Wacat campaigners demonstrating on Saturday, near the site of the proposed turbine
A PUBLIC meeting in Woodborough last night (21 June 2011) resolved to oppose the application for planning permission for a wind turbine at Woodborough Park Farm. Organised by Wacat, Woodborough and Calverton against Turbines, the meeting attracted about 220 people from the village and surrounding areas.
Presentations were given by Robert Smith, Wacat chairman, Paul Crowther, a committee member, and Geoff Parkinson, Woodborough Parish Councillor. Smith stressed that “very special circumstances” are needed for development in green belt, and said that granting planning permission here would set a precedent for further wind turbines in the green belt.
Paul Crowther spoke about the impact of the wind turbine which, standing 50m above the ridgeline, would be visible from the whole of Calverton and Woodborough. He observed that similar projects yield £3million revenue for the landowner over a 20-year period. A short audio recording of a wind turbine was also played.
Robert Smith then spoke about potential impact on wildlife. The planning application notes that there are Noctule bats in close proximity to the proposed site. A video clip demonstrating the effects of “flicker” was played, followed by a question and answer session where all present were given the opportunity to speak.
Geoff Parkinson then proposed the motion: “This meeting opposes the granting of planning permission of a wind turbine at Woodborough Park Farm in green belt“. In the show of hands, approximetely 200 people supported the motion, 18 opposed it, and three abstained.
A second motion, for Woodborough residents only, requested Woodborough Parish Council to make a donation to the campaign. This was carried with approximately 80% support.
* This report compiled from information supplied by attendees of the meeting *
Concerns include noise, flicker, and impact on wildlife and horses
It would have been nice to see an objective, fact-based meeting… much like the opening meeting held before the application was submitted!
Instead we had presentations by 3 objectors, spouting their personal opinion, conjecture and some just downright inaccurate statements!
As someone who has actually taken the time to objectively read the application fully- look at the evidence, photomontages and try to come to an informed opinion of my own – and i urge other people to do the same rather than be fed inaccurate information that is intentionally misleading
People are rightly entitled to object if they wish, but it amazes me that seemingly intelligent & sensible people can behave in such a foolhardy and puerile manner.
The ‘Chairman’ himself was quoted in the Nottingham Evening Post saying “I’m open to renewable energy and I love wind turbines” – hypocracy – or just ‘NIMBY’ism?
Is there anywhere where forward thinking, non-NIMBYs can add their support to the wind turbine project? If these people had there way there would be no pylons (much more of an eyesore), telegraph poles or any other advancement in the last 50-100 years.
http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h389/fruitfox16/0001Dc.jpg
Our photomontage on top of the applicant’s photomontage.
The turbines are clearly the same size! as shown above! The applicant obviously was trying to make it look smaller. The meeting last night was excellent! I was so happy it was all from the applicant’s info so is all fact! saved a lot of people reading the 300 pages!
hello “Michael,” sorry you found the meeting inaccurate, its a pity that you couldnt actually point out where the inaccuracies were. Was it the fact that the application says there is no available water sources near to bat / bird roosts as the applicant states or that the wind turbine will “create local jobs” possibly picking up dead bats and birds but more probably in Germany where the turbines are manufactured.
maybe the inaccuracy is because the applicant hasnt even shown a photomontage from the middle of Calverton where 6000 people live some 1500m away but has shown carefully staged pictures from non relevant positions.
I am happy to have an audit of the factual content of my presentation and invite “Michael” to state exactly where the “intentionally inaccurate and misleading ” statements come from because if you are wrong then that really is libel !!
put up or shut up !!
Robert Smith in his personal capacity
Sadly I was not able to attend the meeting yesterday but I gather it was not a sensible, rational debate and, assuming there was similar mis-information such as that on the WACAT website, served no useful purpose. I echo and support Michael Ford’s commment and would like to point out that non-NIMBYs can similarly write to Peter Baguley in support of the application. I also urge people to consider the latest projections for the impact of climate change that have been published by UKCIP (http://www.ukcip.org.uk/). It does not make for easy reading and surely anyone with children should take a little time to reflect on what they are really objecting to and what we will all have to deal with in the (all too) near future? A relatively small wind turbine may not save our coastline or prevent drought and flooding but surely every little helps? Isn’t it time we took our heads out of the sand?
Paul, I feel you cannot comment about the meeting without being there. Eveything was fact and taken from the application.
It is also libellous what you said about the WACAT website. Where is the mis info?????
I am not opposed to turbines, but development in the greenbelt. This could be sited on brownfield! Perhaps you should stop being an ostrich and realise this!
There are no very special reasons for this to be in greenbelt! If you were at the meeting you would realise this!
I suggest you refrain from accusing WACAT of mis info when you were not even at the meeting. If you read the application you would appreciate it was fact.
It is my understanding that a wind turbine needs to be in a suitable site -i.e. windy. Surely this is the reason for the choice of location, not to despoil a green belt area?
Simon, did you mean libellous? And which characteristic of an ostrich were you referring to? I didn’t quite understand your point.
@Paul Akehurst
Proportion of CO2 emitted naturally: 97%
Proportion of CO2 emitted by human activity: 3%
Proportion of that CO2 emitted by UK: 1.7%
UK contribution to total CO2: 1.7% of 3% = 0.05%
So the reduction in total CO2 emissions if the UK stopped ALL industrial and transport activities at midnight tonight is just 0.05%.
“surely anyone with children should take a little time to reflect…”
Ahh, the ‘think of the children’ argument. Your appeal to emotion is without scientific basis and lacks credibility.
And if one takes the time to ‘reflect’, one quickly concludes that there is negligible hard science to support the hypothesis that CO2 drives global warming. CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are now flat or falling.
Source: http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm HadCRUT3/Mauna Loa/RSS data
‘Reflect’ on this: For the last 10 years, global temperatures have been flat, or have even fallen slightly.
Source: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
You will personally pay £500/year on top of your electricity bill to support the cost of wind power.
You will achieve nothing by doing so. If you really want to pay more tax, it would be much better spent on doing things that actually stand some chance of helping, such as agriculture, water supply or healthcare.
Straight from the Essential page of your reference http://www.ukcip.org.uk:
1) “Warming of the global climate system is unequivocal, with global average temperatures having risen by nearly 0.8 ºC since the late 19th century, and rising at about 0.2 ºC/decade over the past 25 years.”
That doesn’t mean it’s our fault. Climate has always changed, both up and down, and by much more than the 0.8C reported here.
The figure of 0.8C is wrong too. The observed global warming from 1850 to 2005 was only 0.6°C.
Source: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/most-widely-used-climate-computer-model.html
2) “It is very likely that man-made greenhouse gas emissions caused most of the observed temperature rise since the mid 20th century (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007).”
No it is not. No-one knows the mechanisms causing the recent warming. CO2 was suggested simply because it could not be established that anything else was to blame. The IPCC report quoted has been largely discredited. It relied heavily upon “grey” literature that had not been subject to peer review (proper scientific scrutiny). The climate modelling espoused in the report has already been shown to be way off the mark, exaggerating warming to suggest that it is way above what actual observations show.
The IPCC is headed by Mr Pachauri, who famously brushed aside critcisms of conflict of interest. This man has board-level interests in a number of alternative energy businesses, he is incentivised to maintain the global warming hypothesis. Pachauri has refused to apply conflict of interest policies
on the authoes of AR5, the upcoming 5th IPCC report.
Sources: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/18/ipccs-pachauri-no-retroactive-conflict-of-interest-policy-to-be-applied-to-the-next-ar5-report/ and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/20/committee-on-science-space-and-technology-sends-ipcc-a-letter-on-their-conflict-of-interest-debacle/
3) Global sea-level rise has accelerated between mid-19th century and mid-20th century, and is now about 3 mm per year. Human activities have likely contributed between a quarter and a half of the rise in the last half of the 20th century (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007).
The attribution of sea level changes to human activity is without any foundation whatsoever.
Further, the IPCC analysis of sea-level changes is fundamentally flawed. Their projection of 1m rise by 2100 required nearly 11mm/year average rises,
well over 3 times the observed rate. The prediction of exponential sea level rise is not consistent with observational data which shows that the rise is linear. Recent data indicates that sea levels are not rising at all.
Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/07/the-unbroken-record-of-broken-icons/
Sara, i assume by ostrich he means burying your head in the sand? With reference to burying in your head in the sand and ignoring the fact that the land is greenbelt and there are no very special circumstances for it to be built here?
A windy site is not ‘very special’ it would be windier off shore, and a brown field site could be just as windy without developing on greenbelt.
Sara there are also many more suitable sites, this not being one of them.
I agree with Simon’s comment. There is no reason for that turbine to be built on greenbelt land.
Paul, don’t try and bring global warming into the matter. I am against developing greenbelt, not turbines them selves. With reference to children, at 21 I am the future generation and we owe it to the future generations to preserve green belt and build turbines elsewhere!
There is no reason for an estate top be built on Dark Lane which was also Green Belt land but planning permission exists. Hence I see no reason for it to be rejected on these grounds alone.
Can’t the land still be used for agricluture anyway? How does the turbine stop it being used in that way?
The farm owner is financing this project himself, so why would he put it on a brown field site which is not owned or managed by him?
It is an urban legend that ostriches stick their heads in the sand too. 😉
Oh dear as soon as anyone raises an objection to a planning application up pop the people who do not have a better quality argument to raise and accuse everyone of NIMBY ism.
my question is simple…. Is it morally defensible that a community such as Calverton that has had to put up with generating power in the “national interest” for the past 50 years with dirty , filthy, noisy , disruptive pit head operations and slag heaps is now going to have an industrial turbine with its sound pollution and flicker,overlooking them dominating the sky line for the next 20 years in the “national interest” ? When do the people of Calverton get a break from shouldering the burden of the “national interest ” and local people actualy get a say in what happens in their Green Belt?
Dear Mr Swan.
With so much hot air being expressed on your website, who needs wind to power our proposed turbine? Why should anyone let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Before any member of WACAT endeavours to rubbish anyone else’s comments on your website, they be well advised to consider far more carefully the mis-information that they are offering, not only on their own website but also to members of the general public in order to sensationalise their claims . As co-applicant of the proposed turbine I feel well-qualified to express my thoughts, especially when I see good folk (who have clearly read the application and know the facts) being pilloried so publicly for defending our application.
Firstly, WACAT has been created specifically to oppose our application, something which they are entitled to do. What they are not entitled to do is misrepresent the facts as laid down in our planning application. One of the images on their website and used on the colour A4 sheets posted through letterboxes as part of their campaign is not only misleading, it is categorically wrong. Whether this is because they have not read our application in full, read it and not fully understood it, or simply set out to create a sensational image one can only guess at. The fact that the image of the turbine on their leaflet is two and a half times larger than the one we are proposing to erect should perhaps be of concern to everyone. Instead of being 50m to hub and 66m to the blade tip, the turbine shown is infact 125m to the hub and 166m to the blade tip. We have proved this to ourselves by measuring the actual height of the oak trees alongside the image, and calculating the height of the depicted turbine accordingly. If you are in any doubt about this, I offer you the opportunity to come to the farm yourself (or suggest any independent observer of your choosing – perhaps our local MP, Mark Spencer?) and see the evidence. You would also be able to observe that their image of the proposed turbine is also shown in the wrong field. Given the basic nature of just these two major inaccuracies, and there are many others, quite why anyone should believe anything that emanates from WACAT as a group is something that only you can answer.
By way of another example, there is a map shown in your report of 17th June ‘Turbine campaign turns up pressure’ suggesting the areas from where at least part of the proposed turbine would be seen. This is factually incorrect. Perhaps I need to add that this document has been produced for us, at our cost, by Myriad CEG as part of our application. Within the document there is a statement which confirms that “This document is confidential and the copyright of Myriad CEG. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is prohibited”. No-one has approached Myriad for their permission to use this information, even though WACAT are also using it widely and did so at their ‘Open Meeting to present the facts’ in Woodborough earlier this week. Had anyone done so and permission been granted, they would have made very much aware that this map is a ZTV, an abbreviation of ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’. The map shows the areas where parts of the turbine could be seen in a theoretical landscape that included no trees, hedges, houses, buildings or any other man-made structures. What one might see in theory and what one can see in practice are clearly very different.
I could go on and on but feel it unnecessary to do so. Claims made by WACAT relating to noise and shadow flicker are simply surreal. The real facts on which our application will be judged already lie within the public domain. The planning application extends to over 300 pages and for those who do not have the time to read it all, we continue to offer the opportunity for anyone to discuss the application with us, ask questions and view the professionally-created photomontages that the Gedling planning department have required us to produce.
I very much look forward to your verification of the accuracy of the height and location of the turbine, as used in the WACAT promotional material.
Yours sincerely,
John Charles-Jones
Woodborough Park Farm
Woodborough
Tel: 0115 965 4748
This really is a “dear John” letter.
After the meeting on Tuesday your wife ( the other joint applicant )came up to me and accused me of grossly misrepresenting the facts.When asked what facts, she said the size of the wind turbine and that it was the wrong height.
I told her that we had used the height of the foundations as being 117m ASL and the height of the adjacent ridge to be 130m ASL.
She replied- what is 117, where does that come from?
I confirmed to her that the 117m datum came from not only her application document but also an email which you had sent to me !!
Going on,- the height of the turbine at 66.5m means that it will be at least 53.5m above the ridge line on Spindle Lane over looking Calverton
Her reply – rubbish you mean 50 feet not metres !!
We really do need a bit of honesty here and not obfuscation.
Why didnt you do a photomontage from the centre of Calverton where it will be highly visible to 6000 people rather than obscure locations ?
Only the last question is worthy of any kind of comment. Gedling Borough Council stipulate the location of the photomontages.
For an accurate photo of a real wind turbine in Woodborough, check out:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/woodboroughheritage/windwaterpumps.html
The photos at the bottom of that page illustrate how John’s wind folly will look in 10 years’ time, once the great delusion of wind power blows over, the subsidies are gone and the ironwork is rusting in the field.
@JCJ
“or suggest any independent observer of your choosing – perhaps our local MP, Mark Spencer?”
Ahhh, yes. That would be Mr Spencer the local farmer. He would be perfectly independent, of course, wouldn’t he?
Not!
I am quite sure that if more people had a basic comprehension of ecology, objections such as these would be as socially unwelcome as advocating the right to drink drive or have sex with children.
How can preserving an already ever changing view compete in moral equivalence with the devastation reeked by our use of non renewable resources?
Since I assume we are all aware that we live in a delicately balanced bubble… One so tuned to produce the life forms we are part of… How can anyone with a small – Perhaps even microscopic speck of intelligence, claim that to continue on our current course of dependence on planetary stored energy capital is a wise one… And through the acceptance of this basic and fundamental flaw, how then could one not understand the innate common sense in harnessing the wind from such obvious locations as this one.
I own a large piece of land right in the heart of the valley depicted on the nimby website. I have nothing whatsoever to gain from this proposal. And I thoroughly support it and wish John and Cathy all the best luck with it… Indeed… I do wish that they’d build rather a few more!
As I understand it, Dorket Head, topped by a landfill site endlessly polluting the underground water of the surrounding spaces, Is the highest point in Nottinghamshire. So if we wish to educate people about why Bangladesh is drowning, reefs are dying, and wars for water are a likely issue for our future generations etc… Then where better to build than here? As for the statement that it will be seen by 6,000… It’s a pity the figure isn’t much higher… Along, In my opinion, with the proposed turbine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9wM-p8wTq4&feature=player_embedded#at=453
And perhaps you’d consider reading this?
The Elephant in the Room
By Patrick Whitefield October 2009
It was only with the development of the Gaia theory by Lames Lovelock and Lynn Margulis that we started to understand what the Earth really is. It’s not a random collection of living and non-living objects which happen to suit the physical and chemical conditions they find on this planet. It’s a system whose components are constantly interacting to create and maintain… [extract edited. Posting complete passages from other publications is a breach of their copyright – please provide short summary and a web link if available. – Ed]
http://www.mjrust.net/downloads/The%20Elephant%20in%20the%20Room%20Patrick%20Whitefield
^John.
You hope it gets passed so you can wack one on your land and generate £200k a year.
This turbine could be placed elsewhere and not in that valley so dont talk about renewable energy. Somewhat missing the point.
They could be postioned next to Staythorpe power station – an area already spoilt but with plenty of land.
It would be ridiculous to claim that one pathetic turbine would be any good when weighed up against the downsides.
EVER WONDER WHY DENMARK HAVE STOPPED INSTALLING THEM ON LAND??? … funny that!
Bill…
I was not aware of Denmark’s decision, so just like you I am not in possession of all the facts.
However my land is in the bottom of the valley, close to houses, and totally unsuitable for generating electricity this way. I am planting woodland on it anyway further compromising such unsuitable site specific use, and In my wildest dreams I could not possibly afford the cost of such a thing, nor would I wish such an income for myself, which means that unlike you I am perhaps not jealous of those who can/should and do.
I know that such things can be placed elsewhere and hopefully they will be… I’d love to see a fleet of them next to Caythorpe Power Station, and many many more off-shore, but I am confused by “It would be ridiculous to claim that one pathetic turbine would be any good when weighed up against the downsides.”
What are these downsides? Please allow me to inquire for the moment…
On the WACAT Site, the homepage has the big slogan “This turbine will totally dominate the natural beauty of the valley below” which informs me that WACAT and perhaps you have little understanding if any of ecology, and the word ‘natural’.
The picture this slogan is above is of a purely man made manufactured landscape about as natural as a PET bottle… Whilst I fully support this application I am not besotted with the environmental record of Woodborough Park, who as I understand it still practice ploughing and the cultivation of intensive chemically treated monoculture, leading to soil erosion and the devastation of what could otherwise be the “natural beauty” referred to on the WACAT site… Perhaps the slogan could read “This turbine will delightfully compliment the manufactured but tragic beauty of the valley below” … This application, along with other, often at cost ‘conservation’ work practiced by the park is a firm step in the right direction. And I fully support it, but would love them to go much further…
Perhaps they could erect 5/10 if the site suits?
Some folk have had said that “it may upset horses” or cause “flicker” or some “noise” perhaps knock out a few bats??? Well… compared to the consequences of doing nothing about our un-sustainability, such objections are very much like those of a slave trader saying.. “But how will I shine my shoes?” or “Who will be my young sex slaves” … Unfathomable moral absence.
Ahh… perhaps you feel jealous then… You perhaps think that a turbine might knock off a few theoretical pounds from the value of your asset… While John and Cathy add pounds to theirs?… You feel perhaps that this is unfair… Like the ex boyfriend who besmirches or disfigures his former lover in order for others to not enjoy the same privilege… would such an assumption be any different from your assumption that I have some nonsensical financial motivation???
I love honesty if you can summon it here Bill please… Just admit that you’re jealous and perhaps I can help show you a new path?
Kind Regards
John
I attended the meeting on the 21st June and had to leave before the end as I could not believe what I was witnessing. Geoff Parkinson said that he wasn’t against wind turbines per se, but didn’t want to see one in the green belt. OK I thought that sounds fair enough, but then I sat for the next half an hour(ish) listening to three people rubbish wind turbines and basically having a go at the ‘applicant’! Then when we had the Q&A session, anyone who disagreed with the obvious impartial views of the speakers was shouted down and told that anything that wasn’t to do with the siting of a wind turbine in green belt wasn’t to be discussed at the meeting! I thought that for a good debate there needs to be input from both sides of an arguement before people can make a reasoned judgement for or against?!
I’m not going to go into answering all of the regurgitated anti wind turbine comments to do with birds, bats and low flying pieces of ice that I’ve heard for the last 15 years that I’ve been in the energy field. Neither am I going to argue about global warming, but I will mention one thing that is going to happen fairly soon – non renewable fuels such as fossil fuels and uranium are going to run out! That’s what I talk about when I say anyone with children should think about the future! For example, lets look at oil. Some of you may have heard about the oil peak theory where our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves. BP reckons that the world still has enough “proven” reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. Current rates is the important phrase. As we all know India & China have decided, along with other 3rd World countries, to have a slice of the pie that we in the west have had to ourselves for 100 years. As a result current rates of demand for oil (and other fossil fuels) is increasing daily. The London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the way that we live our lives.
Our demand for electricity is increasing and has increased 100 fold in the last 30 years. The UK has relied on North Sea Oil and Gas for far too long and as a result has not embraced sustainable development to any great degree. However, since the Kyoto meeting the UK has introduced a large amount of sustainable policies in line with the rest of the world in trying to reduce energy usage and the amounts of CO2, such as:
Regional environmental policies
Planning regulations
Building regulations – Part L
Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH)
Carbon reduction commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme
Climate Change Levy (CCL)
Climate Change Agreements (CCAs)
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive – DECs & EPCs
Energy experts world wide are also suggesting that electrical generation will be more localised in the next 20-30 years and not centralised as many of the huge power stations will come to the end of their lives. This will mean that small communities like Woodborough could possibly have community owned energy production capacity like wind turbines or Combined Heat & Power systems that provide both district heating and electricity.
I assume that all of the WACAT people practice low energy living and are aware of sustainable development as they mention they like wind turbines (although after listening to them I did change my mind) they may be able to help. In light of the above information, I would be very interested to know what the WACAT people suggest we do in the short, medium and long term future to provide energy to our homes when fossil fuels are gone!?
It is probably worth pointing out that for quite a number of the houses on the west end of Woodborough, my woodland and its associated shelter belts will completely screen the view of this turbine and the upper valley within the next 10 years anyway… And it would also remove any theoretical noise or views of strange flickering lights. And I am not the only landowner in the bottom of the valley intending to plant a large wood. Doubtless some folk would even object to that, although permission is not at all required. Perhaps some folk would prefer everything always the same… All ground clear, to preserve the current appearance… Perhaps as an intensive pig farm?
Build the turbine elsewhere! I am not a WACAT member but there are far more suitable places for one to be positioned. e.g next to Staythorpe power station – and area already spoilt and with plenty of space.
All very interesting, although our objection has nothing to do with renewable energy. I wouldn’t want a wind turbine, flats, houses etc – ie anything that constitutes development – on green belt land.
I am not prepared to argue the facts about renewable energy as quite frankly it is irrelevant. Although just one point… what happens when the wind isn’t blowing…..??
John,
Surely planning permission is required for change of use if changing an area from agricultural use to woodland?
John,
Having been kept awake by trance music coming from your field until now (01:30), I am inclined to doubt your opinion on noise impact.
Like Mr and Mrs Charles-Jones, you have good intentions, and certainly in the case of Woodborough Park Farm, there has been obvious improvement to the local environment over the past few years.
However, there may be some actions that people will disagree with. All is not black and white. Personally, I have/had no complaint with small turbines for either farm or local needs, but a turbine(s) as a business venture I feel should not be built on green belt land. The proposed turbine will inappropriately over-shadow its environment, and has obviously stirred strong emotion on both sides of the argument. I would hope that emotion is not part of the planning procedure, and that the council balance the conflicting planning policies, to come to a decision that would seem to satisfy the majority of local residents.
No Jenny, it is not. My woodland is based upon… Agroforestry and forest gardening as a model, It is more agricultural that what you probably understand of as the word, the etymology of which is ‘soil’ ‘improvement’ . My future woodland, is all about the production of food in an ecologically harmonised way using a tree based system modelled on a young native woodland, but where species are carefully designed to maximise productive yields. Shelter belts are required to provide productive climatic conditions. Watch this if you want to know more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8….
Permission is not required anyway to plant woodland, even if I wanted to just plant a massive block of firs or spruce etc. And if it even was at some point… Given wider concerns, it would be offered without hesitation as the UK is quite desperate to increase woodland cover.
And upon further inspection and following contact with the applicant to discuss his proposals. I need to correct one thing. Woodborough Park does in fact NOT plough. They use min till systems designed to prevent soil erosion. My respect increases. J
Jamie. You are right about the loud music which did occur once. I appeared at the parish council to apologise. It wasn’t trance though… I don’t kike it.. More dubstep and reggae, although I was a bit tipsy and can’t really remember ? – I have no intention to repeat this currently.
“to come to a decision that would seem to satisfy the majority of local residents.” I agree with much of your last sentence, but it’s a base level fact that those who oppose things are by nature more vocal than those who approve. Such balance needs to be fully weighed when evaluating any public response. I trust that the silent masses will be assumed to be in favour or not care rather than be assumed to object.
thanks John, and you have been true to your word since. Best of luck with your woodland.
Thanks Jamie
And I wonder if Jenny has watched the link?… It’s a documentary called A Farm For The Future… and in 5 parts on Youtube. But it does rather well explain why the preservation of the valley as it is, is simply not an option. Change happens.
Wow – what a fascinating debate. And it was the apparent lack of debate that prompted me to offer an alternative view in the first place. On climate change we do need to question the science and indeed, we even need the sceptics, such Benny Peiser, to keep the likes of Sir Nicholas Stern on his toes. But rather than try and trade statistics I’ll take comfort from the fact that the majority of governments around the world, including thoese in India, China, Australia and the USA, are spending considerable sums of money on both mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
As for the energy debate – I can only concur with Monty, who has expressed our predicament so eloquently.
So what of planning policy? WACAT says that this is all about the greenbelt and, as Robert Smith pointed out, PPG2 does state that development in the greenbelt requires ‘very special circumstances’. However, there is always an alternative view and PPG22 effectively says that renewable energy can qualify as a ‘very special circumstance’! So this really just boils down to ‘aesthetic amenity’ and ‘openness’ vs ‘renewable energy’ (and reducing carbon emissions).
My own view is that a rotor diameter of 33m (just a bit over one and a half cricket pitches) is not going to compromise the ‘openness’ at all and the fact that it is not on a ridge and is actually overlooked by a non-too-beautiful communications mast suggests it will not compromise the existing character of the valley. Clearly others disagree and it is up to the planners to decide. It’s a shame really that developments in greenbelt are considered as individual cases and do not set a precedent; otherwise the previous existence of a ‘wind generator’ in Woodborough may have done exactly that and made the case even more compelling!!
John,
Not watched the video yet, will do at some point.
I see, I was just wondering about the permission, not a criticism 🙂
Perhaps Jenny Crowther (22nd June) could explain…if your photomontage is the same size as the applicant’s why do the two photos not line up correctly? The barn on the right of the photo is lined up, and the trees behind the turbine in both images line up to show it is roughly the correct position, however the image produced by WACAT does not line up at all on the left. Is this because it is a zoomed in image?
Thanks in advance for the clarification
Hi David,
They are from different angles, hence why the farm building looks a little wonky. But you get the idea that it is the right size.
will there be any upcoming public meetings to discuss these turbines?
thanks alot
dazza
I’d rather have wind turbines than nuclear power.
Global warming – I continue to ask the question “What caused the glaciers to melt, ending the ice-age” – was it an industrialised society? Probably caused by all the hot air a lot of people talk??
I for one would be happy to support the installation of wind turbines – I’d have one in my garden as a means of pursuing greater self sufficiency and cocking a snook at the power providers who are robbing us blind (unless, of course, you are a shareholder in the company)if I could afford the initial outlay.
NIMBY-ism rules methinks
Hi Emmy
The global carbon footprint goes something like this :-
UK plays the eco deal with a straight bat and require businesses to comply with carbon footprint obligations :
this makes UK ltd uncompetitive due to the excessive cost so they start importing from China at low cost and sack everyone in the Uk.
China builds a coal fired power station every 6 weeks , and pollutes the earth with zillions of tonnes of carbon. Full employment in China increased unemployment in UK.
A trained monkey can see that until and unless we get the whole world signing up to a carbon reduction , the only thing that will happen is that the global carbon output increases, unemployment in the UK increases, and China / India rule the world.
This has nothing to do with NIMBYism wind turbines are good, but why subject the people of Calverton to another 50 years of shouldering the burden of creating energy in the “national interest” after the coal mines have just closed.
Lets get back to the facts rather than second rate arguements.
Dear Mr Smith
You write ‘lets get back to the facts rather than second rate arguments’. Allow me to tell you about my fact-finding mission.
In the space of a few days I saw notices plastered all over a vehicle that was parked on Woodborough Main Street and I was approached twice by a WACAT member in Calverton. I then received several leaflets through my letter box. ‘Facts’ presented to me include; 30% reduction in house prices; a field full of turbines because ‘if he is allowed to build this one he will not farm the land anymore, it will just be a wind farm’; the turbine is so huge that it will be visible from virtually all of Woodborough and Calverton; the noise and light flicker will be unbearable for those living close by and many people can expect detrimental effects to their health.
Alarmed at first, then rather sceptical, I decided not to attend the WACAT meeting but spend the time doing my own research. I have read every page of the application, spoken with Gareth Elliot at Gedling Planning department, spoken to Cathy Charles-Jones on two occasions and finally visited the farm to see photographs and wireframe imagery. I was particularly interested to see a plan depicting the path of microwaves down the valley (coming from the telecommunications mast at the top of the hill) and it is my understanding that the existence of these microwaves would preclude any further development for turbines on Woodborough Park. There is not enough suitable space for anything other than the medium-sized Enercon E33 turbine.
I am now in possession of the true facts and see things in a different light compared to WACAT’s interpretation.
Mr Smith, you persist in saying that the people of Calverton will shoulder a great burden – I think you exaggerate. Through it’s website, literature and the voice of some of it’s members, I believe that WACAT is guilty of scaremongering and of perpetrating mis-informatiom. Councillor Parkinson (WACAT member) admitted on Monday that the A4 leaflet contained inaccuracies, he said it had been hurriedly thrown together. The group claim to represent the views of the majority, in fact they are the vocal minority, until we have proof otherwise – 200 out of 1,850 (ish?) Your supporters and Calverton PC have donated money to your cause. Isn’t it about time you demonstrated care, truth and responsibility in the information you broadcast? I say this on the assumption that you are still the Chairman of WACAT.
Yours sincerely
Kathryn Hallam (Mrs)
P.S. Woodborough Parish Council have viewed this application on it’s planning merits and were not swayed by the vocal minority. As a result, Councillors have faced much criticism. Serious false allegations were aimed at the Chairman but he soon cleared up any misunderstanding. I did not realise until Monday’s PC meeting just how much work was involved, they deserve our support, I shall write to tell them this and hope a few others will too.
Dear Mrs Hallam
It is good to see that someone else has trawled through the voluminous planning application which obviously took many months to prepare with experts already appointed.One of the features of the planning system is that anyone is free to apply for permission to develop a site and anyone is entitled to object.Unfortunately the objectors do not have the luxury of an unlimited timescale and therefore have to compact the response into a couple of weeks which inevitably leads to inaccuracy, just like the applicant explained to me after his Calverton presentation pre-application, that he was making up responses ” on the hoof “.
Responding to your various points as follows
1) Wind farm. – Just ask yourself the question, if there is such a limited zone in which turbines can be built at the farm due to microwaves, why is the large industrial turbine located in an entirely different location to the 2 small turbines already granted ? Isnt it logical that if consent is granted for the large turbine there will be 3 different locations on the farm where turbines have been given consent, opening the door for a new application for the 2 small turbines to convert to large ones?
This is a classic planning manoeuver.
2)30% reduction in house prices.- Try asking local estate agents about the effects of a local turbine.I am aware of a property where a buyer has already backed out .
3)Inaccurate photo information – In addition to the above comments we have now loaded our professionaly prepared photomontages onto the WACAT web site.They show the imposing view from the Calverton conservation area which was strangely omitted from the application. This contradicts the comments made that ” you will not see it from Calverton “.
Our photomontages have been prepared by qualified landscape architects unlike the applicants photos. Unfortunately our critique of the application is not currently available to the public unlike the application but I can assure you that the application is defective in many instances.
4)public support- Woodborough PC does not represent the majority of the views of the people in Woodborough who have an opinion on this matter. How can it be that WPC voted against 2 small turbines because of the impact on green belt, but in favour of a larger more invasive turbine ? Thankfully the views of the individual members do not count for much in planning terms but the 1200 individual letters sent to Gedling BC certainly do.
You have read the application so perhaps you could answer the following :-
a)Where are “the local jobs ” going to be created by the granting of permission as alleged by the applicant ?
b)The bat survey says that “due to the lack of available water source ” threat levels to bats is low to medium conveniently ignoring the pond/ lake some 350m away ( at the side of the farm buildings) The turbine is between the bat roost and the water source.Why has this been omitted?
c)Why is there no photomontage from the Calverton conservation area ?
d)Why is there no photomontage or noise assessment from the adjacent bridlepath Spindle Lane?
e) Have you read the green belt policy,conservation area policy and ridge line policy of GBC? This application contravenes all three.
f) Are you aware that this turbine is located adjacent to Fox Wood a scheduled ancient monument and a place of great archealogical interest. Why has this not been considered ?
I could go on but if you have read the documents forensicaly with an open mind then the points will be self evident.
regards
Robert Smith
Sorry I forgot to mention the most obvious misrepresentation in the application, carbon footprint reduction.
Not only do the figures in the carbon footprint not add up, even though it is an “audit”, but the whole document survives on the false premise that a large scale wind turbine is necessary to make the farm carbon neutral………..wrong.
Just by simple measures and correct calculations this can be achieved, the errors are evident.
1) Change red diesel for green diesel saving 114 Tonnes
2) Good soil management and” green fertilizer ” saves 346 Tonnes
3) Photovoltaic cells already installed saves 25 Tonnes
4) Try counting all of the trees on the farm and not just newly planted.. One tree accounts for 1-2 Tonnes of Carbon every 100 years. 27000 trees equals 405 tonnes at say 1.5 (avg) pa equals 405 Tonnes
The total carbon production of the farm is 686.3 T or 634T whichever of the applicants figures are correct, compared with a potential sequestration of 890 Tonnes WITHOUT WIND TURBINES.
Dear Mr Smith
My original message was to point out that I came to my own conclusion and that I found some of WACAT’s literature and website to be misleading. It is inappropriate to direct questions at me – the matter is in the capable and impartial hands of Gedling Borough Council.
Kathryn Hallam
Dear Mrs Hallam
With all due respect , your email was a litany of allegations of misrepresentations which is why I took time out to explain the truth of the matter. You allege that we have been ” scaremongering, inaccuracies , and perpetrating mis information and need to demonstrate care , truth and responsibility ”
When confronted with the truth you now declare it” inappropriate to direct questions to me( you)”
I just wonder why you chose to enter a debate on a public web site rather than extend us the same facility as you did to the applicant and allow a private discussion.
Any one who wishes to have a one on one explanation of WACAT’s position please contact me through our website.
Re some of Roberts points…
1)Wind farm… If only the applicant could build more Robert!
However… Surely you accept that the 2 smaller turbines at separate locations will have different aerial footprints to disturb the existing microwave transmission routes than larger turbines? Therefore why can you not see the logic in the statement that larger turbines may not be permitted for reasons relating to the transmitter @ Dorket Head due to their disturbance of a portion of the atmosphere used by the mast? I am quite sure the applicant would be willing to explain these areas if asked rather than have folk making public assumptions.
2) “30% reduction in house prices.- Try asking local estate agents about the effects of a local turbine. I am aware of a property where a buyer has already backed out.”
Things… Places and circumstances change (obviously). I accept that there are individuals who may be put off a property by views of a turbine… There are also those who would prefer to see one as it instils confidence in the energy resilience of their prospective local community. The numbers or percentage of such folk will I believe significantly increase over time. Woodborough Village does command a significant price premium due to its beauty, but much of the landscape will be forced to change anyway over the lifetime of this item. You seem not to factor ‘peak oil’ and its effects into your view… I don’t understand this.
3) “Inaccurate photo information” – Under pressure (only!) it was admitted by WACAT at the last meeting that their leaflet and those images were hurriedly put together and inaccurate. It was also stated that the aim of the material was “to get the tills ringing” and to “kick start the campaign” … This speaks for its self!
The new pictures WACAT have done are great! The turbine looks marvellous! But considering previous intentional or accepted inaccuracies it is hard to have faith in WACATs material.
4)public support- “Woodborough PC does not represent the majority of the views of the people in Woodborough who have an opinion on this matter.”
I question your powers of telepathy here! You are probably right to claim that the majority of folk who have attended the meetings are against the idea, but to assume this correlates to a wider consensus is biased. You assume that folk who have an opinion are against. This is clearly an assumption, and does not take account of the nature of folk… Objections are always more vocal. Thankfully I believe this is understood by planning departments nationwide.
“How can it be that WPC voted against 2 small turbines because of the impact on green belt, but in favour of a larger more invasive turbine?”
Perhaps they saw sense?
“ Thankfully the views of the individual members do not count for much in planning terms but the 1200 individual letters sent to Gedling BC certainly do.”
Sadly many of these will have been sent on the basis of inaccurate info put out by WACAT. But true… Folk’s views should be noted, but on occasion, national targets should override local views. And locals should on occasion be governed, by those in possession of wider views. The glairing lack of awareness of the ‘peak oil’ issue by WACAT for instance should help illustrate the unsuitability of some folk to make collective decisions. Doubtless folk in planning departments are less cerebrally sheltered.
“Where are “the local jobs ” going to be created by the granting of permission as alleged by the applicant?” I don’t know that… I’m sure the applicant has a plan… But I don’t care really… Where were the jobs created by the mobile phone masts or the Dorket Head mast… And did anyone care about that? This is an example of folk who are against the idea searching for a crack in the application… And they are entitled to do so… But really… do you actually personally care? Would you support it more if there were 3 full time turbine assistant posts created? I personally doubt it…
b)”The bat survey says that “due to the lack of available water source ” threat levels to bats is low to medium conveniently ignoring the pond/ lake some 350m away ( at the side of the farm buildings) The turbine is between the bat roost and the water source. Why has this been omitted?” …
The pond (far too small to be called a lake) in question is (as I understand it) not a natural structure at all, having been created by the applicants for its environmental and aesthetic benefit. Water is added frequently from a bore hole to maintain its existence. If the applicants did not do this… At their own cost… I would expect that within a few weeks at most this structure would not even exist. Is this the structure to which you refer? Would it be unreasonable given the effort that the applicants have gone to to enrich this aspect of the park, that other structures may be created if required or desired? Have you discussed this idea with the applicants?
c)”Why is there no photomontage from the Calverton conservation area ?” … Is this legally required?
d)”Why is there no photomontage or noise assessment from the adjacent bridlepath Spindle Lane?”…
To avoid noise to horses? If this is your concern you may wish to consider the plight of folk in Bangladesh… And then perhaps to read a little something on morality?
e) “Have you read the green belt policy,conservation area policy and ridge line policy of GBC? This application contravenes all three.” … See local / national governance point above.
f) Are you aware that this turbine is located adjacent to Fox Wood a scheduled ancient monument and a place of great archealogical interest. Why has this not been considered ?
I do not agree that ‘it has not been considered’ but regardless… In what way do you think it should be considered?
“I could go on but if you have read the documents forensicaly with ‘an open mind’ then the points will be self evident.”
My response… is also self evident.
🙂
Regards
John Macdonald
how to get a turbine on green belt land : http://www.landuse.co.uk/portfolio/project.php?id=245
Note also no significant effect on ecology, hydrology, noise, archeology …..or anything other than visual amenity and these are nearly twice as tall !
Hi John
response to your points
1) If you attended the applicants presentation in Calverton you will have seen that there is a 15 acre area on the site where turbines can be located that is a microwave free zone. Permission was granted for 2 turbines in one area and this application is for one large turbine in a third location. All 3 turbine locations are in the microwave free zone.This zone is vertical not horizontal so height is irrelevant.
The planning applications / consents confirm the above.
2)There is no evidence to prove that house prices increase because of a turbine being built in the area but plenty of evidence to the contrary.
3)Thank you for your comments on our photomontages.They are accurate and done by professional land-scape architects . Furthermore they are technically correct and compliant with best practice unlike the applicants.
4) Unlike the applicant, we contacted every property in Calverton and Woodborough and invited everyone to a public meeting. At that meeting 90% voted against the turbine.
I assume that everyone that has a view will contact GBC to express that view.
5) you comment about local / national views and representation , I would urge you to look at the thoughts of Mark Spencer MP at the recent Houses of Parliament committee meeting on this subject http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2011-06-29a.303.1&s=section%3Adebates+section%3Awhall+section%3Alords+section%3Ani+speaker%3A24909
6)local jobs – thanks for accepting that no local jobs will be created as alleged by the applicant
7)Thanks for confirming that a local water source exists and contradicts the statement of the applicant
8)You really do a disservice to the people of Bangladesh by such inappropriate comments. No lectures on morals please.
10) Yes the photomontage of the impact on a local conservation area is required to enable the effect to be considered.
Hope the above helps you in understanding why WACAT objects to this application in our Green Belt in this superb location.
Robert Smith
Dear Mr Smith
With all due respect , your email is a litany of misrepresentations which is why I once again take time out to explain the truth of the matter.
response to your points
1) If you attended the applicants presentation in Calverton you will have seen that there is a 15 acre area on the site where turbines can be located that is a microwave free zone. Permission was granted for 2 turbines in one area and this application is for one large turbine in a third location. All 3 turbine locations are in the microwave free zone. This zone is vertical not horizontal so height is irrelevant.
The applicants have assured me that they do not believe they could apply to site multiple turbines of the proposed larger size because of reasons associated with the transmitter and its ‘paths’. This was in relation to me hoping that such future applications would indeed be possible and virtually pleading with them if possible to erect more. Given my comments re WACAT false info and deliberate marketing attempts, who do I feel inclined to trust?
The planning applications / consents confirm the above.
If however you are right… I shall personally uncork a fine vintage in celebration at some future date.
2)There is no evidence to prove that house prices increase because of a turbine being built in the area but plenty of evidence to the contrary.
This may be true today. (May…) … I believe however that property is not a short term investment.
3)Thank you for your comments on our photomontages.They are accurate and done by professional land-scape architects . Furthermore they are technically correct and compliant with best practice unlike the applicants.
You do not support your allegation and do not in any sense address my remarks re WACAT’s own misleading output… Specifically re the statement that the images were false and designed to get the tills running… Shall we try again?
4) Unlike the applicant, we contacted every property in Calverton and Woodborough and invited everyone to a public meeting. At that meeting 90% voted against the turbine.
I assume that everyone that has a view will contact GBC to express that view.
Well…. When the aim is to get the tills running on a protest campaign bank account you’d have been rather foolish not to I suppose… But what % of the total populous has joined WACAT? Did the applicant have a legal duty to do as you did and according to what statute? Do you really need me to explain some fundamentals about human nature in relation to devoting time to such matters?
5) you comment about local / national views and representation , I would urge you to look at the thoughts of Mark Spencer MP at the recent Houses of Parliament committee meeting on this subject http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2011-06-29a.303.1&s=section%3Adebates+section%3Awhall+section%3Alords+section%3Ani+speaker%3A24909
Ok…. That’s rather a lot to comment on, a 40 min speech but sure. As you wish.
Some extracts… “Clean coal is also more acceptable to constituents than erecting large wind turbines in the vicinity of their homes.”
As it was Maggie and a Tory government that largely shut the pits for political reasons WITHOUT mothballing them and preserving the accessibility of our reserves I find this an extension of the spaghetti junction of U turns which is the apparent hallmark of our political class.
Mark Spensor… Who owns a ‘farm shop’ and ‘garden centre’ and sees no hypocrisy in advocating a GM future in which Codex Alimentarius Monsanto administrated legislation will have us all at the mercy of a tiny number of seed and agrochemical companies and as dependant on fossil fuel based solutions dispite even the UN and WHO advocating localisation and small scale production to achieve the desired increase in efficiency… Has stated here a case for clean coal. And if this can be used to influence the Chinese etc and create some home grown wealth then good. But he has also missed the solutions to the problems the highlights. In my opinion this is just standard politics. Predominantly spin in a sexed up pitch for vested interests.
“Offshore wind has a role to play in assisting electricity generation but we do require that base load. I do not want to overemphasise this, but when the World cup final half-time whistle goes or when everyone wants to cook their turkey on Christmas day, we have to have the capacity to lift that generation. However, the Government currently do not have the power to control the wind and can rely only on what is available.”
Perhaps Mark wasn’t fully aware of Hydrogen batteries or Kinetic lake water batteries, but neither the applicants or myself are advocating the use of wind as the base provider of our requirement.
“I acknowledge that we need a mixed portfolio”.
Bravo Mark!
“Russia decided last year not to export a single grain of wheat. That had an enormous impact on global wheat prices overnight. I can see us in a situation in which a very similar thing happens to energy. We all remember images on the news of French lamb farmers blockading their ports and stopping imports of British lamb. Such images stick with me. Can we really depend on our neighbours when we are up against the wall?”
LOCAL COMMUNITY RESILIANCE…. I have already made this point. I’m glad Mark understands it.
“I shall now address the point raised by Graham Stringer on wind power and explain why I feel that wind power is not adequate to support our needs. Fitting clean coal technology to the UK’s 16 power plants would cost an estimated £6 billion. In comparison, 2,000 wind turbines will be put up in the UK over the next six years at a cost of £9 billion.”
Errr… So how much money did we just give to a load of banks? How much is the interest even let alone the principal? 6/9 whatever… this is BS. Hypocrisy. Any use of such petty numeric excuses has been invalidated by our so called government and their eager green blowjobs to parasitic banks.
“In contrast, Demark has the most intense concentration of wind generation in Europe. At peak output, Danish wind farms can account for nearly 64% of Danish peak power demand. That rarely occurs, but it does happen on occasion. Last year, Danish carbon emissions rose, because the Danish grid fell back on older fossil fuel generation to plug the gap left by underperforming wind farms. Danish power stations used 50% more coal than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings and wind turbines generated 21.7% of electricity, which is down from 29.4% in 2005. To put it in simple terms, when the wind does not blow, the turbines do not move and the power is not there. As the Danes have to have a stopgap base load, they use coal. Ironically, during that period, the use of fossil fuels rose, which demonstrates the frustrations with the system that we are pursuing.”
Each important function should be provided by many elements. – Permaculture… ?
This actually reinforces the idea that this turbine is a good thing whilst cautioning upon reliance upon any one solution.
Having read Mark’s comments… I don’t really see why you site them in support of WACAT. Can you explain why you did and which parts you feel were relevant?
6)local jobs – thanks for accepting that no local jobs will be created as alleged by the applicant
“I don’t know that… I’m sure the applicant has a plan”
I’m sure you will forgive me for questioning if you need me to teach you English?
Where is the acceptance you claim?
7)Thanks for confirming that a local water source exists and contradicts the statement of the applicant
A tap? Are you actually serious? The source I believe exists and have stated as such, to which you refer is a tap? It is surely sign of utter madness to attempt to site a tap in your defence?
8)You really do a disservice to the people of Bangladesh by such inappropriate comments. No lectures on morals please.
How do I? I simply state that to compare possible noise on a path to the plight of almost a whole nation is morally disgusting. I fully stand by my assertion.
10) Yes the photomontage of the impact on a local conservation area is required to enable the effect to be considered.
The applicants produced one at their own cost as you are fully aware. However… I do rather like WACAT’s as well… More the merrier I say.
I also note that in contrast to my reply here you failed to address a number of my questions… for example… In what way do you think Foxwood should be considered?
The above did not help me to understand why WACAT objects to this application in our Green Belt in this superb location. Rather it reassured me that I was right to distrust the loaded propaganda WACAT seems to seek to supplement for plain facts.
John Macdonald