The Isle of Wight Planning Committee meets at Carisbrooke High School tonight to consider the revised plans for three wind turbines on Cheverton Down.
VB are reporting live from the meeting for the benefit of those unable to attend.
Please refresh your browser to see the latest updates. We will endeavour to report presentations and discussions as accurately as possible. Text surrounded by ** and () signifies comments. [18:26] Tons of cars here …
Loads of people in the hall. Some councillors declare an interest.
Cllr Scoccia – Knows an objector. Cllr Dyer has left the hall. Big projectors screen has dropped. Councillors coming down to watch.
Phil Salmon (planning) to present.
He says – Lots of correspondence from people and it’s taken a lot of officers’ time. Have used a number of consultants.
Map on the screen now
*BTW – David Pugh also here – didn’t notice if he smiled at me*
Site being shown on the screen. Base level of the turbines “already stands at 180m above sea-level”. Bridal ways a foot paths now being shown. Closest bridal way 125m away.
Photo montage shown.
More photos being shown from the road level, with houses and the hill in the background. Photo with a V90 on it – making a joke about the height of the grass in the foreground *funny*
There has been a site visit to Cambridgeshire to see wind turbines
4,800 homes would be powered
14,750 CO2 saved
[18.30] Update 1
Dept of energy figures consulted. One ton is the weight of the gas – about a hot air balloon’s worth of CO2. 14,750 tons of CO2
Small domestic car – 3.5 tones of CO2 year (at 1,000 miles/month)
Humans create 5.5 tons by themselves. V90 (the Vestas wind turbine) the concrete base is 4.5m diagonally, 45m blade.
There’s a hut to have the equipment in.
Photo of a V90 in Peterborough. Photos of planning committee at V90 site visit (in Ramsey). A photo montage of V90 on site being shown.
[18.35] Update 2
One on right is near bronze age burial ground.
*Some laughter at the photo of montages of V90s – as you can’t see them. Mutters in the audience*
Control building plan being show – rectangular plan with pitched roof.
Routes for blades being shown – Highways have been involved. Blades from Medina Wharf.
Loads of swept path analysis images – of journey of blades.
[18:41] Update 3
Temporary removal of a stone wall by farm and permanent removal of a tree.
Moving on to evaluation and planning considerations.
“Renewable energy is a very emotive issue”
Key to planning consideration is planning frame work. Under those are a number of key considerations.
Seven listed
_Principle of Development
National Policy Framework (Lots of energy papers)
2010 – 10% renewable energy
2050 – 60%
Those from Energy White Paper 2003
2006 – the applicant don’t have to demonstrate need (it’s assumed)
Regional Policy Framework (FOR SOUTH EAST)
2010 – 5.5%
2020 – 10%
2010 target for IOW/Hants 115MW
As of June 2007 0.96MW
2016 IOW/hants 112MW
only 8.05 planned for 2010
Officers don’t have an objection to this
[18:50] Update 4
There is existing permission already.
_Landscape & Visual impact
PPS22 – rough summary – designation of area are not affected, hub height of 30m, 23m blade, up to 600Kw of energy.
Photo of planning officer standing in a deep hole.
Drawing of V90 vs exisitn permission (about 2.5 times the height). Comparison with St Thomas’ (35m high)
Map drawing of visual impact. Consultant produced it for IWC planning.
Loads of text on the screen – the analysis. Assessment of viewpoints around the Island.
“magnitude of the impact”
Detailed topographic map (undulations). Trees and buildings are not taken into consideration.
Loads of maps with colours showing how many turbines would see from different areas.
Summary – people would be able to see the turbines.
[19:00] Update 5
Photos of the landscape on recent site visit “clearly the views from Cheverton down are impressive”.
Landscape conclusions – the site is a sensitive landscape “a low capacity” for hiding them.
“Officer concluded that there would be a significant impact”.
_Ecology and Nature Conservation
Impact on wildlife. Peregrine Falcon Buzzards flight paths & “other extensive mapping” (Pretty quickly gone through)
It’s been demonstrated that there will be no significant impact – except on bats.
Natural England hasn’t worked out their answer yet.
Planning have added another reason for refusal – not enough info provided.
_Highway Impact
3 month construction.
*Incredibly detailed description of temp road closures needed*
_Noise Issues
PPS22 mentioned. Two noise source with wind turbines – blades turning and gears at top of tower.
Estimates have been made. A noise control map is now being shown.
All residential properties are within acceptable levels.
Suggestion to introduce a noise abatement for T1 (turbine 1)
Conditions would be applied if passed. Environmental officers – public right of way wouldn’t be affected.
_Heritage & Archaeology
Archaeological survey now considered acceptable. Sensitive locations on visual impact.
English Heritage have given a list of about 8-10 properties of theirs as a visual impact.
Northcourt particular interest. “Sensitivity of that site would be impacted”. Other sites wouldn’t have any impact.
[19:10] Update 6
_Socio Economic benefits
Impact on tourism is uncertain – some papers are +ve other are -ve As a planning authority we can’t quantify.
Manufacturing benefit is is uncertain – although R&D is mentioned.
Officer thinks that there is no overriding fact.
(Socio Economic reasons could override all other planning objections)
Other issues raised – but rejected.
_Proposed reasons for refusal
“clear, robust and evidence based”
*For detail, see the planning paper*
Suggesting that other reasons are not used by planning due to possible reject at appeal.
Some polite applause after Planner finished
Break on now
**Back soon**
[19:26] Update 7
All but one councillor on the stage. Audience ready. Final councillor has been found.
*Restarting* *Public speaking next*
Opposers first. Six speakers – they have two minutes each.
John Gallimore from ThWART:
ThWART supports Eco-Island. It would be wrong to judge it as a vote on climate change or even wind turbines. We think substantial impact. We also brought up Bats, right of way and tourism.
We always maintained that this location is the wrong place
Reasonable applause
[19:30] Update 8
Malcolm Peplow: Rights of way – is greatest asset for the Island
I’ve lead many walks on the walking festival. Turbine should be 375m away (guidance from somewhere). Holiday camp owner for 35 years. He’s finished
Now Don Prescott: This is not about green, it’s about greed. Total lack of benefits for the Island.
VB interview quoted … but not credited. Pop at the politicians, etc
Over now.
[19:35] Update 9
Now Mrs Iganarski: I live at Northcourt farm. Everyone recognises climate change, but these aren’t the solution.
Our problem is the noise – it will bounce around the valley. Duration can be measured. Gun shots take two seconds to delay. Lots of our land is grade 2. Time ran out.
Applause.
Now Terry Hack: Concerned about Nimby. Term needs to be challenged. The Island is the Nation’s back yard – we need to watch out for people.
Concerned about length of time they would be there. If they’ll be gone in a couple of decades why are we throwing so much money at them. Pop at the government – why didn’t they act earlier.
Hysterical never leads to sound decisions.
[19:40] Update 9
Now Wendy Rust: I’m sure everyone here accepts Climate Change. Will future generation curse us for placing these white elephants on our Island? We must make the _right_ decision – not allow a developer to make profits short term; solutions for medium term. Wind turbines are outdated. Would have a devastating impact visually. We are having the courage to protect it.
*well presented*
Objectors finished. Supporters now.
Kerri Trickey first up: Eco Island – what kind of an Eco Island are we? Stop rejecting wind turbines. Once we have other means of generating power, let’s have those. If you against it you’re embarrassing us as an Island. The nation is looking at us now. You are the only things standing in our way. Yes yes to wind turbines.
Applause – *more than opposition*
[19:45] Update 10
Mr Arbuthnott now: Ex-Vestas employee, occupier. Felt strongly enough about the planet’s problems to occupy. People living by the sea, around the site, will be in the sea. People wrapped in their own little worlds. Image of flag by Magic Round About – getting tattered by wind.
*Lots of applause again*
Now Karena Barton: I am one small voice. I rely on you to represent me. Humans have evolved over thousands of years to react to immediate problems – not long term ones. That’s what’s causing the delays in the decisions. Our future isn’t what it once was. We live on a small Island – will be hit by problems soon. I hope the decision you make tonight will have us all sleep better.
[19:51] Update 11
Now Christopher Dodd: Fossil fuel is not sustainable – poisons air, among other things. Wind power need to be generated now. They have to be where there’s sufficient wind. Tidal rises are not under our or council’s control. The council has a statutory need to look after our health.
Now David Moorse: It’s not about turbines or not turbines. It’s about an infinite indefinite positioning of turbines (as planning has now) – or 25 years. With a 1.4m tide rise 5Km of Island would be lost. There will be considerable costs for this.
We can’t reverse climate change – but we can contribute to the reduction. [19:54:32] Simon Perry: Lots of applause
[19:55] Update 12
Finally Hugh Walding: Friends of the Earth. There’s no room for doubt that changes are happening. AONB will go from green to yellow and black – with the changes. Wind power is an off the shelf solutions. 700 letters of support – unprecedented. People don’t usually write in. Children are our future. Be Heros not Neros (while Rome burns)
End of speakers now
Chair – quality of presentations was first class
Cllr Peter Bingham up now (up to 12 mins). Personal interest live in Shorwell. We back need for renewable energy. There are schemes on the Island that would not compromise views.
There are a number of errors on the applicant’s paperwork. CO2 saving – Government publishes figures. Applicant used their own calculation – 42% higher.
No consideration of backup. Powerstation has not been considered. 4,000 billion tons of CO2 released over the globe – “this 14k would be a drop in the ocean”
We’ve studied map, the applicant has used the wrong square reference. We calculate that power output would be 19,500 MW annual. Gasification plant does about this.
Tidal power is on its way – we’re convinced that this will be better.
[20:05] Update 13
Brighstone and Shorwell – protected by conservation areas. Wolverton Manor – grade 1 listed; Westcourt – 2* listed; North Court.
Balloon flown by ThWART shows that the impact will be great. Tourism – we dispute that there would be a positive impact. Shorwell survey of B&Bs last year – 59 out of 65 said they wouldn’t come back.
10% reduction in tourist trade could lead to 1,000 lost jobs. VB interview quoted again – and not credited. Animal affected. Noise is a problem. Strongly urge rejections
*opposition now clapping louder*
[20:10] Update 14
Next speaker – Rob Sauven – MD Vestas R&D.
On shore wind turbines is the only commercial solution available today. Tidal energy is more than ten years away. UK is the only country with the tidal movement to make it work – so UK will have to pay for all development themselves. Off shore is three times more expensive than on shore. Tubrines can be removed without trace.
*shout of reinstate the workers*
R&D facility needs to see this Island stay behind us. “The Island need to set an example”
End
Now Glen Hepburn: Planning consultant. The Island is very good at reducing carbon foot print. Rubbish handling is good. Gov & council make the right noises about Eco-Island.
Core strategy consultant – “renewables is all very well, but how will the Island get there.” Planning officers have carried out a balancing act here. Discretion lies with planning committee.
Now Paddy Hodgson: Five generations of farming in Shorwell. Went to first Cornish wind turbine – were inspired. Do you believe in climate change? How much oil is left? Yes we’re in AONB – there’s a chalk and gravel pit there too. We have to progress and make sacrifices.
Wind power is now. Other tech will follow. We must strive to use our own resources.
One turbine would need 1.25 articulated lorries of oil to generate the same power. Eco Island – let us do this for our children and the future of the planet.
[20:20] Update 15
Finally Steve Allen (Cornwall Light and Power): 1995 & 2003 planning consent for three turbines already.
Proposal 10 times power and savings. R&D for Vestas will be limted is refused. Current planning could allow turbines to run for ever. New permission would be for 25 years. £15,000 community fund made available. AONB – would remain beautiful. TV aerials are 180m high – much taller. This is an opportunity for the Island to send a clear message.
*end of speakers*
[20:23]___Debate of planning committee now
Mr Murphy (planning). Will address five specific points. Principle of wind energy. There is objection in principle against wind power. No need to justify need. Some objectors suggested energy efficiency and use of other technology – advice – don’t use. Officers are very aware of the wild life in the area. Bats is the only area of concern. Further evidence being gathered to present to Natural England re bats. If appeal came up, we wouldn’t contest Bats reasoning.
Environmental impact – Officers are satisfied that notice measurements have been properly accounted for. Not a reason to refuse. We are balancing – government needs and the visual impact of AONB.
Officers (with consultants) have reached the conclusions that there would be a visual impact.
Have heard references to flying balloons – I’d recommend caution of using this. Balloon does not equate. Finally – material point – current doesn’t have a time limit. It could be there as long as they wish.
[20:33] Update 16
2003 application does have a significant number of conditions – these would be carried over, if this application is successful. Mr Murphy finished
*Planning comm discussion begin*
Cllr White – Planning permission has been in place for a number of years, but why hasn’t it been used?
Murphy: Commence condition. It has commenced. It’s now live. It’s now at the discretion of the applicant. Granted application has lower power return – commercial decision, probably.
Phil Salmon: 1.8MW for old. 9MW for new.
Cllr ?? – Noise. Map looked like it worked in perfect circles. Would it not be affected by lay of the land.
Murphy: I shared your concern at the simplicity of the diagram. Quite right that it’s not regular. Sound is a complex area. In general the diagram gives you an indication. It can’t be 100% accurate.
In certain conditions, south of the site, in a high wind, there could be a noticeable level of 5-10 dBA (below 5 dBA is unnoticeable). Adjusting the blades would stop this and can be incorporated.
[20:45] Update 17
Cllr Scoccia – I’ve listen carefully to the speakers tonight. Planning officer did well to .. and I read the report. Also read lots of article over the previous months – recognise that we must all do something about carbon footprint. These “giant turbines” are under discussion today. Could make a big contribution to Island’s CO2 level. When we saw them in Cambridge, I thought they were massive. I do think that they’re elegant. They were on a flat land in an industrial park.
Site visit we did on the Island made it clear that there three turbines would be very visible. Our wildlife concerns me.
I believe it’s our AONB that must be protected. I’d even be saying that even if I believed the figures.
I think we should be looking at smaller turbines to provide personal energy. I put forward that we go with officers recommendations – refusal.
Chair: Need a seconder
[20:50] Update 18Cllr ??: I’m happy to do that. I was born in Cornwall, 21 years on the Island now. I support onshore and off shore turbines. We must not bury our heads in the sand on the Island. We must get our emissions down. We are well behind on our target. I’d like Southampton University to give us a assurance in what they are up to.
I’m a full believer in tidal power. If we can put millions in to saving the banks, surely we can put money into tidal power.
Tourism – turbine might enhance tourism. Fully in favour of wind power – but this isn’t the right place.
Cllr Barry: I’m Born & Bred. I think the Island is beautiful. Being beautiful won’t stop us slipping in to the sea. I believe we should vote for this. If someone is Brighstone has their view spoilt, so be it.
*applause during that one*
Chair: Please hold back applause until they’ve finished speaking.
Cllr Hollis: Let’s get back to the application. Where do we see them sited?
“I do not believe that putting a wind turbine on an AONB is the right thing to do”
We have to do away with the emotion and look at the facts. I shall support the refusal.
[21:00] Update 19
Cllr Hobert: While I support renewable energy, I’m not particular pro or anti wind turbines. Why on this site? I can see that doing it at sea is a good idea. Brown field site would be better.
Do the Island companies that don’t invest know something that we don’t know?
Cllr (green tie bloke): in 1995 I was against the original planning. Shorwell council objected, AONB wasn’t mentioned.
How times have changed. I now think they are beautiful. Much better than other ugly items around the area. It is an AONB because it’s been looked after so well by generations of Islanders.
Originally I was going to suggest refusal – now with the weather I feel I must support.
Cllr Knowles: I think it’s nonsense to refuse on visual grounds. This applications uses new technology, a ten times increase. Cheverton Down is a perfect site. Objectors will be a handful of land owners.
[21:10] Update 20
The application is a mere 25 years. I’m disappointed by the committee – 4.5 members on the committee have all sung from the same hymn sheet. It’s getting boring. I’d like to support the application – but I just know how it’s going to go.
Chair: This is a cross party committee. Each member can vote on their own.
Knowles: Committee should be balanced
Going to the vote:
Cllr ??: If it went in favour, would the officer invoke the cooling off procedure?
Chair: If it goes in favour, I’d look for a second suggestion.
Murphy: Cooling off period – exceptional circumstances only. A ‘perverse decision’. In this context, I wouldn’t use the cooling off.
Cllr Hollis: So we’re clear in our minds. Can we be clear what the planning reasons are?
Vote:
6 with planners
3 against
Application rejected
Image: Lazlozian under CC BY-SA 2.0
