Comments on: LUFF PROPOSES LAW ON WIND FARM “BUFFER ZONES”

By: John Temple

John Temple — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:52:10 +0000

I would definitely support the Bill. It seems to me that the proposals for distance do remove a significant argument against the siting of windfarms. This would make the planning process in some cases easier. It should not be forgotten that the “500 metre rule” was from a stage when the overall height of wind turbines was 50 metres.I have visited various sites but none where the turbines have been in excess of 100 metres high & there is no doubt they are vast industrial sructures which are only appropriate in very large open environments where distance can mitigate the awesome effects

By: David Insall

David Insall — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:43:19 +0000

At last commonsense is breaking through. My wife and I own a small hill farm and have devoted much of our lives conserving the habitat of rare birds including merlins, hen harriers, red kites, peregrine falcons and curlew, including improving the heather moorland and preserving an upland marsh.

This year a greedy neighbour and his ‘camp followers’ have secured planning approval for massive turbines, the nearest 800 metres from our house, and likely to deface the landscape for many miles around.

Please get this bill through and maybe those who accepted the developer’s ‘bribe’ of promised grants to local community funds will be shamed into withdrawing their support. The claimed emission savings have already been reduced from a scandalous exaggeration to half the original, after we complained to the Advertising Standards Authority. Nothing good derives from wind farms, except the cash rolling into the pockets of developers. They offer country folk mere crumbs as if they are dogs under the table.

The bill deserves to be passed, releasing hundreds of people from a life of hell.

By: Howard Ferguson

Howard Ferguson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:50:13 +0000

Noise problems from industrial turbines located close to homes can be so severe that some homes which are affected by noise problems are rendered uninhabitable. Noise in one home which is 920 metres from the nearest turbine is so bad that the owner has been forced to abandon the home. An estate agent has refused to put it on the market because it has no value as a dwelling.

Meanwhile the wind industry continues to use computer simulation to calculate noise levels predicted at homes which are close to proposed wind farms but these noise predictions do not predict amplitude modulation effects. An offset of 2km would provide people living close to proposed wind turbines with a measure of protection against financial ruin that can occur for a variety of reasons when wind turbines up to 500 feet are are built too close to them.

By: AJW Powell

AJW Powell — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:48:00 +0000

This is a sensible and prudent step. There is increasing evidence of a risk to the health of those living close to these industrial turbines. A Dr Pierpont is shortly publishing a book on this very subject as a result of considerable research. Details can be found at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com

By: Christine & Peter Pugh

Christine & Peter Pugh — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:44:30 +0000

We whole heartedly agree with James & Christina’s comments. We shall be emailing Peter Luff ourselves with similar comments & concerns.

By: JAMES BACON

JAMES BACON — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:05:01 +0000

A well thought out proposal. It is a shock to learn that there is not at present any statutory limitation and that the 500m limit of which we had heard is not enshrined in law. There should obviously be a set limit – it must be reasonable to assume that a 125m high turbine should not be sited in the back garden of someone’s house! The limits proposed by Peter Luff are, I suggest, minimums acceptable. Personally I would like to see a 2km limit such as exists I believe in Scotland. But good luck to Peter on November 3rd. (From James and Christina Bacon).