Another wind turbine planning app refused (Updated)

Big surprise as planning officers change their recommendation to a refusal just before the meeting. No surprise as councillors vote seven to two to refuse the application.

Last night, the Isle of Wight council’s planning committee voted seven to two to refuse (detail of who voted what below) a planning application to place a wind turbine at Betty Haunt Lane, Newport.

This follows in the pattern of total refusal of wind farm applications by the current council administration to date.

In a surprise move, the council’s planning officers switched their recommendation just before the last night’s meeting from supporting it with ‘conditional permission‘, changing it to a refusal. The CP tweeted that Head of Planning, Bill Murphy said, “Officers recommend refusal for the sole reason of adverse noise impact.”

ThWART opposed
The Island’s anti-turbine campaigners, ThWART, campaigned hard against it, as they have against all recent turbine planning applications. 350 letters were received by the council about the application, with nearly all of them opposing it.

Islanders’ react on Facebook
As the planning committee was in session, we asked On The Wight readers on Social Media, “Anyone taking bets on the outcome of tonight’s planning meeting about wind turbine at Betty Haunt Lane?”

Islanders’ thoughts on Betty Haunt Lane wind turbine app

On the evening of the planning committee making their decision on the application to erect a wind turbine at Betty Haunt Lane, we asked "Anyone taking bets on the outcome of tonight’s planning meeting about wind turbine at Betty Haunt Lane?"

Storified by On The Wight· Tue, Jan 08 2013 00:01:37

already dead and buriedKevin Barclay-Jay
It’s always No.Vix Lowthion
THWART are too well organisedKevin Barclay-Jay
peeps against it are just stupid,Terry Lem
Yes do it put them in regardless!Nicola J Henry-Mildenhall
It’ll always be a no, remember most of the councillors are dinosaurs and even the sight of any modern structure (not made larger than 2 stories high and with 4 windows) scares them.John Williams
how can we say we live on an eco land when there’s hardly anything eco about it ! Derrick McElhinney
What’s the point of going. The narrow people of the island will never let it happen. I belive that it is best for everyone to let the planning be forced through before this island stutters to a complete halt.Dan Snow
I hope it goes through, but as Kevin Barclay-Jay says THWART are too well organised. I see no-one from Eco Island has done anything publically to support this. I thought as a Community Interest Community, meant to represent the community, it should work with the Islanders who support this, and help get it through.Hermit Rock
I really think to the point more people should be going and asking the question "why not" this ecoisland needs more people to stand up to the co and give more e! If ya’ll get what I mean.Nicola J Henry-Mildenhall
We need wind turbines. How can an Island with a wind turbine industry generate such a narrow minded group that protests too much?!Andrew Cooke
all in favour of wind turbines in the right place with maximum efficiency.Becky Haydock
I would love to see loads of windturbines all over the isle Of Wight and a massive wind, tidal and wave farm out at sea powering the Island. Now pelt me with tomatoes for being so inconsiderate and insulting. ;-) xTim Charlton
The place will be full of Nimbys Darren Preston-Ward
Offshore needs wind turbines, not the Isle of Wight. The Isle of Wight is a tourist destination and an area of historic natural beauty. There is plenty of evidence showing wind turbines depress a tourism-based economy (that would be the Isle of Wight). They will also have a considerable SUBJECTIVE impact on our landscape. Some people will like it (the vocal minority) and some people will not like it.Do we need job losses? Gurit and the other turbine blade manufacturers have already given us plenty of those after a brief period of bucket and brush labour. Now they seem to ship so many people in on the Red Jet that they need to run a bus to Cowes to staff their R&D plant. Why aren’t they offering packages to these people to relocate to the Island and bring their (higher than average) incomes to the Island? Or maybe they are? Are they?Maybe if we continue to help the off-shore turbine industry deploy offshore turbines it will be less of an issue about how we MUST have ostentatious on-shore turbines. We don’t need them and last I heard the grid can’t use them due to the large amount of solar that’s already installed and generating in a hard-to-spot kind of way.Maybe we should concentrate on building skills in solar PV on the Island instead of contentious turbines?Thomas Cowley
We NEED turbines !!!Michael ‘Largey’ Large
There is a massive wind farm in the Lake District. It’s had no visible harm to tourism. Infant it had become a boom as visitors love it xAngie Bolton-Cox
Pfft there’s always one huh!Nicola J Henry-Mildenhall
Bloody Masons! They rule the Island, and even have pretend organised debates to make it look like they are on the side of the public. Everything on this island is already pre-planned like it or lump it!Kay Ounsworth
totally agree we should have some turbines….i certainly dont think they are an eyesore, and can only be a good thing for the island.Diane Cohen
Get em built before its too late!Paul Newton
If we build it……they will come!!Darren Donkersley
Future for my kids and grand kids, or burden on some dinosaurs eyes? Hmmm?!?Paul ‘Macleod’ Magee
Hope people get this worked up about fracking as that is gonna be a real threat to our beautiful island, with its history of causing earthquakes and polluting water supplies. Wind turbines and tidal power are the way forward. Lets set an example and stand up for a greener future :)Joe N Laura Mason
Bring on the turbines.. So sick of people moving to the island to retire etc then thinking they can dictate what happens here.. Don’t like it don’t move here.. Simples….Stacy Jardine
love it or leave it I say !!Paul Spirit Chaser Morgan
im an islander and whats wrong wind turbines they wont put them up to many narrow minded people around.i would have one in my back garden if it saved me money.Janique Snudden-perkins
I failed my 4th driving test because of Betty Haunt Lane. More chance of me passing that than a positive outcome on the decision of future wind turbines on the Isle.Elaine Pitt
turbines please :) , lets face it we will see a "no" but ^^ i count more for than the one against . i would sooner have a turbine next door than a nimby .Stephen Smith
i think they should put them in anyway cause…A) the people who wouldn’t come because of them are the stuck up stuck in the mud nimby’s that nobody really likes anyway.and B ) the reduction in tourism would be balanced out because we’d all have much cheaper electricity :)its WIN WIN :)Bruce Steers
What Joe said!!Dave Rudman
Denyed.. Wouldn’t surprise me.Kayleigh Richter
Oh FFS! *excuse my language*Kayleigh Richter
hey at least there were two this time , shame on them tho , pitifull example of leadership and or representation .Stephen Smith
i’m getting messages about the island being a world leader ( blade dynamics story ) yet i feel so ashamed of my council .Stephen Smith
OK, pardon my ignorance in such matters & how these processes work. How do we actually go about getting a vote "for" turbines? Was the voting just within the council itself? At school I couldn’t see much point in learning politics but now……Dave Rudman
Why do you people want turbines on-shore?Off-shore they can be bigger and have a more consistent wind to drive them.Why apart from ‘we need them!’ which is unreasoned and emotional, do people think we actually need to have turbines on-shore on the Isle of Wight, instead of off-shore, with other less intrusive generation methods installed on-shore and near to the shore?Thomas Cowley
most of the applications for the turbines to be sited on the island have been for research purposes , however why would you not want them onshore as well as offshore , onshore requires less foundation , it is easier to service , it requires less cabling , it is not an eyesore they are quite beautiful . why have city’s onshore , why have farms onshore , why have anything at all onshore ? if you followed thwarts logic 150 years ago then we would have no telephone or power network . please corect me if i am wrong people , i’m not an expert just using my brain to think of reasons on the spot and i’m always happy to be told i’m wrong if i am .Stephen Smith
Shame but by no means the end…..Whats that song again…..oh yeah………….. ‘Winds of Change’………..sooner or later the younger generation of this Island will have their say & bring this Island out of the dark ages. Its time to think of the future of this Island for our children & not about the now becasue if we dont act & change stupid attitudes of what looks nice for our Island, if re-newable energy isn’t grasped by us all soon there wont be much beauty left to admire! Selfish & narrow sighted people who are only concerned of what currently impacts thier own lives & not what impact our decisions are making for generations to come. You Nimby’s make me sick!Darren Donkersley
It’s ok having off-shore but again it will be the same people coming up with a silly cliché name that resembles TW*T whining again because on land it as a visual impact in there view over ANOB land that happens to be there back yard. and off shore no doubt it will be interfering with there sailing calendar or destroying views when there out at sea from there yachts or gym palaces or it will be a danger to navigation or some silly technicality like "the light on top of it is the wrong shade of red causing the common moth to gather in there hundreds and fly rampant round it and in turn causing several to be sucked into the cooling vents causing a short out which in-turn causes a fire and the thing to explode and land on there heads". so all in all it’s a no win on land or off shore for the island. yet the council promotes its self as "GREEN" but refuse any green energy alternatives unless it can hide behind a postbox! And where’s Eco-island in all this I thought they would be fighting the corner for alternative energy. But Until we get the dinosaurs out of county hall and vote in people with a broader view and balls to stand up against these people/nimbys and force the plans through this will continue and it’s down to us to vote in the right people. Sorry rant over!Richard Wood
Not surprised but unbelievable that these nimbys got so much power.Irene Craig
can the councillors be named that voted for and against so we can vote them out at the next election.Irene Craig
and conversely i would like to thank the two who voted yes .Stephen Smith

Councillors that voted for and against
Votes against refusal

  • Mr Reginald Barry (Lib Dem)
  • Mr Paul Fuller JP (Ind)

Votes for refusal
The councillors listed below are on the planning committee.

  • Mr George William Cameron (Con)
  • Mrs Vanessa Claire Churchman (Ind)
  • Cllr Richard Hollis (Con)
  • Mrs Julie Marie Jones-Evans (Con)
  • Mrs Susan Jane Scoccia (Con)
  • Mr Arthur Taylor (Con)
  • Mr David G Williams (Con)

Update 11:11 Cllr John Vere Hobart (Con) didn’t vote as he is the local Member. The Chair, Cllr Hollis did.

Image: Vaxomatic under CC BY 2.0

Location map
View the location of this story.

Wightfibre sponsors the Isle of Wight News by OnTheWight

Tuesday, 8th January, 2013 9:17am

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/2aop

Filed under: Carisbrooke, Green Issues, Isle of Wight News, Planning, Top story

Print Friendly

.



45 Comments

  1. Angela Reed's comment is rated +6 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 9:33am

    I spend a lot of time in Gran Canaria where they have lots of wind turbines. I do not have a problem with them. We have to make use of natural resources. How we can refer to the Isle of Wight as an Eco Island is laughable.

    Reply
  2. yjc's comment is rated +5 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 9:50am

    ECO-ISLAND DO NOT SUPPORT BIG WIND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  3. ThomasC's comment is rated +5 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 9:57am

    Once again folks seem to be missing the point that we have multiple megawatt field-scale solar PV installed across the Island already. We ARE an eco-Island.

    Solar PV delivers a highly predictable flow of power to the grid (it needs light, not sun). It does not have the highly visible impact of ostentatious turbines that the ‘something must be done!’ brigade want to see.

    Green power can be environment friendly as well as environmentally friendly.

    Turbines offshore where the most consistent wind resource is? Yes please.

    Around the IOW’s AONB and putting jobs in tourism at risk? No thanks!

    Reply
    • martin william wareham's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 10:27am

      Thomas have you been to Cornwall Wind turbines have really hurt the Tourist industry not.More people going on holiday every year to Cornwall plenty of land based Turbines and don’t they look good.Solar onshore and offshore bring it on.Eco-Island my posterior.

      Reply
      • ThomasC's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

        8.Jan.2013 11:01am

        Martin, I’ve been to Cornwall, I’ve been to Wales, I’ve been to the Eifel Mountain region in Germany. I’ve seen the turbines in all of these areas. Very few of them are as big as the turbines that keep being proposed for the IOW.

        There are only 10 turbines in Cornwall that are as big as the one monolith proposed for Betty Haunt Lane. Cornwall is a much bigger area than the IOW, so has the space to accommodate such features.

        With all those turbines Cornwall is only generating twice what the IOW solar PV capacity is at.

        Cornish stats are from a document provided by Cornwall Council BTW.

        Cornwall also benefits from Assisted Area status within the EU, which props up their tourism industry with big wedges of cash. The IOW doesn’t get that – thus our jobs are at greater risk than Cornwall.

        So, on to more about tourism and turbines – look up the Study prepared for Isle of Anglesey County Council
        by The Tourism Company – in interviews about tourism you will find around 18-30% negative response to whether tourists would return to a location if turbines were installed.

        Now you can look at it another way – 70-82% of tourists were positive about wind turbines at their holiday destination.

        So, this leads us to a question from objective and carefully prepared results of studies around the UK: can the Isle of Wight tourism industry handle a further reduction of 18-30% in visitor numbers, if those who don’t like the impact on the landscape either don’t visit, or don’t return because of the turbines?

        Try to remember that the turbines don’t bring many, if any additional jobs to the region. Neither do solar PV installations, but they are extremely unlikely to cause people not to come back as they’re barely visible.

        Things ‘looking good’ is entirely subjective. Planning is based on largely objective reasoning.

        Martin, I hope your posterior is issuing forth into a bio-digester – that would help form part of the eco-Island – your uninformed spoutings certainly belong in a slurry digester.

        Reply
        • martin william wareham's comment is rated -1 Vote +1 Vote -1

          8.Jan.2013 11:27am

          Thomas Cowley how rude see you soon.

          Reply
          • ThomasC's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

            8.Jan.2013 11:49am

            See me soon? Do I know you? I don’t believe I do – I do know who you are though (there’s a big difference).

            Is your slightly threatening ‘see you soon’ comeback just because you don’t have any reasoned response to my points?

        • Superman's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

          8.Jan.2013 12:46pm

          “With all those turbines Cornwall is only generating twice what the IOW solar PV capacity is at.”

          Where have you got your figures from ThomasC?

          Reply
          • ThomasC's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

            8.Jan.2013 1:26pm

            Superman – the figures for Cornwall’s output are from Cornwall Council’s document about the future of wind power in that county.

            See it here:

            http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=25182

            IOW Figures are based on the field-scale solar PV installations which I’m aware of, that are online already.

            Generally the expected output is stated on the planning applications. Most field-scale are 5MW each, which is the maximum allowed for a specific tariff band. Some of the IOW solar PV installs are delivering above the expected yield as well.

            Lest we forget, all this fuss is over one turbine (a Vestas V52 model), which has an output of 0.85MW. This is basically the equivalent of one smallish field of poor quality agricultural land having solar PV installed on it. Given the rate of installation the applicant could have a live solar PV site generating by now, if they weren’t hellbent on installing a turbine.

            How green is the decision to chase an inappropriately located turbine instead of solar PV?

        • No.5's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

          8.Jan.2013 1:07pm

          It is irrelevent how much energy is provided with comparison to other energy sources….no one source will provide energy requirements at todays levels, so we need a combined energy project that includes onshore, offshore, tidal, solar, nucleur etc etc to even get near to the required figure.

          Hopefully in 25 years time we can have sorted the problem out and all these turbines can come down…but rejecting them all now is ‘head in the sand’ ideology

          Reply
          • ThomasC's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

            8.Jan.2013 2:54pm

            I absolutely refute it’s ‘head in the sand’ – their generation characteristics are well known as are the problems associated with turbines.

            There’s nothing ground-breaking about installing a huge turbine at Betty Haunt Lane – it’s just poor positioning of a generation unit.

            Look at the number of assessments that have to be provided in the planning stage – flicker, noise, overall environmental impact – these things have a huge impact on those living nearby – we don’t need them on the IOW to prove that, it’s well known!

            As you’ve suggested – a combined approach is needed – there are plenty of other generation solutions that are more in line with the environment of the Isle of Wight – they are less obtrusive and have far less impact on the Island.

            The biggest issue here is that wind turbines have become the sacrificial lamb – look they’re turning them down AGAIN – aren’t the planners evil!

            Actually it’s possible the planners know what they’re talking about and have figured out they’re not suitable for the very small-scale countryside of the Isle of Wight. That would be why they’re turned down.

            Bring on sub-sea tidal turbines instead (not a Solent barrage – that’s over-kill and would probably cause a lot of environmental damage, too). These would go virtually unnoticed and be highly effective.

            If you MUST have turbines then site them in mid-Wales, where they can be in a landscape on a much grander scale and also where they’ll be miles from anywhere AND there’s an established precedent for them being in the landscape.

    • peaceful_life's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      9.Jan.2013 3:30pm

      To imply that the island is Ecologicaly minded is quite frankly…..not true.

      The vast majority of the islands power comes from the national grid which is not ecological.

      Transportation (including ferries) is fossil fuel consumption and the cycle tracks aren’t directly linked to all towns and villages.

      The food system isn’t localised and is as hydrocarbon based as any major city.

      Granted….to be truly globaly ecological we would have to burn virtually nothing, so not easy to achieve, but to think of the island as ecological (even compared to other places) is simply kidding ones self on, and the laws of physics don’t care for our sense of humour.

      Reply
  4. cynic's comment is rated +5 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 9:58am

    Surpise! Surprise! Or is it? Check out the predominant party allegiance of the councillors whose wards could be affected and then look at that of the refuseniks. :-))

    Reply
  5. cynic's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 10:11am

    @Angela Reed re wind turbines on Gran Canaria

    Take a look at fotos of Gran Canaria wind farms on the website below and note the comment “and never too far away from people’s homes.” and “landscape of intimacy with residential areas.”

    http://www.stacey.peak-media.co.uk/GranCanaria2008/WindFarm/GCWind%20Farm.htm

    Reply
  6. adrian nicholas's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 10:38am

    Unsurprisingly, a straight comparison with track record of turning down of wind-turbines and those favoured dirtier environmental schemes such as Stag Lane biomass and the Asphalt plant – might indicate that the property values and scenic views of certain Tory & Thwart areas are rated apparently far higher than the greater number of less market valued properties and residents in the larger urban conurbations of Newport/Cowes – not forgetting the ‘aesthetic’ environmental -ie ‘view’ considerations of the well heeled and tory association funding residents as prioritized over 450 existing local jobs- lest we forget the former Vestas fiasco.

    Given this, representation seems uncannily to echo coalition social exclusion policies unless profit for those so deemed prioritized by wealth ownership and associated commercial activities within or despite the remit of ‘eco-island’.

    Reply
    • Wight Portal's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 11:06am

      Cornwall may well have them, but they don’t all love them.

      http://www.r-a-t-s.org.uk/index.html

      Complaining about them once they’re up and running is too late.
      Like Thomas says we’ve got solar running now and no ones batted an eyelid.
      How much money has been wasted on turned down applications for turbines?

      When the Government promised to back turbines 100% it didn’t consult Joe Public’s opinion. Because of little to no market in this country Vestas flew the coup.

      Reply
  7. Steve Draper's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 10:55am

    short sighted as usual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  8. Tim Sewell's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 11:24am

    A Scottish Government report on the impact of wind farms on tourism concluded “Finally this research set out to establish if meeting targets on renewables would significantly impact on the possibility of meeting tourism targets. Our overall conclusion is that the effects are so small that, provided planning and marketing are carried out effectively, there is no reason why the two are
    incompatible. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf

    Perhaps a tourism impact study should be carried out on the Isle of Wight which should also consider the economic impact of the Isle of Wight exporting energy to the mainland versus any potential impact on tourism.

    One thing is for sure, these planing decisions shouldn’t be based on the impact on a small minority who don’t want it in their back yard.

    Reply
    • cynic's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      14.Jan.2013 12:25pm

      @Tim Sewell “… provided planning and marketing are carried out effectively, there is no reason why the two are
      incompatible.”

      Ah!- there are the weasel-words! :-))

      Would closing IWC tourist offices be considered as an efficient method of “carrying out planning and marketing”?

      Reply
  9. Matthew James Martin's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 12:52pm

    I was present in public gallery and I would just like to clarify, Councillor Barry and Councillor Fuller voted against the proposal of how to refuse the application. They wanted to refuse the application on the grounds of noise alone, as they believe that this position will be more successful to defend, when the applicant goes to appeal.

    I’m only stating the above, I would have to look at the whole appeals process closer, to have a truly informed position.

    I would have liked the letter from English Heritage to be used, but it was claimed that they did not construct their position clear enough in the letter they submitted? I haven’t viewed this letter to know whether I agree with that though?

    Personally, I think as well as the other known alternatives, we should be encouraging and reviewing Off-Shore developments. Within the statistics presented in Paper A, I think they are possible question marks on how powerful Wind Turbines are, in comparative to the other renewable energy options? But I’m always willing to hear and see all sides of the debate and see all the known evidence.

    Kind regards

    Reply
    • Stewart Blackmore's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 3:31pm

      Sorry, Matthew, but you are wrong. I too was in the gallery and spoke to Cllr Barry after the meeting, and he always intended to vote FOR the application with the proviso that a condition about the noise be attached to the consent.

      The Tories then insisted that another reason (the view from the nearest dwelling) be attached which almost guarantees that this decision will be reversed on appeal. One only needs to look at the Inspector’s decision with regard to to Cheverton application at paragraph 80.

      The Inspector also found that noise levels of 35-40 dB during the day were acceptable. This is well within the parameters of the Betty Haunt Lane application and seems a sound ground of appeal, based on precedent.

      Reply
  10. watchdog's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 12:56pm

    It is a rule over most of the Continent that wind turbines are not approved within 2km of residences (there was one within 300m at Betty Haunt Lane, plus the Blacksmith’s Arms), because of the medical effects of low level rumble (and vibration out of hearing range), which is only now being taken up in medical research papers.

    There is also the question of why anyone would put up all the infrastructure of converter, grid linkage, access roads, concrete pads, just for a solitary 75m turbine with its Micky Mouse output – surely there was a hidden agenda for expansion and a desire to create a precedent for industrial machinery within an AONB.

    Councillors refused this on the precautionary principle of noise effect, but some of us will wonder why taxpayers and energy consumers should be paying out subsidies and feed-in tariffs, tax-free to an individual living in the Seychelles, who may not have any interest in preserving the IW environment or in UK energy input, but who requires it as an income stream for lifestyle purposes.

    Reply
    • Stewart Blackmore's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 3:36pm

      You might like to consider, Watchdog, that the taxpayer (you & me) will now have to commit tens of thousands of pounds in defending an appeal by the Applicant which will stand a very good chance of success based, as I write above, on the Inspector’s decision at Cheverton with regard to the acceptability of the noise levels and visual intrusion from nearby properties, especially given that this is for only one turbine.

      Also, you are wrong – the development is not inside the AONB as you state.

      Reply
      • watchdog's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

        8.Jan.2013 4:25pm

        Yes, you’re right, Stewart. But neither are Brading Marsh or Parkhurst Forest in the AONB, and we wouldn’t want turbines there any more than we want them in what was once called Carisbrooke Great Park.

        Besides, there is an impact from the AONB (Blacksmith’s Arms) and also cutting across the view of the AONB to the nroth (Thorness and Newtown Creek).

        Reply
    • greenfiremouse's comment is rated -1 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 5:45pm

      Actually, let’s get rid of another ThWART-type myth for a start: that apparently on the Continent turbines are not approved within a 2km radius from residences. This is just nonsense. I give you one example from the German coast near Ockholm (Latitude 54.663304; Longitude 8.856504) where the actual distance is about 50m. You can look it up on itouchmap.com. There are plenty more in that area – which happens to be one of Germany’s favourite holiday destinations, by the way. You’ll also find them close to residential areas in the Netherlands, Belgium, Northern France and Denmark, and it has done tourism no harm whatsoever.
      Secondly, the much quoted noise is rather insignificant as I can confirm from experience. If I remember correctly, a level of 35dB was quoted for this turbine; that is lower than the noise level in a library or that of bird song.
      Let’s face it, the more different methods we have to produce renewable energy, the better. The much promoted solar panels do not produce any power at night, but the wind still blows…

      Reply
  11. martin william wareham's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 2:47pm

    Thomas c no threat I’m very interested in the solar farm I have been going to ring Steve to ask if I can have a look and a chat about it.

    Reply
    • ThomasC's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 6:59pm

      Martin you don’t need to ask anyone to look at the solar farm – just walk on the footpaths that run alongside it – it’s quite clear when you’re alongside it. You need to pretty much be in the field with it to spot it, with the exception of a couple of the highest points in the West Wight, where you might just catch a glimpse of it.

      This is just one of the ways in which it’s very different to hulking great turbines.

      Reply
  12. Island Monkey's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 5:57pm

  13. tryme's comment is rated -1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 7:33pm

    Brilliant decision, & brilliant responses from ThomasC & Watchdog.

    Reply
  14. Matthew James Martin's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 9:24pm

    I concede what you say about Councillor Barry, Stewart,I realised a couple of hours later after posting my comment, as I then recall at the time not being 100% about Councillor Barry’s position,. Therefore I apologise and thank you for picking me up on this before I had a chance to amend my comment. I have been in attendance at Cabinet this evening, so I could not amend this mistake any sooner.

    However I have stated the correct information with regards to Councillor Fuller’s wishes and his own vote. I do take your point about the appeal process and why Cllr Barry had concerns about refusing the application.

    However we have heard this evening in Cabinet the projections of the Solent Ocean Energy Centre as far as creating renewable energy on the Isle of Wight and how there would an eventual surplus of energy in the Island grid that could be sold on.

    If we get the right people into Central Government who will create the necessary feed-in tariffs to utilise Solar panels and all forms of renewable energy, as well as continuing to build the other more powerful forms of renewable energy.

    It may take a considerable few years to find a decent majority of future MP’s, who will start putting the future and the people first, instead of profit.

    Kind Regards

    Reply
    • Stewart Blackmore's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 9:53pm

      Thanks, Matthew, I left before the discussion on the Solent initiative, but I have to say that the technology for this is many years away.

      This has been tested off the West Coast of Scotland for many years and there have been numerous problems with the technology – not least the unpredictability of the sea.

      If it can be made to work it will be brilliant but it ain’t gonna happen any time soon. In addition to that, it costs a fortune and those who are bleating about subsidies for onshore wind and solar will surely be apoplexic when it becomes viable.

      Reply
      • Colin's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

        9.Jan.2013 1:44pm

        Depends on what water based system you are talking about. There are various in Scotland. The latest attempt is to use tidal flow which is totally predictable. Ideally this is situated in a narrow stretch of water between two land masses. You will find an example of this between Glenelg and Skye by Kylerhea for four underwater turbines. This is a fast flowing reversible tidal flow and is thought to be very suitable. This is well into the planning process but would appear to be a very good option. There are a whole host of hoops to jump through before the full go ahead is given. Whether the rip tidal flow at St Catherines would be suitable remains to be seen.
        Read more at http://www.seagenkylerhea.co.uk

        Reply
    • watchdog's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Jan.2013 10:07pm

      “Putting the public first, instead of profit” is not a concept familiar to the (mostly foreign) big companies waiting to latch on to our generous feed-in tariffs for a guaranteed 25-year income stream.

      Remember that feed-in tariffs are not sustainable even at their current reduced levels. Energy companies are obliged to pay for electric units at about double what they can charge the ordinary customer. Where does this shortfall come from ? Why, not the government (= taxpayer), they are too canny to put even more on the debit side of the books – they just set the rates and leave the energy company to collect, which it does by charging necessarily inflated prices. Make no mistake: the profit made by energy companies, as a direct result of generous feed-in tariffs, comes directly from the consumer.

      Reply
  15. Matthew James Martin's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 10:30pm

    Your welcome Stewart and agreed, we are looking at 2020/2021 for the Solent Ocean Energy Centre to be up and running, unless Stuart Love can succeed in his continued attempts to motivate the necessary private companies to carry out the tests and construction sooner.

    Although we will have to wait for it to become a reality, I’m glad it will become part of the Island’s intended renewable energy programme and steer us away from finite fuels. I still think PV can be further utilised on certain Public Sector sites too.

    Best Wishes

    Reply
  16. Matthew James Martin's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Jan.2013 10:45pm

    Yes Watchdog agreed, the structure of the feed-in tariffs is concerning

    We will all need to play a role in this somehow, somewhere, throughout the whole of the country.

    Best Wishes

    Reply
  17. martin william wareham's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2013 11:34am

    My solar panels not doing very much today .Nice stiff breeze from the north east should have bought a wind turbine.

    Reply
  18. Colin's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2013 2:07pm

    Further to my earlier posting, it’s worth having a look at the Northern Ireland underwater turbine project.

    link http://www.marineturbines.com/News/2012/11/28/hat-trick-seagen-tidal-current-turbine

    Reply
  19. peaceful_life's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    9.Jan.2013 3:09pm

    Hi Mathew, could you provide some EROEI figures (inclusive of embedded from point of extraction and on-going maintenance) for a tdal turbine please?

    Given the situation….what is the propsed ‘bridge’ energy source to get us from here…..to there, and also…. what does the council have in mind for portable liquid energy that feeds a supermarket system dependent on JIT?

    Many thanks in advance.

    Reply
    • bwims's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      19.Nov.2013 5:09pm

      What a load of watermelons there are here, totally falling for the AGW scam. Folks, CO2 has been increasing for 15 years and global temperatures…haven’t.

      The peak oil theory is out of the window with the discovery of the enormous shale deposits throughout the world – which in itself lowers CO2 if that worries you.

      Instead of wasting billions and billions on the horrendously ugly, noisy, ecological disasters (do any of YOU know anything about bat migration? Neither does the government) we should be investing all of that money in finally working out nuclear fusion – the ONLY clean, inexhaustible fuel source with NO radioactive by-products.

      Incidentally, has anyone noticed how none of the applications for these horrors commits to removing the tons and tons of concrete in 25 years time? Who’s going to pay for that? Now let me see. Of course! The taxpayer!

      Reply

Add comment

Login to your account.
If you do not have an account, reserve your own name and receive exclusive special offers - just sign up for an On The Wight account

.