MAG would like to thank the Members of the Planning Committee who made a courageous and committed decision to defend local communities, tourist businesses and our glorious landscape in the face of enormous pressure to approve these applications.
We would also wish to thank the Ward Councillors and Parish Councillors who have represented our interests with such skill and vigour.
Finally, we would wish to thank all the amazing people of North Northumberland who have given generously of their talents, time and money during the last three and a half years in a determined defence of everything that we all hold dear. Thank you one and all.
Give yourselves all a pat on the back , take some time out and then prepare for the next battle. These speculative developers will not abandon the pot of gold that they see in our landscape.
We expect that they will slink away to lick their wounds, will eye up their competitors and, all too soon, will lodge appeals against these decisions.
The campaign to preserve our landscape, tourist businesses and way of life then enters upon a new phase; one that demands a highly professional approach and the involvement of expert witnesses and lawyers. This will cost serious amounts of money.
Meanwhile - a heartfelt vote of thanks to you all.
We hope we can count on your continuing support in the next phase of the battle.
As Thomas Jefferson said: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
MAG Steering Committee. 27 March, 2008.
(See: ‘Wind farms blown away’, Northumberland Gazette, 27 March 2008.
And Brian Daniel, ‘Wind farm bids rejected’. The Journal, 28 March, 2008).
“We, the undersigned, petition the Prime Minister to establish an automatic buffer zone of at least 2 km between any new industrial size wind turbine and any home.”
New petition on the E-Petitions website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/2000metres/
“Dear Mike
I am glad you agree that the council should determine the application rather than a government led public inquiry. We agree that local democracy should prevail on such projects. [Our emphasis].
Hope you have a nice day!
Best Wishes
Richard”
(Unedited email from Richard Mardon, MD of Your Energy Ltd. [the 'Moorsyde' developers] to the Acting Chairman of MAG, also copied to the Director of Development at Berwick Borough Council, Thursday, May 17, 2007; just prior to one of several attempts that were made by the Borough to force through a determination before Arup's capacity study reported (a study that was part-commissioned by the Borough).
A Planning Inspector recently rejected Your Energy’s appeal for non-determination of their revised scheme at Laughton, Lincolnshire, concluding that: “These turbines would become a new defining characteristic ... and thereby introduce prominent uncharacteristic features which would have a ‘significant adverse effect’ on the character of some landscapes.”
This is the second time YEL have lost an appeal at this site and they still, after 5 years seem unwilling to accept the decisions of local people, planners, the local planning authority and the Planning Inspectorate.
See article: Scunthorpe Telegraph, 22 April 2008.
This video shows both the noise and strobe shadow effects from large modern turbines.
The turbines shown are 102m high Enercon E66 1.5 MW models (8m smaller than the proposed 'Moorsyde' turbines); they are sited at the Wybelsumer Polder wind park near Emden in Germany.
Quote from the Your Energy’s website (removed since we started highlighting it!):
"In accordance with our site selection philosophy we are looking for sites in the semi rural / industrial areas near towns and cities ….. near other infrastructure such as commercial or industrial developments, roads and railways to help mitigate the limited environmental impacts arising from the development. By focussing development near towns or cities or close to other infrastructure we intend to minimise the chance of any noise nuisance [our emphasis]."
(Your Energy Website, 2004-2005. Now rewritten and this quotation removed!)
Just in case they have not noticed (they seem to know very little about this area), we should point out that the site area is not “semi-rural” or “industrial”. In fact it is in one of the most tranquil lowland areas of Northumberland, according to the CPRE (see website).
‘It will cost every household in the UK at least £2,000 to comply with the new European Union target of producing 15 per cent of all energy from renewable sources by 2020, according to a report commissioned by the government.
The report also says the UK will have to spend far more to meet the target than other EU countries, because the UK lags behind the rest of Europe on renewables and is a heavy energy user.
According to energy consultancy Pöyry, the bill for the UK to meet the target would be at least €5bn a year for more than a decade, compared with just over €3bn a year for France and Germany, and well under €500m for most other countries.
Energy companies are expected to pass on to consumers - who already face soaring utility bills - the costs of building the necessary wind farms, biomass plants and solar generators.
Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, says even these estimates are conservative, and fail to take into account the huge investment needed to connect new renewable and micro-generators to the national grid.
A government spokeswoman admitted that meeting the EU target would be challenging, but added: 'We must make these hard choices if we are to tackle climate change.’
(The Observer. March 30, 2008)
-------------------------See the Wind Power page for details of the great ROCS robbery.
A former chairman of the British Standards Committee on turbines, a parish councillor who has just retired from a 40-year career in the power plant industry, accuses the 'Moorsyde' developers of “circulating misleading information”:
-----------------------The Advertising Standards Agency has upheld a complaint about a leaflet produced by Your Energy Ltd. which contained misleading claims about the emissions of CO2 that would be saved by their proposed scheme for 9 turbines at West Hinkley, in Somerset.
The Secretary of State for Local Government recently ordered West Hinkley Wind Farm Ltd [Your Energy's shell company] to repay West Somerset Council the costs it incurred during YEL's appeal after their original planning application for 12 turbines, mast, and substation was thrown out.
Planning appeal costs are usually borne by the relevant parties, regardless of outcome. However, the Secretary of State can award costs on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour resulting in wasted expense.
YEL's appeal was lodged on December 1, 2005, and was not withdrawn until more than a year later, by which time the council had paid out thousands of pounds in preparation costs.
See: ASA adjudication.
See appeal story: Western Daily Press. 4 July, 2007.
13 September 2007 - Amendment to the 'Moorsyde' scheme 'advertised' (planning advertisement in the back of the Berwick Advertiser).
12 October 2007 - Deadline for representations on the amendment.
16 October 2007 - Your Energy Ltd. issue a press release announcing the amendment.
17 October 2007 - Your Energy Ltd. eventually change the numbers on the projects page of their website and put up 2 revised photomontages from Grindon and the Salutation, viewpoints on the west side of the site, the side on which they have removed turbines.
They also put up a revised photomontage from the Shoresdean viewpoint which has been widely criticised for using houses in the foreground in order to conceal turbines and which is of such poor technical quality that it 'loses' the Cheviots in haze!
An independent Audit Report on the Moorsyde application, commissioned by Berwick Borough Council, criticised its unrepresentative viewpoints, “obscured or partial views” and a photomontage size, “well below that recommended by the SNH guidance”, and which,“does not yield an accurate impression of scale”.
(See YEL's press release)
Ancroft Southmoor is one of the closest settlements to the proposed ‘Moorsyde’ array of 110m (360 ft) turbines. Your Energy Ltd (YEL) have failed to provide a photomontage from this settlement.
© 2008 Don Brownlow Photography
'Moorsyde' from Ancroft Southmoor, an artist's impression.
('Stitched' image using 5 full height images [joins marked], using Canon Eos 5D DSLR camera and 55mm lens. Turbines scaled to measured landscape features).
YEL have also failed to provide photomontages to illustrate the impacts on the other settlements that are closest to the site: Ancroft North Moor, East Allerdean and Felkington. They have also failed to show the impacts on Duddo Tower (a Scheduled Ancient Monument and key local landscape feature) and Duddo Church (Grade II listed and very close to turbine sites). They have also failed to supply any photomontages to demonstrate the impacts on users of the B6354, Berwick to Etal road, as requested early in the planning process by Northumberland County Council.
----------------------------------------(See The Journal, 18 March, for an article on Ancroft Southmoor. Reg and Tamsin Watson's plight was also featured on BBC Radio - 7 min 45 sec in).
Your Energy Ltd (YEL), over 3 years after the first version of the “Moorsyde” application was submitted, have failed to carry out an adequate visual impact assessment, as demanded by planning guidelines.
An independent audit of the ‘Moorsyde’ Environmental Statement commissioned by the Borough from consultants Ironside Farrar in 2005 supported us in our original critique of the application, finding that:
"Guidance recommends that chosen viewpoints should be of both key locations and representative locations and that limited value is gained from repeated displays of obscured views" (IF 3.3.2).
This report also criticised the contradictory conclusions in the very limited visual impact work that YEL carried out and also criticised the accuracy and scope of the cumulation work they had undertaken.
After the Audit Report, there were further criticisms from Ferguson McIlveen in 2006; this report was a very limited appraisal of the visual assessment which suggested that more relevant photomontages needed to be prepared and also suggested that further work on cumulation and landscape capacity needed to be done.
The applicant reluctantly supplied a few more photomontages, most of which were not from key viewpoints or from what are now the closest receptors. All their photomontages continued to break the SNH guidelines on size and quality.
Further revisions of the application have rendered the few visualisations within 3km of the turbine positions even less relevant.
Despite repeated criticisms of the gaping holes in the visual impact assessment, the Borough propose judging the ‘Moorsyde’ application on the basis of a number of photomontages that:
do not show the impacts on the closest receptors;
with a single exception, do not show impacts on “key views” to the Cheviots, which planning policies demand are safeguarded (the single exception is of such poor quality that it fails to show either turbines or hills with any clarity);
do not show the impacts on Duddo Tower, a Scheduled Ancient Monument within 2.5km of turbines;
do not show the impacts on Duddo Church, a Grade II listed building very close to the site;
do not meet the minimum technical standards set out in the guidelines;
are of such poor quality that it is not possible to see many of the turbines they purport to show, and
do not meet the ‘worst case’ requirements set out in the guidelines.
Your Energy Ltd. (YEL), reference guidelines in their ‘Moorsyde’ Environmental Statement for the production of photomontages and for the assessment of visual impacts which are produced by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the University of Newcastle. These are the industry's standard. YEL then produce photomontages such as the one below (downloadable from YEL's website) that break every single referenced guideline.
Copyright Your Energy Ltd.
The SNH guidelines referenced by YEL state that:
The limitations of photomontage should be recognised and acknowledged, especially a tendency for photomontage to consistently underestimate the actual appearance of a windfarm in the landscape
A natural viewing distance of 30-50 cm should dictate the technical detail of their production
A full image size of A4 or even A3 for a single frame picture, giving an image height of approximately 20 cm is required to give a realistic impression of reality. [our emphasis]
The photomontage above is 8cm in height and uses - entirely unecessarily - multiple stitched images to form a wide panoramic image. You will see that the highlighted section is the only bit of the image with turbines.
Note that this photomontage uses houses in the foreground to mask and diminish the scale of turbines. In fact, two turbines cannot be seen because of the house on the left hand side. YEL could have used any number of different viewpoints that give an unobscured view of the site. The independent Audit Report commissioned by the Borough noted that, "limited value is gained from repeated displays of obscured views."
SNH guidelines also state that:
“The quality of photographs and photomontages is very important. Photographic work should be carried out in good weather conditions, offering clear visibility. The worst case scenario of turbines seen against a strongly contrasting sky (e.g. Bright blue or dark grey) should always be shown.”
Nearly every single one of YEL's photomontages fails to meet this requirement. They also break the rules by not presenting a ‘worst case’ view of a turbines face-on to the viewer. In YEL’s photomontages, the closer the turbine is to the viewpoint, the more likely it is to be shown side-on.
You might have noticed that the Cheviots have ‘disappeared’ in the Shoresdean photomontage. The base photo was taken into the glare of the sun at midday with the result that the hills are almost invisible.
The more suspicious among you might possibly think that this is not unconnected with planning guidance that appears in everything from landscape appraisals to local and regional planning documents; all refer to the protection of views to the Cheviots.
For example: “In the north of the Borough turbines should be sited so as not to impinge on principle [sic] views of the Cheviots.” (Regional Renewable Energy Strategy); “Development should not impinge on key views where the distant rounded hills (The Cheviots) form a dominant focus.” (Newcastle University Landscape Appraisal); ) “...The area’s simple undulating form…allows fine views across to the Cheviots from the network of straight roads.” (Arup Report); “the intention will be to ensure that development proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the long range views important to the character and quality of the Borough landscape.” (Local Plan).
At MAG&’s fete we held a ‘spot the turbine’ competition to find the turbines listed in 3 of YEL’s photomontages. Nobody succeeded in claiming a £5 reward despite the provision of magnifying glasses and other visual aids.
Both the images below have been taken with a standard camera lens. The top image shows how developers use multiple images stitched together to produce wide angle images that understate the visual impact of turbines. Your Energy Ltd. have done exactly this with the 'Moorsyde' photomontages.
The second image shows a single image reproduced to the same recommended A3 size. Remember: “A full image size of A4 or even A3 for a single frame picture, giving an image height of approximately 20 cm, is required to give a realistic impression” [Our emphasis].
See: 'The Visual Issue' - Architech Animation Studios (UK) Ltd. (April, 2007) for a full explanation (PDF download).
© Architec Animation Studios Ltd.
An independent Audit report on the ‘Moorsyde’ Environmental statement by environmental consultants Ironside Farrar stated, “Guidance recommends that chosen viewpoints should be of both key locations and representative locations and that limited value is gained from repeated displays of obscured views” (IF 3.3.2).
MAG, a community response group depending on donations from local people, can manage to produce clear photomontages that meet the guidelines. Why can’t YEL?
© 2005 Don Brownlow Photography.
'Moorsyde' scheme from the Plough Inn, West Allerdean.
(Artist’s impression using single, cropped background image, taken with 6 x 7 cm SLR camera using standard 105mm f/2.4 lens with a 46° angle of view. The 110 metre
The lack of clear images of the 'Moorsyde' scheme in the application documents is demonstrated by the fact that Scott Wilson ‘borrowed’ MAG’s photomontage for the cover of their ‘Moorsyde Wind Farm - Addendum: Issue Report’.
They have since issued a written apology and compensated MAG for the unauthorised use of this image.
In Planning Policy 6, Renewables, the Scottish Executive has a recommended separation distance of 2km for large wind farms, which they define as having a headline capacity of 20MW (‘Moorsyde’ had a capacity of 38.5MW when the planning application was submitted):
PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Scottish Borders Council, when consulted on ‘Moorsyde’, stated:
“...this site would not be supported were the proposal to be located in the Scottish borders, primarily by virtue of its landscape character.”
(Alistair Lorrimer, Asst. Head of Development Control, SBC.22 February, 2005. Moorsyde planning file).
SOUL (Save Our Unspoilt Landscape, the Barmoor Anti Wind Farm Group) and MAG got together on Tuesday 11 December to fly three large blimps in order to demonstrate to members of Berwick Borough Council's planning committee the height of turbines at the three wind farm sites in the north of the Borough.
© 2007 Don Brownlow Photography
Dawn launch next to 'Moorsyde' site.
Members of the planning committee were undertaking a site visit to the area of all three proposals. The 'Moorsyde' scheme is for seven 110 metre (360 ft.) turbines on both sides of the Etal road between the Plough Inn at West Allerdean and Duddo; Toft Hill would see seven 112 metre (367 ft.) turbines between Grindon and Shellacres; the Barmoor proposal is for six 110.5 metre (362 ft.) turbines in the area between Barmoor Castle and Roughting Linn.
© Crown copyright 2005.
Reproduced from OS 1:250 000 mapping (Licence No. 100044197).
1 grid square = 10 kilometres.
We thought it important that Members and Officers of the Council had an opportunity judge the height of turbines from something else than photomontages. Best practice guidance on visual impact assessment states: “The limitations of photomontage should be recognised and acknowledged, especially a tendency for photomontage to consistently underestimate the actual appearance of a windfarm in the landscape”. (See article below).
© 2007 Don Brownlow Photography
‘Moorsyde’ blimp from the Plough Inn, looking south to Ancroft Northmoor and the Cheviots. The blimp was flown from a site 400m. east of the actual turbine sites and close to the average height above sea level of the actual turbine positions (and several metres lower than the higher ones).
It took considerable effort to book the blimps, arrange permissions from the authorities to fly three blimps at very short notice and arrange for their safe launching and security, but we were heartened by the numbers of local people who volunteered their time and money to make it possible. We are especially grateful to the local farmers who made it possible to fly from their land, close to the actual turbine sites. Developers make it legally impossible for turbine site landowners to agree to blimps being flown from the actual turbine sites; they think that showing the real height of modern industrial turbines is damaging to the prospects of an application!
Developers are required to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments. The more naive amongst us might think that they ought to be required to fly balloons from the actual turbine sites. This would help the planning authority and the public to judge the potential visual impacts in the real landscape rather than from artificial constructs such as photomontages which need expert interpretation and which are known to understate the impacts.
That this is so is shown by the fact that the case officer who was accompanying members attempted to cast doubt on the height of the ‘Moorsyde’ blimp, not understanding that YEL’s photomontages are of particularly poor quality and severely understate the visual impacts unless held at an unfeasibly close viewing distance, at which it is impossible for the average person to focus! He thought the Toft Hill blimp looked “about right” - probably because their photomontages are of much higher quality than YEL’s!
Astonishingly, the detached 'Moorsyde' case officer, who prepared the Officer's Report for the abortive 12 December planning meeting, has admitted to his ignorance of the SNH guidelines which are the industry standard for visual impact assessment and the preparation of photomontages. They are referenced as such by Jacobs Babtie who prepared the Moorsyde ES (even though they then proceeded to ignore them!).
In an email to an officer at the Berwick planning unit he writes:
“... the SNH guidelines mentioned by Babtie (Glasgow based consultants) [Your Energy's consultants for ‘Moorsyde’] are, I presume, referring to ‘Scottish National Heritage’ - if so, what relevance to [sic] they have for Berwick-upon-Tweed? (If SNH means something else, please advise as the initials do not mean anything else to me.)”
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington; 29 January 2007. Copy in 'Moorsyde' case file).
© 2007 John Ferguson
‘Moorsyde’ blimp from Coldharbour, looking NNW over Bowsden Moor to Shoresdean and Old Shoreswood.
Both groups have flown balloons on previous occasions but this is the first time that we have got together to fly several balloons at the same time.
© 2007 Don Brownlow Photography
Toft Hill blimp with some of the launch crew.
A spokesman for SOUL said: “The very short warning we had of the site visit prevented us from flying the Barmoor blimp as close to the turbine sites as we would have liked, but we hope that Councillors will get an idea of the scale of turbines in this unspoilt landscape.”
© Don Brownlow Photography
Barmoor blimp with some of the SOUL crew.
Both groups made every effort to ensure that Councillors were not disturbed on their visit. We did not publicise the visit or the balloon flights in advance, fearing that some of the people whose lives and property have been blighted by these applications might seek to voice their anger directly to Councillors while they were trying to go about their work.
All three blimps were flown again on Saturday 15 December. Unfortunately, visibility was fairly poor.
North Pickenham, nr. Swaffham, Norfolk
125m (410 ft) Vestas V90 Turbines
(Full frame 35mm DSLR camera, 35mm wide-angle lens).
Please note the white van next to the closest turbine, this gives an idea of the size.
© 2007 Don Brownlow Photography.
There are more images of turbines on our Gallery page.
A little over a week after the abortive planning meeting on 12 December 2006 that was supposed to decide the 'Moorsyde' application, Scott Wilson/Ferguson McIlveen wrote a letter to the Berwick planners making excuses for their 'FerMac' report (Ferguson McIlveen. 'Moorsyde Wind Farm Planning and Visual Impact Appraisal, Revised Draft, November 2006').
The report consists of a rudimentary review of some of the planning policy with reference to the application and a brief review of some of the photomontages. Comments were based on an "independent fieldwork assessment" which consisted of a single visit to the site area.
This is a report that MAG only managed to get after 5 written requests and a Freedom of Information Act submission. The Borough had first assured us that a "Final Draft", dated "October 2006", which appeared on the public file in late November 2006 was the final report, stating: "[we] checked that the report in the public file is the final version. It is however entitled "draft final report", which both we and they [Ferguson McIlveen] accept should simply state 'final'." The Borough, and the report's authors, seem not to have noticed that this report referred throughout to 14 turbines when the scheme had been amended to 10 turbines in July 2006.
In January 2007, the Borough reluctantly supplied MAG with a "Revised Draft" of the report dated "November 2006" which had corrected the numbers of turbines but still managed to get things like the date of the 'Moorsyde' planning application, the capacity of the revised proposal and the names of local villages wrong. We were assured by the Borough Solicitor that this was the 'Final Report'. However, the report was only finally 'finalised' in March 2007 when Ferguson McIlveen/Scott Wilson rewrote the introduction to try to justify their handiwork.
The final 'Final Report' still contains the ludicrous and unevidenced "initial thoughts" of its authors that: "It is considered that 2-3 medium sized wind farms (up to 15 turbines each) could be accommodated within the landscape of the wider Berwick-upon-Tweed area." The report's authors were, of course, labouring under the misapprehension that the 'Moorsyde' proposal was for 14 turbines, and their "thoughts" fit that figure nicely.
Half of the 'FerMac' report is a "planning appraisal" of the application. The rigour and accuracy of this is revealed in its authors' misinterpretation of Policy 42 of the RSS Draft Submission regarding capacity. This misinterpretation, shared by Your Energy Ltd. and the detached case officer in Darlington, had already been explicitly contradicted by the findings of the Examination in Public of the RSS that were published by the North East Assembly in July 2006:
"some renewable energy companies believed that this policy [42b] implied that the designated areas could accommodate a number of 'medium scale' developments ... the definition of medium scale set out in paragraph 3.141 (20-25 turbines) and carried forward into Policy 42 related to the total capacity of an area and should not be regarded as an appropriate scale for individual proposals."
(NEA. 'RSS Examination in Public March-April 2006, Panel Report, July 2006').
So, FerMac's findings directly contradict the Regional Spatial Strategy and, more recently, the findings of the Arup Report which set an overall limit of 15 turbines and a maximum individual proposal size of 6 turbines.
It seems astonishing that professional consultants can, in a report that sets out to review planning policy affecting the proposal, come up with such a result.
The letter from the authors of the 'FerMac' report effectively disowns it - see the second paragraph:
"As you are aware, we were required "check" the validity of the both the [sic] Farrar report [Ironside Farrar's Audit Report on the Moorsyde Environmental Statement] and the original landscape impact elements of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and as an outcome of this we endorsed some of the comments on landscape impact or visibility , and queried others, recommending production of additional photomontages. Hence that section of our report [Ferguson McIlveen Report, Final Draft, November 2006] was called a "visual impact audit" and contrary to what Dickinson Dees [MAG's solicitors] state, it does not "purport to constitute a visual impact assessment." Indeed, a full Visual Impact assessment would have been unwarrented considering the existence of the two previous reports. Accordingly our report is quite short because it is effectively an "assessment of an assessment." By contrast you will find that our report on the Barmoor application is more substantial.
"Nonetheless we have to say that had we been made aware as soon as the amended scheme (from 14 to 10 turbines) had been received, the likelihood is that we would have recommended a full re-assessment (visual impact assessment, photomontages, ZVIs [zones of visual influence] etc). Learning of this change only after we had produced our report has left us in a somewhat invidious position."
(Letter from Scott Wilson (Incorporating Ferguson McIlveen) to John Hayward, Head of Development Services, Berwick Borough Council. 22 December 2006).
It has to be asked why Scott Wilson are not demanding "a full re-assessment" now, when there has been a second amendment to the scheme.
In spite of the fact that the authors of 'FerMac' were trying to distance themselves from their own report, the consultant at BHP in Darlington, appointed to act as case officer for all wind power station applications in the Borough, admitted that he had recommended approval of the 'Moorsyde' scheme on the basis of this discredited document. He admitted that he had done this without properly studying the Ironside Farrar Audit Report on the 'Moorsyde' Environmental Statement which 'FerMac' claimed to build on. The Ironside Farrar report contains major criticisms of the way the visual impact assessment was handled by the applicants and underlines the major adverse visual impacts of the scheme.
The 'FerMac' report states: "The findings of the Ironside Farrar audit in relation to the Baseline Conditions are, in our opinion, correct.", and continues, "The findings of the Ironside Farrar audit in relation to the description of the Predicted Impacts are also, in our opinion, correct."
The 'FerMac' report states that its authors agree with Ironside Farrar, but then contradicts itself by concluding with unsupported recommendations that are totally at variance with those of Ironside Farrar, a report that they claim to uncritically accept.
Unfortunately, the detached case officer relied on the unevidenced conclusions of the discredited FerMac report when he recommended the approval of the Moorsyde scheme, and failed to consider the conclusions of the Ironside Farrar report or the detail of the applicant's own Moorsyde Environmental Statement, claiming:
"My understanding had been that the FerMac report was requested to address issues arising from the Ironside Farrar report and that it had done so. In preparing my report back in November, and owing to time constraints, I had concentrated on the FerMac report as regards visual impact and had only skimmed the IF [Ironside Farrar] report."
"This had led me to the conclusions as previously stated when I considered that the application could be taken forward to determination with a favourable recommendation." (Our emphasis).
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington [case officer for all Borough wind power applications] to Liam Henry, Borough Solicitor, 25 January 2007.)
Disturbingly, as late as 28 June 2007, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the detached case officer was still continuing the Borough's attempts to discredit Arup and was claiming that the 'FerMac' report should be given more weight than the Arup report:
"I think we will have to be very careful in deciding what weight to place on the Arup report, Scott Wilson is likely to be more significant and they have already spoken on Moorsyde!"
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington [acting as case officer for all Borough wind power station applications] to Joan Rees, consultant acting as Development Services Manager, 28 June 2007.)
MAG is very concerned that the 'FerMac' report is still being used as the keystone of the so-called visual impact assessment of the 'Moorsyde' application. From the evidence of the case files, the consultant acting as case officer continues to ignore Ironside Farrar's independent Audit Report, the Arup report and, indeed, the evidence on visual impacts in the applicant's own Environmental Statement.
The consultant's reaction to Northumberland County Council's (NCC) response to the belated consultation on the July 2006 amendment to the 'Moorsyde' scheme to 10 turbines is all too typical. This was written prior to the Arup report which states (section 5.5) that, in just 2 other potential ‘W’ areas in Northumberland, there are at least 31 places in which wind farms would cause less visual blight than in the South and West Berwick area and which found that the area could accept a maximum of 10 to 15 turbines:
"I also note form [sic] recent emails that the County Council are still being awkward - however the issues they still raise have been addressed and both John Hayward [former Development Services Manager] and I were and still are happy with regard to the photomontages and visual/landscape impact."
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington [acting as case officer for all Borough wind power station applications] to John Hiscox, planning officer, Berwick , 24 January 2007.)
NCC's response seems to have upset the consultant because it again recommmended refusal unless the proposal could be shown to accord with Policy M4 of the Structure Plan:
'To advise Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council that planning permission should not be granted unless it has been demonstrated to their reasonable satisfaction that:
having regard to Policy M4 of the Structure Plan, the scale of development proposed and its proximity to nearby dwellings would not result in significant and adverse impacts arising in terms of its effect on landscape character and capacity, visual amenity and living conditions nearby;'
The photomontages that the detached case officer is so happy with were the subject severe criticism in the independent Audit report by Ironside Farrar which complained of unrepresentative viewpoints, "obscured or partial views" and a size that is, "well below that recommended by the SNH guidance", and which,"does not yield an accurate impression of scale". Ironside Farrar also criticised the Environmental Statement (ES) for its visual impact conclusions and recommendations:
The conclusions are very misleading, i.e. that there are major landscape and visual impacts that cannot be mitigated. The emphasis is on how the landscape can accommodate the proposals and how distance will reduce impacts to negligible levels. (Ironside Farrar, 3.5.2).
Exactly the same criticism can be levelled at the Officer's Report to the planning committee in December 2006, where the detached case officer misrepresents the RSS and even downplays the findings on visual impacts on local communities in the applicant's own 'Moorsyde' ES.
MAG has now (December, 2007) submitted an analysis of Scott Wilson's 'Moorsyde Wind Farm Addendum: Issue Report, August 2007' to the planning authority (see the Planning Response page).
1. Ironside Farrar. 'Moorsyde Windfarm ES Audit Report, Final Draft (November 2005)'.(Word doc.).
2. 'Fermac' Report, 'Revised Draft' (November 2006). (PDF file).
3. 'Fermac' Report, 'Final Report' (March 2007). (PDF file).
4. 'Moorsyde Wind Farm Addendum: Issue Report, August 2007'. (PDF file).
”The fact [that] Felkington is on a low lying plateau means the wind conditions are relatively low”. (Bill Richmond, Your Energy Chairman. Berwick Advertiser, 20 October 2004).
“The excellent wind speed at the site ...” (Your Energy spokesperson, 'Proposed wind farm turbines scaled down', Northumberland Gazette 4 October 2007).
Until recently, YEL boasted of their policy of picking cheap and easy development sites with low wind speeds:
“Historically, wind farm developers have chased the windiest sites to optimise returns... Your Energy believes that the Renewables Obligation [subsidy system] together with technological advances allow a new approach ...”. (Your Energy Ltd., 'Moorsyde' Brochure, 2004)
“The main considerations for us are the access and this site is relatively easy to get to ... It is also reasonably close to Berwick which means the connection into the transmission system is relatively straight forward.“ (Bill Richmond, Your Energy Chairman. Berwick Advertiser, 20 October 2004).
Your Energy was recently found guilty by the Advertising Standards Authority of "misleading" people over carbon savings. The Gazette statement goes beyond misleading people - it is blatantly dishonest.
(See below for more about the ASA adjudication and YEL's dodgy output figures which recently featured on 'Costing the Earth' on BBC Radio Four).
People attending the Wandylaw planning meeting heard a representative of developers RidgeWind Ltd. telling Councillors that the project would have a capacity factor of “40%”. This occasioned howls of derision from the audience as many people are aware that the highest capacity factor achieved in the North East has been 32-33% at Tow Law and that 40% has only been achieved at some of the windiest sites in the UK, mostly in the North West of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Even turbines at Bowbeat (Peebles), Soutra and Crystal Rig, high in the Borders hills, fail to reach 30%.
NPower's Head of Consents, John Ainslie, told the Middlemoor public inquiry that their scheme, next door to Wandylaw, would have an average output of, "between 25 and 35 per cent".
Even this is thought to be exaggerated. Dr John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, has presented evidence at the inquiry which was particularly critical of the company's predicted energy yields - around 27.3 per cent - which he said was not based on site-specific measurements of wind resource, but on a national average.
After the Wandylaw meeting we asked the gentleman who had come out with the 40% figure whether he could produce any evidence for his assertion and were told, in no uncertain manner, that the figures were “confidential”. Wind developers can get away with playing this game because they always claim "commercial confidentiality" when they are asked to justify their claims, which, almost without exception, are found to be wildly exaggerated when turbines are built.
Nigel Goodhew, Director of Ridgewind Ltd. was subsequently quoted in the Journal as saying, “During the appeal process, we will continue to work hard to counter misleading information about wind farms we have seen recently which only deflect reasoned discussion away from the genuine merits of the project.” Perhaps Mr Goodhew might start by correcting the “misleading information about wind farms” presented to Councillors by his company.
‘The large subsidies paid by British electricity consumers to fund the drive towards wind power are generating sizeable profits for existing wind farm owners without producing many new turbines.
‘The UK needs a massive expansion of wind energy to meet government climate change targets, and the amount of subsidy paid to renewable electricity generators through consumers' electricity bills will rise from more than £600m ($1.2bn, €800m) a year to £3bn a year by 2020.
‘But the format of the subsidy system, known as the renewables obligation (RO), combined with bottlenecks in the planning system, mean these cash injections are simply enriching the operators of existing wind farms well beyond their expectations.
‘“The RO is a very expensive way of providing support for renewables,” said Andrew Wright, managing director of markets at Ofgem, the electricity regulator.
‘The RO requires electricity suppliers to derive a proportion of power from renewable sources, penalising them if they fail.
‘Wind farms and other renewable energy generators receive RO certificates for each unit of electricity they produce, which they can sell. The cost of buying these pushes up the price of electricity for consumers.
‘But high electricity prices mean wind farm operators could be making enough from selling electricity alone to be almost profitable, while the amount they receive from RO certificates in effect doubles their income.
‘Peter Atherton, head utilities analyst at Citi Investment Research, said: “It's a bonanza. Anyone who can get their nose in the trough is trying to.”
‘[...]’
(See full article: FT Com [Financial Times], February 4 2008).
Yet another wind power scheme is being investigated by E.On UK (owners of Powergen) on land near Ancroft Northmoor just to the east of the 'Moorsyde' site.
The 'West Ancroft' proposal for 10 turbines is in the early stages of 'scoping': the developers are consulting with the planning authority and other bodies before carrying out a full environmental impact assessment.
You may wonder why developers are still plotting new schemes when Arup has advised on tight limits to the numbers of turbines in this area, limits that should, in theory, not even allow the currently planned turbines to be built and which the 'Moorsyde' scheme is clearly breaking, even with a reduction to 7 turbines.
There are two views:
if 'Moorsyde' was refused because of, amongst other things, its poor design, proximity to settlements, visual impacts on historic buildings and views to the Cheviots, then E.On would be in position to step in with a smaller, better designed scheme that is more sympathetic to the environment and local communities;
if 'Moorsyde' was approved, the local landscape would be damaged and any arguments for its protection would then largely be lost. In nearly every other area, immediately the first turbines have been built, the developers start lining up to submit 'me too' applications and plans to extend the existing scheme. We suspect that Arup's findings would soon be forgotten in the rush to turn the area into a 'wind power landscape'.
If you think this wouldn't happen - look north to the Lammermuir Hills which are, supposedly, a designated area of 'great landscape value' (AGLV). There was originally a plan for "just 25 turbines", at Crystal Rig. The planners have now consented a total of 124 turbines in the area with plans for another 48 soon to be heard at a public inquiry; other schemes are being investigated. (See the Windbyte website).
This programme goes right to the heart of the onshore wind problem, looking at the Renewables Obligation subsidy that has fuelled the frenzy of onshore wind development and the basic failure of onshore wind to perform to the forecasts that the industry sold to Government prior to the 2003 Energy White Paper.
A Your Energy spokesperson makes an inglorious appearance, trying to explain why their only working wind power station has a capacity factor of only a little over 18%, while trying desperately to avoid telling the interviewer what the measured wind speeds on the site are (having just told her that they have been monitored for years and justified the choice of site).
The broadcast also features Malcolm Wickes, the Energy Minister, telling us how the subsidy system is now "more sophisticated" although Ofgem, the industry regulator, and the Carbon Trust have condemned it as ineffectual and a huge waste of consumer's money (see the Wind Power page). The Minister also delivers the most blatant whopper that has been heard on Radio 4 in many a year: "In the UK we have achieved average load factors of 40 to 46% in terms of wind turbines." (Check the Government's own load factor figures on the Wind Power page!)
Essential listening - tell your friends.
The Danish Government is reported to be preparing a proposition to compensate people when property values are damaged by proximity to large wind turbines.
There has been considerable resistance in Denmark to the replacement of older arrays of small turbines with modern 125 to 150 metre monsters. Connie Hedegaard, the Liberal Environmental Minister, is quoted in Weekendavisen newspaper as saying: "If you live near a new wind turbine, you should be able to receive economic compensation from the state. But note that it is only if one can document that they've suffered a financial loss from the placement - in the same way as those who live close to a new motorway."
Hedegaard has called together the mayors of 22 cities to discuss the issue in August and to work out the details of such a plan.
(See full story in Copenhagen Post online, 30 July 2007).
Here, the British Wind Energy Association is still pretending that turbines don't affect property prices. Lately, they have been claiming that, "A new report from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and Oxford Brookes University has blown away another myth about wind farms – their impact on house prices."
The facts - as usual with the BWEA - are somewhat different:
This very limited study looked at two Cornish sites with turbines half the size of the ‘Moorsyde’ variety, and actually found that: “Terraced houses sited within 1 mile of a wind farm were observed to be 54 per cent lower in value and semi detached houses within 1 mile of the nearest turbine were 35 per cent lower than similar houses at a distance of four miles.” Losing a third to half the value of your house because you are near an array of small wind turbines is hardly proof that property values are not affected!
Admittedly, this study found that the picture at greater distance was more confused. Much of this confusion was, as the authors admit, caused by their choice of study area.
The BWEA choose not to mention the highly qualified conclusions of this study: "Because of the limited data available the findings require a degree of caution. ... The study itself may be seen as inconclusive as there was limited linear relationship between house prices and distance. ... this is only one study, and as more wind farms are built, more property will become proximate. Therefore, a cautious approach should be adopted until a larger and more in-depth study can be undertaken."
(Report is available as a PDF download from the RICS site).
'CONGRATULATIONS to The Journal on their extensive coverage of the issue of wind farms.
'There seems to be a clear majority of opinion against wind farms in rural areas, particularly among local residents, community groups, countryside lovers and organisations such as ours, which wish to promote Northumberland as a place to visit.
'Those in favour include some farmers and commercial companies who stand to make substantial commercial gains from the erection of wind farms (particularly under the current high subsidy regime), and some environmentalists.
'Research done by a variety of organisations among visitors supports the “antis” in suggesting that visitors are less likely to visit areas of natural beauty if they are covered in wind farms and therefore the visitor economy, which is extremely important to Northumberland, will suffer.
'Of course, in some areas we have huge structures that already destroy what would otherwise be beautiful views. I am not talking about factories such as Egger, which blots the approach to my local market town of Hexham, but the miles of electric pylons linking various grids to towns and cities across the North-East.
'Bill Bryson, the recently nominated president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, quite rightly said that the Government missed a trick when electricity was privatised in the 1980s by not insisting that electricity companies pay a small proportion of their turnover towards burying cables.
'There is, I think, an opportunity for the North-East to use the fact that we have some of the most beautiful countryside in Britain, the most tranquil spots in which to chill out and relax, and the best night skies (with the least ambient light) to promote the region as being not only the greenest (including cleanest air, less traffic and so on), but also the region that has the greatest concentration of research and development companies developing green technology and practice (the centre for renewable energy at Blyth is a good example).
'If we are to be the greenest region, then this needs to become a key focus of the regional development agency and the North-East should become one of the main trial areas for new technology, such as wave energy.
'To do this we can’t have a blanket view that wind turbines are bad, but what we need to do is to locate them in suitable settings and locations (so that they enhance the area or provide an exciting panorama, as I believe they do in Blyth) and avoid destroying beautiful vistas in Northumberland.
'MICHAEL J PARKER,
Chairman, Northumberland Tourism Ltd,
Micklewood House,
Longhirst Hall,
Morpeth,
Northumberland NE61 3LL'
(The Journal, Letters, 23 July 2007).
'The local tourism board for Northumberland has come out strongly against windfarm development which could impact on Northumberland as a top holiday destination and has called for an urgent independent study.
'The plea from Northumberland Tourism comes in the wake of a rush of renewable energy applications across the county. There are currently eight 'live' applications with another 17 in the pipeline – totalling nearly 300 turbines. Campaigners said that plans for 24 turbines near Haltwhistle would be seen from the World Heritage Site of Hadrian's Wall.
'"Most people come here because of the wonderful natural environment and this is in danger of being blighted by so many windfarms," said Northumberland Tourism Chairman Mike Parker.
'Recent research by VisitScotland revealed that 38% of visitors said that windfarms "spoiled the scenery" and 26% said they would be less likely to visit an area if wind farms were developed. Tourism businesses said they must not be near areas of historic value, tourist spots, view points, wildlife areas and places of natural beauty. "These are alarming findings," said Mike Parker. "They show the potential damage they could cause. We want more visitors to come here – not less. We need the impact on tourism to be an integral part of the planning process."'
(Berwick Advertiser, 14 September 2006
In a recent adjournment debate on the effects of the Regional spatial strategy in the North East, Alan Beith warned of the effects that the RSS was having on our area:
(See: They work for you site, 14 June 2007.)'One other element of the regional spatial strategy that is causing anxiety to many of my constituents is the vast number of wind farm applications. The reason that we are getting so many in the beautiful area that lies between the area of outstanding natural beauty and the Northumberland national park is that it is an area of least constraint in relation to wind farm applications. That is not simply a bit of gentle guidance to planning authorities to consider each case on its merits, but is having the effect of funnelling lots of applications into the area. Local planning authorities do not have the capacity to cope with those applications—they do not have the staff to deal with them, still less the large developers that they face. One of the effects of the strategy has therefore been to place an unreasonable burden on giving proper consideration to wind farm planning applications in a beautiful area where each case must be considered extremely carefully. The risk of harm to the landscape, the environment and tourism must be placed against the objective to expand our renewable energy generation.'
While people argue over percentages and numbers of visitors that would be lost when wind power stations are operating, nobody mentions the two years of planning blight that has already been caused by wind power proposals in this area.
MAG has seen numerous examples of people postponing or abandoning plans for investment in tourist businesses in this area because they have no confidence that a business venture will thrive or even survive in the vicinity of one or more arrays of 360 ft. high turbines.
Unlike the wind industry's dodgy opinion polls, this loss of investor confidence in the area is a demonstrable fact. Wind power planning blight has already cost the rural economy of North Northumberland dear and has damaged the already slow recovery from foot and mouth disease.
The economy in Berwick borough was already struggling:
A study published by the Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne on the fifth anniversary of the foot and mouth disease outbreak (see below), reported that household incomes in remoter rural areas have continued to lag behind the national average. The worst affected counties (Cumbria and Devon) are falling ever further behind national economic growth rates. Even more worryingly, rates of new business registrations are declining in remoter rural areas for the first time in a decade.
We have seen no evidence that the North East Assembly, the strategic planning body with direct responsibility for the present policy of large scale, onshore wind development or One NorthEast, the agency with specific responsibility for regeneration and tourism, have undertaken any economic analysis of the effects of wind power on tourism and the regeneration of rural Northumberland.
It seems that even Your Energy, the 'Moorsyde' developers, recognise the possible economic impacts - but not in Northumberland where they have refused to address the issue:
"The presence of wind turbines in cherished environments is a sensitive issue and evaluating the public perceptions of wind farms is important in order to identify the anticipated effects on tourism, local prices of property and housing and the general perceived effect on lifestyle and quality of life. These elements will be addressed in the Environmental Statement using research conducted on similar schemes in representative locations that are comparable to the Isle of Wight." [our emphasis]
(Your Energy Ltd, updated Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, West Wight Project, Isle of Wight. March 2006)
The detached case officer for the 'Moorsyde' application, who is based in Darlington, dismissed the issue of the effects of the 'Moorsyde' turbine array on local tourism in just three sentences in his Officer's Report to the abortive planning meeting of 12 December 2006. He devoted more than twice as much space to its effects on TV reception!
'Impact on tourism
No response has been received from the Northumbrian Tourist Board [sic]. Arguments from some objectors that the wind farm would will harm tourism within the Borough have been countered by submissions from some supporters that the wind farm would not stop them visiting the area and some have indicated it would be an attraction. No empirical evidence has been submitted to support either argument.Accordingly, it can only be concluded that there is no evidence that the proposed wind farm would harm tourism within the Borough or the wider area.'
Comment: 'NTB' should of course be 'Northumberland Tourism'. They did submit a highly critical response but it was misfiled, as was a submission from the CPRE.
An equally critical response from the North Northumberland Tourism Association was lumped in with objection letters from the public and ignored, as were the many reasoned letters of objection from tourist businesses expressing the views of their customers.
There were hardly any mentions of tourism in the few letters of support (as opposed to pro forma, pre-written 'letters' submitted from the 'Yes-to-Wind' street stalls run by Your Energy's undercover agent, Richard Claxton), but the officer diligently searched for them while ignoring the many detailed submissions from tourist businesses in the Borough.
Even more disturbingly, the officer has replied to a question on the Council's views on the effects on tourism by forwarding four pages of highly selective wind industry propaganda copied from the Wandylaw Environmental Statement which can be summarised by its opening sentence: "There is no evidence to suggest that the presence of wind turbines affects tourism." (Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington; 10 May 2007. Copy in 'Moorsyde' case file).
He then forwarded some British Wind Energy Association propaganda material on the subject from Your Energy Ltd. to the same correspondent with the comment:
'As regards the information provided in my e-mail of 10 May and in particular the applicant's response to some of the questions previously raised by yourself, I would inform you that my view does not differ to the answers provided ...'
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington; 16 May 2007. Copy in 'Moorsyde' case file).
In his report to the Planning Committee on Wandylaw, the Darlington consultant is slightly more cautious in his pronouncements on the effects of wind turbine arrays on tourism, but again presents a totally unbalanced review of the evidence which effectively repeats his endorsement of the wind industry's views. (See Officer's Report).
'A Wind farm company has been told to pay £10,000 to the council that refused its plans to set up a site in Somerset. The Secretary of State for Local Government ordered West Hinkley Wind Farm Ltd [Your Energy's shell company] to repay West Somerset Council the costs it incurred during an appeal against a planning decision.
'The company appealed after proposals for 12 wind generators, mast, and substation on land near Hinkley Point Power Station were turned down.
'Planning appeal costs are usually borne by the relevant parties, regardless of outcome. However, the Secretary of State can award costs on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour resulting in wasted expense.
'The appeal was lodged on December 1, 2005, and was not withdrawn until more than a year later, after which time the council had stumped up thousands of pounds worth of preparation costs.'
(See full story: Western Daily Press. 4 July, 2007).
'... in Scotland, recent research from the Edinburgh Solicitors’ Property Centre (ESPC) focusing on property sales near Crystal Rig wind farm in the Scottish Borders found no evidence of a negative impact on the price of property in nearby areas. The ESPC study found that prices in the village of Dunbar ['town', please!] had risen from below to above the regional average over the past four years, during which time the wind farm was built, and that since the wind farm began operating, property price inflation in Dunbar has continued to exceed that achieved across East Lothian."
'[Chris] Tomlinson [Director of Programme Strategy at British Wind Energy Association] concluded: “This new research is yet another nail in the coffin of some of the exaggerated myths peddled by opponents of wind power.”'
(BWEA, New research blows away myths on wind farms', 28 March 2007)
Local readers will know that the failure of the Crystal Rig turbines to affect house prices in Dunbar might have something to do with the fact that, as the 'survey' admits, the existing turbines are 7.5 miles away in the Lammermuir Hills. They are not visible from the town.
The increase in house prices in Dunbar might also have something to do with 'the Edinburgh effect': property in Dunbar is especially sought after by Edinburgh commuters. You would have thought that the Edinburgh Solicitors’ Property Centre might know that!
A Dunbar resident answered the BWEA in Power Engineer Magazine (4th letter down):
House price wind up
I read your Editorial 'House price wind-up?' in April/May Power Engineer with interest.
As a resident of Dunbar for almost 20 years, I can assure you that the Crystal Rig wind farm (deep in the Lammermuir Hills) is completely hidden from view from any part of Dunbar. Indeed most Dunbar residents are completely oblivious to its existence. To link house prices in Dunbar, which has become increasingly a commuter base for Edinburgh, to Crystal Rig is therefore a rather specious argument.However, what can be seen from parts of Dunbar, and is in fact much closer to the town, is British Energy's Torness Nuclear Power Station - I wonder if the real message to be taken from the dramatic expansion of Dunbar is public acceptance of a nuclear site as a neighbour?
David Bell C.Eng, MIET
(Report is available as a PDF download - click here).
Crystal Rig I. © 2005 Don Brownlow Photography.
(6x7cm Camera, using 200mm medium telephoto lens).
Crystal Rig I, twenty 96 metre turbines [14 metres smaller than proposed 'Moorsyde' turbines], nr. Whiteadder Reservoir, Lammermuir Hills. Viewpoint: B6355, SW of site. The nearest turbine is almost exactly 5 miles from the camera (the larger 'Moorsyde' turbines would be 6 miles from Berwick).
NB A 200 mm lens on this medium format camera is similar to a 90-100 mm lens on a 35mm camera, i.e. it is only a mild telephoto lens and does not much exaggerate the eye's perception of size in the landscape.
An addition of 5 turbines was consented in 2004, an extension of fifty two (52) 110 and 125 metre turbines [Crystal Rig II] has recently been approved by diktat [a 'Section 36' decision] of the Scottish Executive. More recently the applicants added another 9 [Phase IIa] because they thought the grid could, in theory, take it (and the Executive would nod it through).
Phase I is very visible on the skyline from the 'Moorsyde' site area, some 35km away.
The above photo shows the densely settled nature of the Crystal Rig site area! It also shows the ridge of hills to the east of the site which masks the site from Dunbar and other low level settlements on the coast.
The BWEA has also been claiming that, "A new report from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and Oxford Brookes University has blown away another myth about wind farms – their impact on house prices."
The truth - as is usual when it comes to the BWEA - is somewhat different:
This very limited study looked at two Cornish sites with turbines half the size of the ‘Moorsyde’ variety, and actually found that: “Terraced houses sited within 1 mile of a wind farm were observed to be 54 per cent lower in value and semi detached houses within 1 mile of the nearest turbine were 35 per cent lower than similar houses at a distance of four miles.” Losing a third to half the value of your house because you are near an array of small wind turbines is hardly proof that property values are not affected!
Admittedly, this study found that the picture at greater distance was more confused. Much of this confusion was, as the authors admit, caused by their choice of study area.
The BWEA choose not to mention the highly qualified conclusions of this study: "Because of the limited data available the findings require a degree of caution. ... The study itself may be seen as inconclusive as there was limited linear relationship between house prices and distance. ... this is only one study, and as more wind farms are built, more property will become proximate. Therefore, a cautious approach should be adopted until a larger and more in-depth study can be undertaken."
(Report is available as a PDF download from the RICS site).
As well as tourist agencies, the major landscape conservation bodies are united in opposition to the current onshore windrush.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has recently highlighted the growing threat from wind turbines to some of our supposedly most protected landscapes.
The CPRE believes that:
large wind turbines can be a form of pollution which damages the landscape. Decisions on the scale and location of wind power development and other forms of energy generation should therefore avoid damaging valued rural landscapes – not only those that are designated as National Parks or AONBs.
(Policy Position Statement, 'Onshore Wind Turbines', February 2006.)
The John Muir Trust, Scotland's premier conservation body, recently conducted a campaign which stated:
The National Trust has been implementing rather than talking about micro and embedded renewables technologies as well as energy conservation measures. They used to oppose the destructive impact of onshore, industrial wind power stations:
We are particularly concerned about wind turbines, as the present UK Government targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are predicated on a rapid expansion of wind energy. The most favourable areas for commercial exploitation of wind energy are some of the wildest parts of Britain.
We believe that the pressure on planning authorities to approve proposals for new wind turbines will grow. These pressures should be resisted: Britain's wild coast and countryside is an asset, valued by people here and across the world. We firmly believe in the need to contain the global environmental crisis of accelerating climate change, but we argue here that the modest benefits of wind turbines must be carefully measured against their environmental and social costs.
Sadly, the National Trust have followed the RSPB in cashing in on the wind business by selling the use of their name to RWE NPower, the company who are trying to force through the Toft Hill application which has been condemned by the County Archaeologist for its potential impacts on Duddo Five Stones. The company make a big play of their 3 offshore sites, but they are primarily in the onshore wind business with 18 operational sites and another 28 in development. Apart from toft Hill, they are pursuing proposals at Middlemoor and Kiln Pit Hill in the North East.
The Ramblers Association has long been campaigning against the damage from uncontrolled onshore wind power development. Their current campaign identifies the weakness of the recent energy review, which is allowing the wind industry to continue harvesting excessive subsidies while higher value alternatives are sidelined:
'Ramblers’ Association Calls For Renewables Rethink
[18 September 2006]
'The Ramblers’ Association today called for an urgent reform of the subsidy which supports renewable energy developments on the UK, including a massive reduction in the funding given to large scale land based windfarms. The call comes after the RA’s Chief Executive, Christine Elliott, examined the impact of new windfarm developments in the Scottish Highlands.
'Christine Elliott said: “Across large swathes of upland Britain our world famous landscapes are under assault. From the Cairngorms to the Welsh moorlands to the hills of Devon and Cornwall, giant wind turbines are on the march. This is entirely due to a government scheme, the Renewables Obligation, which pays huge financial rewards to large scale windfarm developers. This scheme is the direct responsibility of UK Energy Ministers. They must be persuaded, as a matter of urgency, to agree to its radical reform.”
“The real obligation lies with the UK Government to pay less attention to the commercial aspirations of multinational energy companies and far more to the real energy needs of local communities, local industries and local people. UK Ministers need to wake up to the reality that tourism, outdoor recreation, farming and forestry are the cornerstones of life in the uplands – not industrial power stations planted in the middle of peat bogs. The carbon benefit is questionable and the only clear dividend is to investors.”
[...]
"If you fudge an issue to get the result you want you will be exposing yourself to acute professional embarassment, and if people find you have fudged one issue they anticipate you have fudged everything." (Bill Richmond, then YEL MD. Berwick Advertiser, 11 November 2004).
Over a year after they submitted their planning application, Your Energy/Mistral started claiming that they would use powerful, 3 MW, offshore turbines on the 'Moorsyde' site. This gave a peak theoretical capacity of 42 MW (14 x 3 MW turbines) rather than the 38.5 MW (14 x 2.75 MW) that appeared in their planning application (the 2.75 MW turbine they had used in those figures was already out of production before they made their application). At the same time, they stated that the more powerful turbines would supply nearly 10% less power than stated in their original specification.
Very strange - an increase of 3.5 MW and the power output goes down by 10%!
Using their new figures, it appeared that the capacity factor of the proposal had mysteriously shrunk from 27% to nearly 22%. The wind industry likes to claim that appropriately sited wind turbines have a capacity factor of at least 30%. A capacity factor of 22% would be very poor indeed and would reflect what the then MD of Your Energy admitted in the Berwick Advertiser in October 2004: "The fact that Felkington is on a low lying plateau means the wind conditions are relatively low ...". It would also mirror the fact that the DTI's measured capacity factors for the North East are the lowest in the country (see 'Turbine Efficiency - the Facts'). A good wind resource, and hence capacity factor, is the basic justification for building a wind power station in a particular location.
As far as we can see, the only 3MW turbine that the company might use on this site is described by its manufacturers as a "high wind and offshore turbine". It would clearly be unsuitable for the wind conditions on this site.
The company subsequently (March, 2006) submitted an Addendum to its original Environmental Statement [ES] which forms the core of the planning application.
In this document, the company produced their third variation on the figures. This version did not bring any clarification or precision to the figures. On the contrary, it made them so vague as to be almost meaningless.
It stated that the scheme would have a capacity of, "between 28 and 42 megawatts", that the individual turbines would have a rating, "of between 2 and 3 MW" and that "the capacity factor may be between 23% and 30%". Yet even though they claimed to have no idea of the capacity or efficiency of the scheme, they were claiming an output equivalent figure with an additional 500 homes and 4% more of Alnwick District than on their then website calculation which used the 42MW capacity figure!
Hard though it is to believe, after axing four turbines from the scheme, Your Energy changed their collective mind yet again.
Apparently, they now could (contrary to their previous arguments) foresee what capacity turbines they would use. The company changed the figures on its website from those submitted to the planning authority in their Addendum to the Environmental Statement. They were now specifying a 3MW turbine, giving an overall capacity of 30MW.
YEL changed the figures on their website yet again, they reverted to being undecided about the capacity of their turbines
YEL showed a 20MW headline capacity for 'Moorsyde' on exhibition materials at Sixpenny Wood published on their website.
YEL produced yet another set of figures to go with their belated December consultation on the July revision of the 'Moorsyde' scheme. Presented as an update to the Environmental Statement they claimed that, "the Proposal will generate on average 49,600 to 58,800 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually, equivalent to the average annual needs of 10,500 to 12,500 households - between 91% and 107% of the total number of households in Berwick Borough."
They reverted to using a range of predictions supposedly based on 2MW or 3MW turbine models. As ever, their figures are at variance with the facts on the ground. They claim that, "generation forecasts are based on actual field measurements from June 2003 to June 2005 correlated to long term data at Boulmer (30 miles away) by independent consultants, Garrad Hassan." However applying the bottom end figure to a 2MW turbine gives a capacity factor for the site of 28%. This is wildly unrealistic, considering the wind resource on the site.
Some of their previous calculations which give a factor of 22% bear more relation to reality and the top end figure applied to a 3MW turbine does give a figure of 22%. It should be noted that NPower, at the Toft Hill site next to 'Moorsyde' (with a similar height and topography), are working to a 21% figure which is based on the Met Office wind speed figures for the site. 'Correlating' figures to Boulmer is laughable, it is an exposed coastal site which, as YEL admit, is 30 miles from 'Moorsyde'. We might point out that weather records at Letham Shank weather station, at a similar height to the 'Moorsyde' site and only 7 km. to the north show average wind speeds of under 6 metres per second for the years mentioned above. This figure correlates to the DTI wind speed database figure for 'Moorsyde' and is on the margin of what is normally regarded as viable for development.
Crystal Rig, 330 metres above sea level on an exposed site in the Lammermuirs had a recorded average capacity factor of 27.5% in 2005 and 25.2% in 2006. (See Data from Ofgem website.) Even Your Energy must agree that 'Moorsyde', on a lowland site only 60-80 metres above sea level, is not likely to outperform Crystal Rig! Even Your Energy's previous MD has admitted that, "The fact that Felkington is on a low lying plateau means the wind conditions are relatively low ..." (Berwick Advertiser, October 2004).
YEL have also produced some figures on projected carbon savings. They estimate that, "a wind farm of the capacity proposed at Moorsyde would annually displace 42,000 to 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (C02)". As usual the figures are based on the British Wind Energy Association's formula for carbon saving which, uniquely, does not recognise that significant wind power generation requires, according to National Grid and others, ca. 65% 'hot' backup from fossil fuelled plant and that any power saved will not substitute solely for coal-fired plant.
The DTI, Carbon Trust, DEFRA and Ofgem all state that any substitution should be based on a 'grid average' carbon saving; this immediately halves the figure claimed by YEL.
You might think that even 20,000 tonnes of CO2 sounds like a lot. However, we each generate ca. 0.33 tonnes of CO2 per year merely by breathing. A single jumbo jet, flying from London to Miami and back every day, releases the climate-change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. 'Moorsyde', using YEL's dodgy output figures and without making any allowance for 65% standby or building emissions, would save a maximum of 4% of the emissions of a single 747 jet (using DTI/Carbon Trust/DEFRA/Ofgem recommended figure of 0.43kg CO2 per kWh saved).
In June 2007, YEL attempted to get round the findings of the local Arup Report by suggesting to the Borough that they could reduce the height and capacity of their turbines. They suggested that using 107 metre high Vestas V80 1.8MW turbines would allow them to scrape under overall capacity bar for the area suggested by Arup. This was enthusiastically welcomed by the detached 'Moorsyde' Case Officer in Darlington who was soon to be found promoting the idea to consultants Scott Wilson and asking whether the North East Assembly could be briefed on it. It seems not to have found favour with anybody else.
With a further reduction in turbine numbers, YEL have produced some more figures. We will be analysing them when we manage to get some more detail from the company or the Case Officer on what turbine capacities they are now supposed to relate to.
Some things do not change. Most notably, the way YEL have consistently fudged the figures. One example, the only constant through all their various changes, is the way in which they have calulated their noise figures on the 'Mode 4' setting of a turbine that is no longer manufactured. This is the lowest power output setting which also reduces the noise output. Using this setting would reduce the power output by c. 20%, but there is no indication that the company's projected output figures have ever factored in a 20% loss of output. All their figures to date grossly overstate carbon savings, breaking the latest Advertising Standards Association guidance. Nor do they, or any other wind power developer, make any allowance for the backup that is needed for wind power, which is, by definition, both intermittent and unreliable.
© Laurie Campbell
Visit the Birds Page with stunning photographs by Laurie Campbell.
WINDOW POSTERS
Show your support:
Download & display a campaign poster.
"Tracking the Klondike
windrush
in NE England
& SE Scotland."
How windy is it?
Check the figures at Letham Shank
weather station.
