VB writer Wendy Varley went along to the turbine meeting in Brighstone last night. For those unable to make it along here is her report. Ed
Wilberforce Hall was full (100+), and parish councillors sat on the stage, together with two invited senior planning officers from Isle of Wight Council (missed the intros but I think Bill Murphy and Phil Salmon, head and deputy head of planning).
The chair kept very good order, and microphones were provided so everyone could hear clearly.
My summary of the 2.5 hour meeting is very condensed and not a word-for-word transcript. The planning officers answered written questions from parish councillors, then took questions from the floor and then a mix of comments and further questions.
Questioners were asked to give names and addresses, as it was particularly a meeting for Brighstone parishioners, but I’ve excluded those details.
Q. Has there been any comparison of any other potential wind farm sites on the island to compare them to Cheverton Down?
A. Yes. Areas have been assessed according to wind speeds, accessibility and ease of connection to grid. Most potential sites fall within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), as does Cheverton. Those outside AONBs towards the east of the island are in more densely populated areas.
Q. Can planning officers give an overview of the stage of development of other types of renewable energy; will they be ready in time to make a contribution to 2020 renewable energy targets?
A: Some very large offshore wind farms exist and more are planned (one being considered off Dorset coast).
Tidal power is at an earlier stage of development. Can’t say what might be possible in the next 10 years.
But the regional targets for Hampshire and Isle of Wight cannot include offshore renewables. Targets are for onshore renewables.
Q. Cornwall Light & Power (CLP) commissioned their own environmental impact assessment (EIA). Is that usual?
A. Yes. Planning authority then has to consider it and check it’s met all the requirements.
Planning has already identified a few areas where extra info will be requested. Landscape (more accurate before and after photomontages needed of some views); some extra info needed on noise on public rights of way; and more info on archaeology.
Q. Decommissioning of turbines: if time-limited consent is given for eg 25 years, can the applicant seek an extension at the end of it?
A. Answer was [I think] that they need to look at the time-consent issue. Not clear. Also, we don’t know what will happen in terms of energy production in 25 years’ time.
Q. Impact on tourism: not conclusive whether it would have a negative or beneficial effect?
A. Planning officers are reviewing that data in studies. Head of planning said in his experience that while the public tend to oppose developments on grounds of negative impact on tourism, that tends not to materialise. Also, many tourist destinations here and abroad are close to windfarms.
Q. In the island’s case the landscape itself is the visitor attraction. Is there evidence in relation to that and how tourism is affected?
A. Less evidence for areas where landscape is the draw but will be researched.
Q. Noise: how is it assessed?
A. Three phases: during construction; operational phase; decommissioning phase. Higher noise levels allowed during construction because it is temporary. Operating phase assessment more stringent and is looked at by environmental health.
Q. Background noise in West Wight is virtually zero. Is that taken into account?
A. Yes. The base level noise is measured at the site itself and compared to what the noise will be after the development. Recognised standards. Environmental health will check.
Q. Any data on noise from turbines of this size?
Will take into account all data on that, and impact on residents.
Council can impose complex noise conditions for different times of day if necessary.
Q. Are there wind turbines in other Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).
A. Yes. Needs to do a thorough trawl of those (though appreciates every AONB is different).
Q. about CLP’s survey on views on renewable energy; questioning validity as they apparently conducted it/analysed it themselves, therefore is it valid as part of planning application?
A. [missed answer on that one]
Q. Why isn’t connection to grid shown on plans?
A. Appreciates it would be helpful to have it but it is covered by a different part of planning system so isn’t required to be shown.
(Someone else spoke up to say CLP thought the cables would be run under the roads to the connection at Forest Road, not over the fields.)
Q. In terms of Hampshire & Isle of Wight renewable energy targets, do you know what the Isle of Wight’s share is; is there a specific figure? Do we have to accept it as an island?
A. We have given a commitment through our core strategy to contribute, though without saying what the figure will be.
Q. Someone living nearest to turbines: how does she challenge what CLP are saying about her views of the turbines?
A. Challenge it via your letter in response to the planning application so we can look at it and get additional information if necessary.
Q. Similar comment about checking noise levels for their specific location.
A. Submit in letter so environmental health can check it. Planners don’t always rely on what the applicant has submitted; they do their own checks. If people have specific concerns, please flag up in letter.
Q. Wind monitoring. Why hasn’t wind data for the actual site been submitted (as opposed to the NOABL wind averages for the postcode)? Questioner knows there is an anemometer on the site, so why no data from it provided by CLP?
A. Will check that.
Q. Thinks turbines would be closer to homes than is recommended by Scottish guidelines?
A. Please let us see guidelines you’re referring to when you send letter.
Q. Conflicting information regarding efficiency of wind turbines. Can planning officers give a definitive figure?
A. No, but will look at what’s available.
But stresses central government is committed to wind technology and continues to approve plans on appeal and wouldn’t do that if it wasn’t viable/economical. [Big laugh!]
Planning officer’s comment: Officers are assessing every letter that comes in – crossed the 1000 responses mark today (25 Feb).
Councillors (including parish councillors) are being offered a site visit to wind turbines in as similar a situation as possible – ie a sensitive area.
Planning officer suggests visit includes meeting the operator, planning authority representatives, environmental health officer, and possibly local residents’ association so we can ask: how is it for you?
Q. Any consideration of impact on property prices? Devaluation?
A. Property value is not (by law) a material planning consideration.
Meeting moved on to comments as well as questions:
Comment: Doesn’t want to downplay the visual impact for those that can see them, but supports the proposal.
EU renewable energy targets (20% by 2020) show big commitment to wind power.
We’re in the grip of catastrophic climate change.
Need to show commitment to our children, think of the future.
Urges people to support the application. [applause]
Comment: But many people’s lives here will be upset. Runs a successful b&b. People (“gentle people”) come because the island is different, small. Concerned about impact on tourism.
Comment: James Lovelock, the environmentalist/author, argues that renewable energy is a drop in the ocean re climate change. We need nuclear power and drastic reduction in carbon consumption. Wind farm would be token effort by politicians. [applause]
Q. Have CLP carried out a geophysical survey? Streams? Watercourses?
A. Environmental impact assessment includes geology and hydrology and Environment Agency will assess that.
Q. Is there a time limit within which the original [ie for smaller turbines] Cheverton permission (from 1995 updated 2003) needs to be acted upon?
A. The work has been legally commenced therefore the consented [smaller] turbines can be built at any time.
Q. British Horse Society suggests turbines be minimum of 200m from bridleways. These would be nearer?
A. British Horse Society is on list of consultees and will comment.
Q. Will the turbines need to be lit up?
A. No.
Comment: Eden Project in Cornwall is not having wind turbine.
Q. Has potential effect on modern communications been considered?
A. Submitted as part of environmental impact assessment and will be considered.
Comment: Government strategy document says that target is by 2020 to have 30% of our energy from renewables, and that we will need perhaps 4000 wind turbines across country. Many in Scotland. Though wind varies across the country at any one time, together they will be effective. Lives near Cheverton site, will be looking at them. Is looking forward to seeing them through window while washing up.
Is thinking of energy security and how energy shortages could cause war. Russia has the gas supplies. Middle East has oil. British government must be petrified about energy security. Asks us not to be NIMBYs. Credit crunch? This is the environmental crunch. We can see it coming.
Comment: Turbines wouldn’t have been v. efficient during cold but still spells this winter.
Comment: We need renewable energy that’s reliable. With wind you can’t turn off back-up power stations in background that are emitting CO2, therefore wind isn’t the solution.
Q. If you find other sites on mainland that are comparable to the Isle of Wight, would you use that as evidence to okay it? And once you’ve got three, where does the 500th one go?
A. All sites are different. If we don’t find one that’s comparable we will say that in our report to cabinet.
Comment: There are hundreds in Cumbria. Can see them from the M6, they don’t look too bad there. But it’s not affecting housing, just people driving up the M6.
Q. Will the plans be approved unless there’s good reason NOT to approve; or is the bias the other way round?
A. Will look at in relation to core strategy policy. Has to reflect sensitivity of island (AONB and heritage coast). And balance that with social and economic factors.
Comment: Quote from Telegraph about some environmentalists who have embraced nuclear power.
Q. Can planning deal with everything in-house?
A. No. Many statutory consultees. Some external. Reports back from consultees become public documents once submitted.
Q. Brighstone village design statement (recently completed) talks about the landscape character and how it can be preserved/enhanced.
A. Will take into account.
Q. What’s the cost implication of the planning application?
A. Planning authority is obligated to look at plans that are submitted. There is a related planning fee (in this case £18k??) paid by the applicant. If it went to a public enquiry that fee would not cover the full costs.
Q. House prices? Any evidence of an effect?
A. What tends to happen is when the application goes in there is an effect due to uncertainty. Afterwards there’s no or little impact.
Comment: The blimp flown by ThWART (The Wight Against Rural Turbines) above the downs last week [http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/blimp-marks-turbines-protest-24648.aspx] wasn’t flown from the actual turbine site which is 300/400m back on the other side of the scarp, sloping away from Brighstone. Instead flown on the edge of the scarp 290 metres away from where the nearest turbine would actually be. Has measured the angles. Meant that from the middle of Brighstone village, the blimp looked 70% higher than the actual turbines would look in the correct position. The exaggeration less evident the further away you go (eg looking from the coast).
Comment: ThWART did ask permission to fly the blimp from the site but conditions imposed too strict (ie it should be white and flown at hub height, not tip height). The ThWART blimp is orange. So they went as close as they could (and flew at tip height).
Meeting ended with thanks given to council officers for attending and answering questions. Agreed it had been very useful.
Everyone present had a slip on which to state their opinions to the parish council which would consider its response at its meeting on March 11 (they have been granted an extended deadline).
Individual comments to Isle of Wight council should still be submitted by end of Friday 27 February.
Image: .Martin.
