we need a sense of the scale of this and the impact.”

The final report removed any suggestion of cutting the noise limits or adding any further penalty if turbines generated a beating noise — and recommended local authorities to stick to the 1996 guidelines.

Britain has 253 land-based wind farms generating 3.5 gigawatts, but this is expected to double or even triple by 2020 to help to meet targets for cutting CO2 emissions.

A spokesman for the DECC denied officials had put pressure on the consultants to remove the noise warnings.

He added: "Noise impacts are an aspect which is considered within the planning process before any decision is taken whether or not to grant consent to a project."

Thanks to The Daily Telegraph for this report

Wind Turbine Campaign Boosted by Expert Report

A campaign by local MP Peter Luff to keep wind turbines at a reasonable distance from houses has been given a boost today.

Environmental Protection UK has called on the government urgently to update its advice on how local authorities gauge the effect of noise from wind turbines.

Peter Luff has long been calling for a toughening up of the current guidelines governing how close wind turbines can be built to people’s homes.  In the last session of parliament he introduced legislation on the issue.

Peter said,

“As my Ten Minute Rule Bill – the Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill -demonstrated there is a problem because the current regulations just don’t deal with the huge wind turbines now being proposed.

“My concerns, prompted by the proposed wind farm between Church Lench and Bishampton, were primarily about visual issues. Having these monsters virtually in your back garden just isn’t acceptable.

“But now we have new expert evidence that noise is indeed a big issue too, just as local campaigners have been saying. As it stands, the system just isn’t adequately protecting residents.”   

“I am writing to the planning minister urging him to adopt my bill as government policy and I hope to raise it in the Commons today.  Environmental Protection UK has reinforced what we all know as common sense: these huge new wind turbines, up to 125m tall, are too big to be as close to people’s homes as the existing policy allows.”

Wind turbine noise rules ‘dated’

The government urgently needs to update its guidance on how local authorities should assess the impact of noise from wind turbines.

Environmental Protection UK say turbines are now so large, the noise generated by the turning blades can affect those living nearby.

The pressure group believes that changes in technology are not being reflected in the current guidelines.

The government says it is continuing research into the impact of noise.

Radical overhaul

Experts working for the group say the government guidelines on acceptable noise levels for wind turbines were due for revision 11 years ago and there has been little sign that changes in wind turbine technology is reflected in these rules.

They add that this guidance was designed for structures of about 90ft (27m) in height, but some applications for wind farms include turbines that are at least three times higher.

The group says that current guidance assumes that background noise at ground level, such as the rustling of leaves, would help mask the noise of the blades turning.

Turbines are becoming so big, the group says, that any masking effect on the ground could be cancelled out.

Environmental Protection UK argue the rules need a radical overhaul, otherwise applications for new wind farms are in danger of being rejected.

See original article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8379970.stm

Footnote:
Environmental Protection UK is the environmental protection charity supported by pollution control professionals. We have been working for a cleaner, quieter, healthier world since 1898.

Environmental Protection UK campaigns to minimise noise pollution – as well as reducing air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases.

It is supported by the UK government, Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency

LUFF PROPOSES LAW ON WIND FARM “BUFFER ZONES”

Tuesday 20th October 2009

A piece of legislation to control the distance between wind farms and the nearest house is to be introduced into the Commons next month

Legislation backs VVASP campaign for a 2Km No Zone

Mid Worcestershire MP Peter Luff, who has been working with residents on the proposed Lenches/Bishampton wind farm in his constituency, will introduce the “Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill” on November 3rd.

Using the so-called 10 minute rule procedure, Peter will speak for up to ten minutes, making the case for his bill to proceed to the next stage.

Peter explained,

“It is my limited intention to raise the aesthetic and environmental concerns associated with large wind turbines when they are located too close to homes.
“I happen to be a keen exponent of alternative and renewable energy sources, but feel strongly that onshore wind farms are only appropriate where their visual and environmental impact on open countryside is acceptable.

“Government policy on this issue is vague, giving little protection to local communities who have legitimate objections to the building of these turbines in their area. The companies appear to comply with a voluntary 500m “buffer zone” but this has no legal force.

“The onshore wind turbines proposed for the Lenches are 125m high – the equivalent of a forty storey building and half as high again as Big Ben – but will be located around 650 metres from houses. There is uproar in the affected villages!

“I had originally suggested a blanket one kilometre buffer zones, but after talking to local residents and my colleagues in the Commons, I will propose that smaller turbines should be at least 0.5 of a mile from habitation, medium sized ones a mile, and the largest turbines 1.5 miles.

“I hope that imposing these limits would lead to those applications coming forward being inherently less objectionable and therefore attracting less local opposition.

“It is a limited measure that makes no judgement about the merits of onshore wind, or on the bigger issues of climate change and targets for green energy. You can take whatever view you like on these issues and still see merit in my bill!

“It’s just intended to reduce the risks of these turbines being built unreasonably close to homes – unless, of course, the affected homes wanted them (perhaps because it is on their land and they will benefit financially).”