STROAT – WIND TURBINE & The Facts Behind Wind Turbine

For More Details View The INDEX
which can be found in the headline banner of the web site by opening MENU,
visible on every page when they are opened.

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

.For More About STROATForest of Dean 

For More Details View The INDEX which can be found in the headline banner of the web site by opening MENU, visible on every page when they are opened.

Here is a chart of actual global temperatures from 1880 to include 2013.This is the period of so called man made global warming – yet NASA shows that worldwide the effect seems somewhat insignificant if not non existent.

I do not for a moment believe that we do not have Climate Change which has occured on a cyclical basis for Millions of years, long before the evolution of mankind or even mammals, influenced very clearly by our local star the Sun and intermittently by techtonic & volcanic influences with the, fortunately very scarce, large meteoroid &/or asteroid collision such as that which wiped out the hugely successful dinosaurs.

TEMPERATURES 01

ALSO note A Wealth Of CORROBERATIVE LINKS are available both in the header banner and in the text of almost every entry on our site.

Proposed: 

Towering 337 feet above the Severn Estuary

87m. Wind Turbine Eyesore Application For Stroat

The Blades Will Distractingly Rotate 337 feet (1/3rd. higher than Gloucester Cathedral!) above The Severn, alongside one of the most dangerous sections of the A48, already designated The Most Dangerous Road In EUrope – opposite Hanley Farm Shop, the bus stop, two lane junctions, various property driveways & the public lay-by

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself”: 
Thomas Jefferson
A clear statement of wisdom that most appositely explains why Wind Turbines require Government intervention to use taxes levied on all, many of whom can ill afford them, to subsidise and enrich land owners and their corporate assistants!

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data
to 30 September 2015

The EFFECTED COMMUNITY

The ‘Effected Community’ being those contacted by the Council originally who are directly effected including:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group which includes 35 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

  • ADLAM, Peter - The Brackens, Stroat – within 750m from proposed turbine
  • ASHBY, Leah - Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat - approximately 1.3kms from proposed turbine
  • AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William - Wibdon Cottage, Stroat - approximately 700m from proposed turbine
  • BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm, Stroat - within 750m from proposed turbine
  • BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court, Stroat - within 700 m from proposed turbine
  • BROOKES, Tracey & Andy - Underwood Farm, Stroat – within 800m of turbine
  • BROWN, Louella & David - The Waldins, Stroat – within 650m of the turbine
  • CARPENTER, Garry - Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat - approximately 1.3kms from proposed turbine
  • CROSS, Nigel and Samantha - 3 Philpots Court, Stroat – within 700m from proposed turbine
  • DAVIDSON, Pam - The Garstons, Stroat – within 750m from proposed turbine.
  • ELSBY, Nigel & Linda - Stroat House, Stroat - within 1.5km from proposed turbine
  • FORD, Claire & Roger – The Steps, Stroat – approximately 500m from proposed turbine
  • GOATMAN, Fiona & Robert - Beverstone Farm – approximately 1km from proposed turbine
  • HILLMAN, Robert & Alison Philpots Court Farm – within 700m from proposed turbine
  • HOLLIES, Lindsay & Mark – Chapel House, Hanley Lane – within 1km from proposed turbine
  • LANCE-WATKINS, Lee & Greg – Home Cottage, Stroat – within 1.5km from proposed turbine
  • MAYO, Molly & Keith – Wibdon Farm, Stroat – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine
  • NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue - 4 Philpots Court, Stroat – within 700m from proposed turbine
  • REES, James & Clare - Greystones, Stroat - within 775m from proposed turbine
  • SMITH, Pam & David - Old Post Office, Stroat - within 900m from proposed turbine
  • WRIGHT, Sue and Peter - Little Wibdon, Stroat, approx. 500 - 550meters from proposed turbine

Minded that it is a relatively sparsely populated rural area, where numerous properties will be level with the blades on the overlooking slopes and clear visibility will be from Aust, Littlehampton, Thornbury, Rockhampton, Hill, Oldbury, Berkeley, Sharpness and beyond as it stands 50% taller than Gloucester Cathedral, undisguised by trees or other obstacles.

There would seem to be few if any supporters of the imposition of this turbine from within the community – other than those who have signed standard letters provided and vigorously solicited, by the applicants, either as potential direct beneficiaries in the scheme, tenants or employees of the applicant!

They have organised ‘THE COMMUNITY AGAINST SEVERNDALE WIND TURBINE’
& on his own behalf Peter Wright is seeking to challenge The Forest of Dean District Council at a Judicial Review – If you can help to protect The Severn Estuary, wild life and environment, or would like to know how YOU can help, without any obligation or in complete anonymity
 CLICK HERE or comment on this web site (monitored for abuse, foul language & libel, also to ensure authors are identifiable ONLY)

TWITTER HashTag #StroatWind

IF YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN
or
YOU WISH TO HELP

or Know Anyone Else
who might be willing to assist us

CLICK HERE

This desecration may happen to your hamlet,
village, community or favourite place next
if YOU fail to help us to draw a line in the sand.
SEE:
CrowdJustice

Could this naiive original watercolour be Hanley Hill through the eyes of the 11 year old Pauline, daughter of Parson Newman Rector of Tidenham Parish Church, C1937 or 1938:

HANLEY HILL Pauline NEWMAN age 11 01 smallest

 

This is how Hanley Hill will look, for at least a generation, if this industrial folly is erected:

WIND TURBINE to SCALE COMPARISON 03

This picture shows the applicants photomontage with the accurate scale representation of Big Ben at 96m. also showing 24 Routemaster double decker buses stacked alongside the giant wind turbine! A structure over 100 feet (33m) taller than Gloucester Cathedral and visually within the landscape standing high into the skyline some 8 times as tall as Oldbury Power Station visible on the other bank of The Severn.

For greater understanding of the implementation of this Wind Farm by stealth on the banks of the Severn Estuary in the rural and scenic area between the M48 Chepstow Bridge and the City of Gloucester consider:

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 001

& of course the size of these monstrous industrial instalations in such an area of outstanding natural beauty:

image

Minded that distraction is listed as the main reason for accidents, by the Police, it is hardly speculation that this giant moving structure alongside the A48 will be certain to cause additional fatalities on Europe’s most dangerous road!
How do the applicants excuse these inevitable killings?
These giant wind turbines may well be sited alongside motorways, visible on the given motorway over many miles, not suddenly materialising around a bend or appearing through the mist from the Severn!
As they dominate this pleasant rural area, once so attractive to tourism, which formed a major part of the income of the area.
ALVINGTON TURBINE 006 22-Nov-2015
Clearly the applicants, their agents and planners have chosen to overlook the enormous environmental damage these turbines cause, not least of which is the massive output of CO2 in their manufacture nor the defacing nature of the structure long into the future of these inefficient and costly follies, long after they have become obsolete and the grants have been withdrawn – who will clear up the mess we have thus left to our children and the ‘community’ in the future?
How in fact do the ‘community’ derive any gain from this self-serving application at the expense of the ‘community’, an obstacle that they claim, but do not guarantee, will pay £1/2M into the ‘community over the next 25 years when just two fatalities during that period will cost the public in excess of £1/2M.

It is my contention, based upon sound evidence that, for this industrial structure to be placed in such an inappropriate place, would not only be an act of irresponsible folly but a corrupt and criminal abrogation of duty of care by those making, aiding, supporting and granting the application.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~########~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just consider the quantifiable environmental damage alone, that the Greens and Warmists have been duped into believing does not exist, is beyond any reasonable argument they may try to make.

A primary motivation for constructing these evil structures is the dishonest claim that they save on CO2 emmissions, which are ‘claimed’ (without sound scientific evidence) to be responsible for Global Warming and Climate Change (for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence that the anthropogenic input is of any significance).

IF you have been duped into believing the claims of the highly suspect and palpably untrustworthy IPCC you should clearly oppose Wind Turbines as an environmentally damaging cause of Global Warming & Climate Change and no part of the solution.

Only the dishonest, the corrupt, the gullible and of course the greed of the land owners and profiteers in on the scam could overlook the FACTS! Consider the Carbon Footprint of a wind turbine before it even starts to produce any power, and conveniently ignoring transport of materials and fabricated structure, not to mention the movement of supersized cranes etc and most definitely ignoring the damaging legacy and the carbon footprint to restore the land after its destruction both in excavation of materials and dismantling the defunct turbine and its 480 m3 plinth.

For now just consider the carpon footprint in its basic construction:

So what is the carbon foot print of a wind turbine with 45 tons of rebar & 481m3 of concrete?

as at 04-Aug-2014

A Wind Turbine’s carbon footprint is massive
try 241.85 tons of CO2.

Here’s the breakdown of the CO2 numbers.

To create a 1,000 Kg of pig iron, you start with 1,800 Kg of iron ore, 900 Kg of coking coal 450 Kg of limestone. The blast furnace consumes 4,500 Kg of air. The temperature at the core of the blast furnace reaches nearly 1,600 degrees C (about 3,000 degrees F).

The pig iron is then transferred to the basic oxygen furnace to make steel.

1,350 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg pig iron produced.

A further 1,460 Kg CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Steel produced so all up 2,810 Kg CO2 is emitted.

45 tons of rebar (steel) are required so that equals 126.45 tons of CO2 are emitted.

To create a 1,000 Kg of Portland cement, calcium carbonate (60%), silicon (20%), aluminium (10%), iron (10%) and very small amounts of other ingredients are heated in a large kiln to over 1,500 degrees C to convert the raw materials into clinker. The clinker is then interground with other ingredients to produce the final cement product. When cement is mixed with water, sand and gravel forms the rock-like mass know as concrete.

An average of 927 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Portland cement. On average, concrete has 10% cement, with the balance being gravel (41%), sand (25%), water (18%) and air (6%). One cubic metre of concrete weighs approx. 2,400 Kg so approx. 240 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every cubic metre.

481m3 of concrete are required so that equals 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted.

Now I have not included the emissions of the mining of the raw materials, nor their transportation, or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the manufacturing site, nor the transportation of the fabricated turbine to the turbine site. I have also omitted the cost of transportation of rebar, gravel, cement and the like to the erection site and also the cost of manufacture and laying of access roads in terms of CO2 emisions is also left out. Therefore the emission calculation above would be on the low side at best, downplaying the environmental damage clearly caused by wind turbines – a damage that is likely to take upto 15 years at optimum output, of the turbine in question, to recoup IF EVER!

CAVEAT
None of these calculations give any consideration of the environmental damage caused by the installation and use of Diesel Generators, supplied by the tax payers, at the site of wind turbines, to make good the wind turbine’s regular shortfall when they fail to function due to repair, service or wind variations – be it either too low a wind or too high to produce power for the grid!

Interestingly the feed into the grid from the diesel generators is expected to accrue to the total from the wind turbine, thus receiving the same feed in tariff, making it almost impossible to differentiate between  the feed in tariff handouts given to the turbine operators & owners, whether produced genuinely from the tax payer subsidised wind turbines or by their tax payer funded diesel generators!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~########~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MUCH Additional Material Has Been Added:
PLEASE NOTE updates may include
change or addition of information, as it comes to hand
or as it becomes superceded.

STROAT - WIND TURBINE 01

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group

TWITTER HashTag #StroatWind

IF YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN
or
YOU WISH TO HELP

or Know Anyone Else
who might be willing to assist us

CLICK HERE

This desecration may happen to your hamlet,
village, community or favourite place next
if YOU fail to help us to draw a line in the sand.

SEE:
CrowdJustice

I regret this document is lengthy and detailed, but I make no apology for bringing to your attention the facts, with many links and cross references, as this application by: Mr. & Mrs. Lyndon & Maria Edwards; who own Hanley Farm Shop, Hanley Office Complex, Hanley Allotments, Severndale Farm etc. The application being in the name of District Councillor Mrs. Lyndon Edwards, together with others, will scar this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for generations to come.

It is worthy of note that the previous Mrs. Edwards, aware this industrialisation of the area was in progress/planned, sold her property in the immediate area and moved away and that the current Mrs. Edwards put her name forward and was recently elected as a FoDDC councillor without making it clear to the electorate at large, that she had a pecunniary interest in this application as the named applicant and with her husband and others sought subsidies from the public purse from unsuspecting tax payers and electors in the community, both locally and at large and seem to wish to ‘pass off’ the application as in some consequential way being a ‘community project’, which it clearly is not, despite utilising a tiny portion of the monies raised by public subsidy from the tax payers, in a morally unpallatable manner, as a thinly veiled bribe!

A so called ‘Community Project’ which has undeniably failed to gain the support of the ‘community’ and has been rejected by their elected representatives on Tidenham Parish Council. To continue to claim this is a ‘Community Project’ is thus clearly dishonest and thus a deliberate attempt by the applicants seeking to profit by this as misleading – thus a dishonest scam!

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 001

For The Record:

Hi,

By all means use my details as follows, if it helps you to object to this industrialisation that is so clearly against the interests of the community at all levels save some very limited seeming indirect & nominal bribes, allbeit very profitable to a few wealthy applicants in terms of support from largely unwilling  tax payers!:

Fore name: Greg
Surname: Lance – Watkins
Age: born 26-Jan-1946
Marital Status: pretty good!
Occupation: retired
Resided with Retail business: central Chepstow 1981 > 2011
Resident/owner: Home Cottage, Stroat, Tidenham, NP16 7LR 2011 > …
Phone: 01594 – 528 337
Property owner: Chepstow x 2; Tidenham Parish x 2

My opposition to this application to industrialise this rural AONB is primarily because I find it morally reprehensible on numerous grounds, totally inappropriate in this proposed location visually and as a threat to wildlife on many levels, its possible risk to life due to its proximity to Europe’s most dangerous road the A48 in a stretch that has seen two fatal crashes this year SO FAR.

Briefly: I also object on the grounds that Wind Turbines are an inefficient and largely unsustainable means of producing electricity, thus requiring grant aiding in their construction and an ongoing subsidy (as confessed by the applicants, under cross examination at The Parish Council meeting 20-May-2015) by support of around £150,000 per annum paid by levying taxes on the poorer sectors of the society and enriching those sufficiently wealthy to instal these monstrous structures with their monstrous damage to the community within which they are located.

For further details and extensive facts do view my web presence at:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

I am happy to support my opposition and the grounds on which I oppose this application and similar such applications with my identity together with my Post Code, aware that already a threat of violence has been made, by a supporter of this application from outside the parish, against a member of the community if they do not withdraw their opposition to this odious application and its dubious nature, which is clearly NOT a community supported attempt to industrialise this area.

I trust this is of help to you.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

PLEASE NOTE:

Public Closing Date:
MONDAY – 18-May-2015

Parish Council’s first opportunity to discuss the matter:
WEDNESDAY 20-May-2015 -19:00hrs.

Parish Council’s first & only opportunity to consider the matter at their planning committee:
WEDNESDAY 27-May-2015 – 18:30hrs.
Individuals wishing to make their position clearly known in this damaging & potentially precedent setting application for industrial developement of this area of rural landscape of AONB potentially fatyally close to the A48, EUrope’s most dangerous road per vehicle mile travelled and so clearly unpopular and damaging not only to the community of Tidenham Parish specifically but the FoD & these United Kingdoms in general.
It should be noted: just how unpopular this instalation is to the local community where it is clear the majority of support for the damaging and dangerous concept comes from outside the community, beyond Tidenham Parish, but is also clearly commercially orchestrated by the applicants seeking personal profits at the expense of the community they make a very clearly dishonest attempt to dupe people they pretend to serve.

It was publicly accepted at the Parish Council meeting, by the applicants, that they expect to receive a £150,000 subsidy per annum (as they confirmed they do on their St. Briavels installation!) and that the share of the professional body acting as applicant also values its share in the St. Briavels Wind Turbine at £500,000 (believed to be a 50% share) clearly hugely profitable even at an admitted 20% efficiency – this has led to what seem to be bribes valued at £25,000 (though quoted on their web site as around £17,000) only disbursed amongst the community – thus unlikely to compensate ANYONE, let alone the community, for the damages experienced and insignificant in regard to the applicant’s obscene profits exploiting the public purse!

Clearly as these Wind Turbines are grossly inefficient and far from cost effective, requiring massive tax payer subsidies, this is nothing less than a tax on those who may well not be able to affort the cost of enriching those who are already well off!

Not only is the entire concept morally dubious it is anti community interests and do note the Alvington installation is still dishonestly being described as a ‘community project’, when in fact it was resoundingly rejected by the electorate (viz. Community) by their elected Parish Council and by their elected Forest of Dean District Council – a display of just how anti ‘community’ this project is can be seen from the undeniable fact that it was forced, undemocratically through appeal, on a community which had resoundingly rejected it at ALL community levels!

I do wonder just howmany of the 4,300 or so homes in Tidenham are aware that they are most likely to be legally responsible  for informing any would be purchaser of their property, should they wish/need to sell, that a massive industrial installation is under consideration and when/if turned down by the community is likely, based on their track record, to be appealed to be forced on the community by any legal means they can, however morally repugnant and contra the needs and wishes of the community they may be – as they did with the Alvington installation and do bear in mind that these plans were put forward in 2012 but withdrawn at that time, most probably in fear of rejection at that time due to being linked with other applications.

Could it already be that individuals who have sold property in the parish since 2012, who were aware of the determination of the applicants were to use any means and any timing to force their personal profitable interests on the unwilling community, may well be open to being sued for possible damages having failed to inform their purchasers!

May I take this opportunity to stress that although the claimed comment period officially closed on 18-May-2015, already the  Parish Council has obtained a derrogation until 31-May-2015.

It is also worthy of note that our community’s, MP Mark Harper, has undertaken, through his office, to support my request to extend the period of consultation and I am informed has read my letter of protest at this unprincipled and self serving application that is so clearly against the interests of the community at all levels and utterly inapproopriate within this parish and/or on the banks of the Severn Estuary between the Severn Bridge and Gloucester, whether on the North or South bank – I gather he has highlighted points and forwarded my letter (see PS – 15 below) to the FoD DC Planning Department seeking certain answers and assurance on those points be sent to him.

Further please be minded of this letter mailed to one resident in the community:

From: Stephen Colegate [mailto:Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk]
Sent: 11 May 2015 11:06
To: ‘REDACTED’
Subject: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for comments

Dear REDACTED

RE: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for comments

Please note that the application has been called to Planning Committee prior to the election (likely to be 14th July 2015 committee) and that any representations received prior to the 30th June 2015 (deadline for my report to be finalised) will be taken into consideration.

Regards

Stephen Colegate
Senior Planning Officer
Forest of Dean District Council
Tel: 01594 812375
Email: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk

DO ALSO NOTE PS – 17 below from FoD DC Planning Dept., which updates this letter, received by email 22-May-2015.

PLEASE:

In the light of Stephen Colegate’s undertaking in his letter above, as updated PS – 17 below, Please continue to register any concerns you have about this application to industrialise this site in a dangerous and disadvantageous manner to the community for the personal gain of a few wealthy investors, with no consequential gain to the community relative to the massive public funding and indisputable profitability for the applicants.

In an effort to assist the planners please try to confine your letter to actual planning matters – there is absolutely zero value in standardised letter signed up to by individuals on the internet who have no real understanding of the community and location concerned nor any understanding of the deeply flawed logic and morality of inflicting these grossy inefficient and thus hugely subsidised industrial installations.

Furthert petitions may try to dupe people into believing there is support but all too often signatures are added based upon insufficient understanding and be people who are not of and have no connection with the community the applicants dishonestly pretend to represent.

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 002

Many more details regarding Wind Turpines and this application can be found below:

60m. Wind Turbine Eyesore Application For Stroat

TWITTER:

this installation will stand approximately between Hanley’s Farm Shop & The Severn and will stand 337 feet above the river! Visible from much of the FoD  & South Gloucestershire visible from as far away as Gloucester and setting a precedent for many more on the estuary banks – others are in the pipeline already!

Planning » Application Summary

P0365/15/FUL

Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy, including grid connection and ancillary works. 
Severndale Farm
Tidenham
Chepstow
NP16 7LL

STROAT - WIND TURBINE MAP 01TOTAL HEIGHT ABOVE RIVER 337 Feet +

Hanley Hill 22m

Tower Structure 60m

Blade/Sail 1/2 Diameter (54m) 27m

+ Concrete Mount Block ?

TOTAL 109m or 337 feet + concrete mount block

Both Westminster Abbey & Gloucester Cathedral are a mere 224 feet high

The tallest trees ever in the Forest of Dean is never over 115 feet high

Nelson’s Column is only 169 feet high

Big Ben is closer at 312 feet!

The London Eye, which dominates the London skyline is 12 feet smaller at 325 feet!

Bristol’s tallest building is St. Mary Redcliff at 289 feet

The Statue of Liberty is 302 feet high

Reference P0365/15/FUL
Alternative Reference DF4282
Application Received Tue 10 Mar 2015
Address Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow NP16 7LL
Proposal Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy, including grid connection and ancillary works.
Status Pending Consideration
Appeal Status Not Available
Appeal Decision Not Available
There are 0 cases associated with this application.There is 1 property associated with this application.

To view the original of this application CLICK HERE

I appreciate the primary reason for installing such wind turbines is clearly, on the part of the installer, owner or shareholders & land owner is personal profit.However the science behind the installation of such turbines is indubitably suspect and the efficacy of such installations is equally dubious.A measure of the false economy of these installations is the undeniable fact that they require massive subsidies to justify their installation. It is also well known that they are hugely inefficient and in many cases outright dangerous, not just to wild life and birds but in terms of the damage to the environment.WIND TURBINE 03 BURNINGOne should also be minded that a man standing at sea level has a view to the horizon of approximately 11 miles, which may give some indication of over what distance such a building some 200 feet high will be an eyesore.It is interesting to note that an application was made for just such a wind turbine in 2012, though it was withdrawn in some haste and rumour has it that not only was there a belief that it would not meet with favour but that it lacked sufficient funding and grants to go ahead, presumably as it is realised these turbines are not cost effective ever increasing grants/subsidies are sought!It is also worthy of note that this application has the same level of integrity as others that have been made! Although the application indicates that it will be a structure of 197 feet or 60 meters the truth is that despite this quoted headline figure the total will be much greater when the height of the sails is included! The actual height will be 87 meters or 286 feet thus over 80 feet higher than the headline size quoted.Do also bear in mind that the installation is planned for Hanley Hill, which is 22 meters above the river level, thus the finished height will tower 335 feet above the river Severn AND standing on a massive concrete block so over that height!, this is heigher than Wintour’s Leap!It is worth noting that the largest trees grown in the Forest of Dean are Douglas Firs which grow to a maximum height of a mere 120 feet or one 1/3rd the height above the river of the finished height of the wind turbine planned!The same trick, of quoting the ‘axis’ height, was pulled in the application for just such a turbine to have been installed on the South Gloucester side of the estuary, which thankfully was denied permission, being not just an eyesore but inefficient, likely to set a dangerous precedent and for many significant technical reasons that had similarly been obfusscated in the application documents.We must remember that whether the installation is profitable to the installers or not and the fact that it is dependent on subsidies, thus being a method of taxing the poor to fund the wealthy and land owners is NOT a planning consisderation – morality does not enter into the decision making for a public body!Just at the time that this application has been accepted, it has been accepted that Britain’s ONLY option to maintain power security is to commission new nuclear fuelled power stations, it is anachronistic to use this outdated and unsustainable wind turbine concept.This particular installation will be visible from Gloucester, Berkley, Thornbury, Aust and beyond, in view of its height!Let us also take note that there is a similar wind turbine located some 5 to 6 miles from Stroat and neighbours of mine in Stroat advise me that at some times they can hear the noise it generates! Imagine how much more significant the industrial noise output will be from Severndale farm for residents of not just Stroat but Woodcroft, Tidenham, Sedbury and Tutshill!It is astonishing how glibly the Politically Correct so called ‘green’ lobbyists are willing to set aside their own principles and install these industrial eyesores in areas of outstanding natural beauty when they will shortsightedly and often irresponsibly oppose more rational developements in rural areas!Also do be minded that NEVER has a responsible risk assessment been made, of these wind turbines, which are widely understood to have a catastrophic effect on both micro organisms and larger which maintain the health of soil surrounding the installation over a considerable distance and is believed to be responsible for forms of soil cancer!May I submit it would be irresponsible to grant this planning application and in endorsement of this fact may I commend to you two authoritative and responsible publications that have researched many of the facts regarding the unsound science surrounding the claims of those seeking to profit from these installations and beguilled by the bias of organisations dependent on public subsidies for their profits.First I advocate:BOOKER, Christopher - BOOK - The Real Global Warming Disaster 01as a second book to read I suggest:PLIMER, Prof Ian - HEAVEN & EARTH 01You may be interested to know that much of the science claimed that underpins the subsidy of this particular form of inefficient, unsightly and massively expensive concept of electricity generation is based on the IPPC Report, which was founded on the now widely discreditted work of Al Gore & Ragendra Paschauri, who has recently lost his job in this field and has been shown to have VERY partisan interests.It is also worthy of note that even if you swallow the propaganda put forward in support of these profitable installations, from those making the profits from subsidy, you will find that it requires some 10 years at optimum continuous output to directly fund the installation and compensate for the so called carbon footprint of the manufacture and installation, together with related infrastructure – Two factors are conveniently overlooked by those profiting firstly this makes no allowance for the life expectancy of these turbines and secondly it does not allow, in the costings, for the removal of the installation and reinstatement of damage when the installation becomes time expired.It is notable that no provision is apparent to cover the costs of decommissioning and reinstatement, is it the glib assumption of the profiteers that the public will once again be tapped up for further subsidies and subsidy of such electricity to hopefully be produced and sold to the very public who were forced to subsidise the installation!You may also note that to manufacture the concrete block on which such a large structure will be footed, to ensure it does not crash to the ground,WIND TURBINE 01 Breaking uprequires a large amount of both sand and stone and the hugely environmentally damaging production of cement – frequently produced in third world countries where the damage done is conveniently overlooked viz Nigeria, where large areas have been destroyed and at best decimated by the chemical outfall, not to mention the minor details of environmental damage in shipping these commodities to Britain and onward to site!Also do be minded that they have been known, not only to catch fire but also to fracture in high winds when they get older. Another feature is that as they age like most equipment they are prone to becoming noisier and even by the applicants admission the DB rating is expected to exceed the legal maximum rating on the farm at the residential home and thus for the livestock.The legal maximum is a rating of 35 DB and by the applicant’s own estimate this industrial noise is estimated will be 35DB at several of the adjoining properties.Also do be minded that there is absolutely no doubt that these pieces of industrial equipment DO lead to the death of numerous birds (some estimates show some 300,000 per annum!) and have a catastrophic effect on certain wildlife..That said it is however not, seemingly a planning matter, that these vast unsightly structures are neither cost effective, nor do they deliver any level of so called ‘green’ or environmental benefits and it seems that their danger aside they can, tyhough the overwhelming majority of people consider them wholely inappropriate in rural areas be sited in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and at sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSI)! It is worthy of note that since time immemorial the immediate environs of Hanley Hill and the local reed beds have been a gathering area for migratory birds before they head for better climates in the autumn. Minded that my wife counted 47 martins in the sky immediately above our home and our neighbour in Stroat House, and others in the immediate area such as Wibdon Farm, have incurred huge expense making provision to accommodate bats it is hard surely to justify these monster bat and bird killers! There clearly is no ‘green’ argument in favour of these industrial structures!There is also the issue of the use of rare earth minerals to quote Wikipedia!

Rare-earth use

The production of permanent magnets used in some wind turbines makes use of neodymium.[24][25] Primarily exported by China, pollution concerns associated with the extraction of this rare-earth element have prompted government action in recent years,[26][27] and international research attempts to refine the extraction process.[28] Research is underway on turbine and generator designs which reduce the need for neodymium, or eliminate the use of rare-earth metals altogether.[29] Additionally, the large wind turbine manufacturer Enercon GmbH chose very early not to use permanent magnets for its direct drive turbines, in order to avoid responsibility for the adverse environmental impact of rare earth mining.

IF you can add further details your opinions and documented evidence would be much appreciated to assist in opposing this selfish and self serving unsightly and damaging installation.You may also be sufficiently concerned and have sufficient interest in ensuring this area does all it can to remain an area of outstanding natural interest and beauty – it is often stated that we do not realise the value of such areas until we have foolishly and all too often selfishly lost the resource for all time.Objections to this folly can be made directly on the Forest of Dean planning site – do please consider the asset we all risk losing for the profit of a few wealthy investors, manufacturers and land owners.To make an objection see:Planning Application – Number P0365/15/FULSite Address: http://publicaccess.fdean.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NKZLNXHIHP700This application has received very little publicity and until it was brought to my attention on 03-May-2015 I was completely unaware of the application, despite the fact that I live in Stroat, travel past the site most days, frequent Hanley’s Farm Shop and will likely be able to see the installation from my home.The amount of profit to be made from subsidies both for the installers and the eventual owners stands every danger that should this inappropriate installation be permitted, as it towers 285 feet (87 meters) over Stroat and the A48, visible for miles around, including areas of the Forest of Dean such as  Littleton and a swathe of South Gloucestershire marring the natural beaty of the area – this could well be the thin end of the wedge and be used as a precedent to despoil the entire area with serried ranks of these dubious industrial constructions.A map showing footpaths and much detail can be found at: https://gloucestershire.firmstep.com/default.aspx/RenderForm/?F.Name=B75apJt4Qgo&HideToolbar=1 IMPORTANT DATES!!!:

Application Received Date Tue 10 Mar 2015
Application Validated Date Fri 17 Apr 2015
Expiry Date Fri 22 May 2015
Actual Committee Date Not Available
Latest Neighbour Consultation Date Mon 27 Apr 2015
Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date Mon 18 May 2015
Standard Consultation Date Fri 01 May 2015
Standard Consultation Expiry Date Fri 22 May 2015
Last Advertised In Press Date Not Available
Latest Advertisement Expiry Date Not Available
Last Site Notice Posted Date Tue 28 Apr 2015
Latest Site Notice Expiry Date Tue 19 May 2015
Decision Made Date Not Available
Decision Issued Date Not Available
Permission Expiry Date Not Available
Decision Printed Date Not Available
Environmental Impact Assessment Received Not Available
Target Determination Date Fri 12 Jun 2015
Determination Deadline Fri 12 Jun 2015

To view the original of this tabulation CLICK HEREI believe that our new Councillors and Politicians elected on 7th. May have a duty to ensure the consultation period and the publicity of this proposition are extended.You will note that the application date was at a time when Parliament had been prorogued and we were without the benefit of an MP representing our daily interests and future issues – this losing 21 days of the representation period before we were once again able to call upon our MP.During this same period our Councillors were also actively campaigning for re-election and new councillors and MP could well come to office on the 08-May!It is morally wrong and should not be possible that the overarching importance of a General and local election should be permitted as ‘a good time to bury bad news’!

PLEASE NOTE:

Tidenham Parish Council has been asked to hear a presentation of the applicant’s views and opinions regarding the installation, which is planned for the next Parish Council Meeting, which is open to the public on:

Wednesday 20-May-2015 at 19:00hrs at Tidenham Memorial Hall

Please contact me if I can help or if you would care to help oppose this repugnant application and its dubious timing.and lack of merit for all but the applicant and those seeking personal gain at the expense of subsidies!Regards, Greg_L-W.01594 – 528 337

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 003 

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines (WT) to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD) as administered by The Forest of Dean District Council (FoDDC), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB), sites of special scientific interest (SSI) & wildlife habitats.

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies of the ‘Warmists’ & self proclaimed ‘Greens’, which are presented as ‘fact’, regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins (site owner)

If you would like more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

If you would like more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

E&OE

PLEASE NOTE: We do not accept responsibility for material on links and other sources

IF you note ANY errors of fact in this or any other web site or blog I own or manage please bring it to my attention for correction @ Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com – Thank you.

Advertisements

Hear The Truth About Wind Turbine Noise From An MP – Hear It Loud & Clear …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hear The Truth About Wind Turbine Noise From An MP – Hear It Loud & Clear …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

.

MP Demands Wind Farm Moratorium: Rigged & Pointless Noise Rules ‘Rotten to the Core’

The wind industry is what it is thanks to naïve, gullible and pliant politicians. But not every MP drank the Kool-Aid. One who didn’t is SA Best Member of the Legislative Council, Connie Bonaros.

South Australia is the place that set and met its very own ludicrous 50% Renewable Energy Target. For that it suffers the highest retail power prices in the world, mass load shedding and blackouts. This summer guarantees repeat performances of both, every time the sun sets and/or calm weather sets in. Portable generators will be the must have item come December.

Then there’s the destruction wreaked in South Australia’s rural communities, at places like Waterloo, Mt Bryan, Hallett and Jamestown.

Clearly concerned about her constituents, back in October Connie use the World Health Organization’s new noise Guidelines (which declare wind turbine noise a serious health risk) as a pretty solid platform to call for a total moratorium on new wind farms: Wind Turbine Time-Out: WHO’s Health Hazard Warning Prompts Demand for Immediate Wind Farm Moratorium

Connie is facing plenty of malign indifference from both Labor and Liberal MPs alike, but she isn’t about to quit.

Call to halt new wind farms in SA
News.com.au

28 November 2018

SA-BEST MP Connie Bonaros has called for a moratorium on new wind farm developments in South Australia amid ongoing health concerns and impacts on local communities.

About 50 protesters took to the steps of parliament house in Adelaide on Wednesday to voice their own issues with wind farm developments which they say are being built too close to homes.

Of particular concern is a proposal for a wind farm at Crystal Brook, in the state’s mid-north, where French company Neoen wants to install 26 wind turbines that are 240 metres high, or nearly twice the height of the tallest building in Adelaide.

“Wind farms around the world, including many either being built or being proposed in SA, are getting ridiculous in size and generation capacity,” Mr Bonaros said.

“It is therefore imperative that they are located in areas that do not impact local communities and the people who live in those communities.”

Ms Bonaros urged the government to halt approval or construction of all new wind farms to allow for an independent and thorough review of their impacts.

“We must ensure that both operating and future wind farms in South Australia are not allowed to emit noise that causes sleep disturbance or otherwise harm human health,” she said.

“We also need to review legislation surrounding wind farm developments to ensure that SA residents are adequately protected from harm over the lifetime of each project.”

Gayle Manning, from Keyneton in the Adelaide Hills where a wind farm is set to be developed, said the size and capacity of wind turbines had increased dramatically but Environment Protection Authority studies and guidelines had not kept up.

“In order to ensure the safety of all people living close to wind farms, it is imperative that we better and fully understand their impacts,” she said.
News.com.au

 

Over the last decade, the wind industry has ridden roughshod over the rights of law-abiding citizens to live peacefully in their very own homes. The battle that’s followed proves that the value of any right is determined by the beneficiaries’ determination to fight for it.

Giant industrial wind turbines deliver a cacophony of pulsing, practically incessant, low-frequency noise and infrasound. The effects of which have been held by an Australian Court to be a pathway to disease: Australian Court Finds Wind Turbine Noise Exposure a ‘Pathway to Disease’: Waubra Foundation Vindicated

While the results for people set upon by subsidy-soaked wind power outfits are a tragedy, the real tragedy is that those who are paid handsomely to protect them, not only ignore their plight, but side with the wind industry, protecting it from any attempt by their victims to regulate or control noise emissions from wind turbines.

In our timeline post – Three Decades of Wind Industry Deception: A Chronology of a Global Conspiracy of Silence and Subterfuge – we covered the fact that – from 1995 – the wind industry drew together a hand-picked team with a mission to write noise rules with absolutely no relevance to wind turbine noise; and, therefore, of no benefit to wind farm neighbours (with predictable and soul-destroying results).

In the war against the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time, few individuals come close to South Australia’s Mary Morris.

STT readers will know how tough and persistent Mary Morris is from posts like this: A letter to the Environment Protection Authority, South Australia.

Mary’s knowledge of acoustics and understanding of how the wind industry rigged the so-called noise ‘guidelines’ in its favour with the aid of its pet acoustic consultants, is second to none. Here’s Mary being interviewed on ABC radio (bear in mind that Australia’s public broadcaster is wind cult central and its members would rather wash their mouths out with soap, than ever utter a harsh word about their beloveds). The podcast appears below with transcript following.

Wind farms
ABC
David Bevan and Mary Morris
29 November 2018

 

Transcript

David Bevan:  That’s Connie Bonaros from SA-BEST, and she wants a moratorium on these things. Before we move on though, Mary Morris is a spokesperson for the Hansborough and Districts Residents Group. Good morning, Mary.

Mary Morris: Good morning, David, and thanks for the opportunity.

David Bevan: You live around Twin Creek Wind Farm, is that right?

Mary Morris:  I’m halfway between Twin Creek and the operating Waterloo Wind Farm.

David Bevan: And that’s 90 kilometres northeast of Adelaide?

Mary Morris: Yeah, it’s actually right on the very northern rim of the Barossa Valley, like St. Kitts, Koonunga, Ebenezer, around there.

David Bevan: Mary, what impact do you say the wind farms have had?

Mary Morris: I think the main issue is the thumping noise disturbance. That means people can’t sleep, and that thumping noise is actually technically called amplitude modulation.

One thing that the World Health Organisation said in their new environmental guidelines was that standard method … And this is a quote, standard methods of measuring sound, most commonly A-weighting, may not capture the low-frequency sound and amplitude modulation.

What we want is the amplitude modulation and the low-frequency noise to be included in the South Australian guidelines.

David Bevan: Yeah.

Mary Morris: They’re not there. And when the guidelines were last reviewed, we got some documents under FOI and the EPA, or actually Dan van Holst Pellekaan got them. And from that, we can see that there’s a group of wind industry acousticians, who are steering the content of the EPA guidelines. They said care should be taken to ensure all fundamental characteristics are occluded from the potential application of a penalty, including modulation that may occur under stable atmospheric conditions.

David Bevan: What do you say to Andrew Bray, who …

Mary Morris: I say … Well, he raised a lot of issues

David Bevan: Because he says that pretty much the science is settled.

Mary Morris:  Well, that’s not what the WHO says. They said there needs more research to be done, and it says there are serious issues with noise exposure assessment relating to wind turbines on page 86, quote. Basically, what I say to Andrew Bray is people aren’t complaining to the Wind Farm Commissioner anymore. I’ve been involved with six of them with Waterloo. For each of those complaints, nothing has been resolved because his main role is to direct the complainants’ questions to the company, and then they get an answer back from them. We’re getting the same answers from the company as we were getting without going through him.

David Bevan:  Right.

Mary Morris:  So people have asked for noise monitoring inside their houses because of the thumping at four kilometres, and there’s no funds in his budget for doing noise monitoring.

David Bevan:  Well, that’s an interesting research being done at Flinders at the moment, isn’t there?

Mary Morris:  Yes.

David Bevan:  And they’re trying. My understanding is that they’re trying a different approach to trying to monitor ….

Mary Morris:  Yeah, because it’s subliminal. It’s what’s happening when you’re asleep. I’ve got a suggestion for you, David. Go down and have a go in their sleep lab, and see how you go.

David Bevan: Mary, thank you very much for your time.

Mary Morris: Thank you. Bye.

David Bevan: Mary Morris, who is a spokesperson for the Hansborough and Districts Residents Group.

To view the original article CLICK HERE.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

An Apparent Press Release In Favour of a Wind Turbine In Stroat That lacks Veracity, Balance Or Integrity! …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
An Apparent Press Release In Favour of a Wind Turbine In Stroat That lacks Veracity, Balance Or Integrity! …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

it is interesting to note from the aparent PRESS RELEASE by those who stand to gain the most from this environmentally damaging, inefective & clearly resoundingly rejected concept that requires obscene amounts of subsidy considering the near total failure of Wind Turbines to produce a viable output of electricity to feature on the local or national grid reliably enough to permit the switch off of more sensible methods of production such as nuclear..

Be minded that there is no balance to the Forester’s article of the 21-Feb-2018 in that it merely published the statement of the ambitions of the profiting company with no apparent fact checking!

You will of course be minded that the Local Government Officers, trained in such matters and having researched the proposed planning application reported to the Council and strongly recommended against the application being granted leave to proceed.

In my opinion and having listened to the matter at the planning committee the Council acted in palpable ignorance of any relevant facts and in a clearly vexatious manner when you consider the overwhellming preponderance of objection to the application, both by the professional Officers of their own Council and of the facts pertaining to the application, not least of which was the overwhellming opposition to the scheme from the residents within sight and sound of the proposed monstrosity right on the bank of the River Severn, visible from miles around.

Seemingly the only individuals in favour were those drummed up from out of the area and either family, tenants or employees of the land ower who aimed to profit from the subsidies + any potential income!

It was also worthy of note that the landowner herself was in a position to influence the application being a newly elected Counciller who had moved within days of the election onto the Planning Committee. Having nevert mentioned her application during the election nor having shown any talent, expertise or experience in planning matters!

The decision to appeal the questionable decision of the planning committe to grant the application made in Moira Edwards’ name with the commercial support of Resiliance, was made by the residents of the area effected in the name of Peter Wright and supported in his aims by the clear majority of effected businesses and residents who life and lifestyle would clearly be damaged by the instalation, which would likely give rise to a loss of jobs in the area.

The Appeal Judge upheld the appeal application & the vexatious Council decision was overturned. It was overturned on the limited list of reasons Peter Wright’s barristers felt needed to be fielded. There were many sound reasons for rejection of the plan, though few sustainable reasons in its favour have ever been put forward by the applicants – leading one to believe the matter was mainly being progressed for the personal; profit of a few wealthy individuals!

The latest appeal was granted to Peter Wright by 3 Judges voting unanimously against the scheme. Once again Peter Wright’s barristers felt they had no need of the many other reasons against the plan as Resiliance had failed to field any compelling reason for the application beyond seemingly that of their own profit, from which they undertook to pay what seemed to be a bribe, by way of paying back some of the subsidies and a portion of any revenue AFTER they had taken they management fees!

The repayment was beiguillingly deemed to be a ‘Community Fund’ and their highly profitable (for them) scheme was mastery of aesopian English calling it a ‘Community Wind Turbine’.

Here is The Forester’s unchallenged and seemingly unchecked Press Release by the applicant Resiliance:

FORESTER 21-Feb-2018 01 re Supreme Court

It is interesting to have read the applicants documentation of their proposed appeal to the Supreme Court – The first point of interest is that Our Council has withdrawn its support for the appeal, on that note it is also worthy of note that the Tidenham Parish Council has opposed the installation on every occassion on which it has been put to them to vote.

Further it is interesting to note that the applicants nor their legal advisors have put forward any new evidence to be considerred and thus have no compelling case for the application to the Supreme Court, it would seem.

I also note they are still using the misleading language of these giant windturbines so very damaging in many ways are somehow ‘Community Wind Turbines’ when any bribe paid to the public would seem to be funded by the public’s own investment extorted from them under pretence of the efficacy of wind turbines as a power source which they are most questionably able to fullfill.

We should also note when wind turbines are installed there would seem to be no financial provission made for tyheir removal at the end of their subsidy generating life cycle, nor for the massive damage done by the immense concretye block on which they stand and seemingly no provission for the huge carbon footprint of both their manufacture nor their dismantling – indeed just how do the erectors plan to remove the huge reinforced concrete block and all the waste and dust and tons of steel? and at whose expense or is this where the ‘Community’ learn just how large was their involvement in the wind turbine as no doubt the original profiteers will be long gone!

May I also point out that it is my suspicion that once the requisite number of turbines are installed the installers will vote themselves a very lucrative maintenance & management contract with adequate let outs and then sell tyhe primary ownership to new owners with no legal responsibility to in any way contribute to the ‘Community’ they would seem to have so competently sold their scam to!

I for one see little or no merit in Wind Turbines either as a genuine and honourable investment nor as a solution to power generation whether green or any other fashionable colour!

Let us hope the Supreme Court has had the wisdom to see through the scam as increasingly politicians around the world have!

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Council Contemplates A VERY Dubious Public Investment Of Public Money …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Council Contemplates A VERY Dubious Public Investment Of Public Money …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

as has been pointed out by one correspondent with the Forest of Dean Council – it would be questionably a sound investment for yet more tax payers’ money!

Dear Councillor ******,
I note in today’s The Forester newspaper reference to a possible investment in the
above scheme to be discussed at the full Council Meeting tomorrow.
As you may be aware I and a large number of local residents are currently involved
in fighting the similar proposed Wind Turbine at Tidenham being undertaken by the
Resilience Centre who also built the Alvington Court Turbine. So far both the High
Court and the Court of Appeal have found unanimously in our favour in quashing the Planning Consent. Our legal advisers believe in the face of these clear decisions, the likelihood of the Supreme Court allowing any further Appeal are very slim. Moreover the FODDC itself has now withdrawn its objections and is not supporting the appeal by the developers The Resilience Centre.
Whilst I have no objection to the Council’s strategy of diversifying its treasury
management policy to permit consideration of alternative investments such as
renewables, I do have very strong reservations about the Council investing in any
type of individual Wind Turbine scheme proposed by The Resilience Centre, such as
suggested by Councillor McFarling in the Forester article.
Some basic facts as set out below, may help you understand why :
1.  The Alvington Court scheme failed to find sufficient private investors in its initial
funding proposal in 2015/16 and had to resort to an expensive bridging loan for
some £600,000.
2.  In September 2017 the Resilience Centre sought to raise an additional £600,000
via a public offering to replace this bridging loan this Offer closed in December
2017.
3.  Clearly once again insufficient private investor interest was generated, which is
why FODDC has now been approached by the Resilience Centre.
4.  The Share offer document is attached for information and you will note that The
Resilience Centre will benefit financially to a material extent in the payment of
management fees etc. from the scheme (pages 16 – 17).
Moreover, as noted above in view of the ongoing legal discussions, I would
seriously question whether it is wise for the Council to consider investing into any
similar single wind turbine scheme (particularly one operated by the Resilience
Centre), at least until the Supreme Court has given its ruling on the Appeal which
was submitted only last month.
I hope that you will feel able to object to this suggestion accordingly.
Minded that it would seem that Resiliencehas been unable to sell the shares in their dubious investment over a two year period perhaps it would be apposite for the Council to consider the wisdom of making up any of the shortfall  that Resilience would seem to have, particularly as the Council in the current year has shown a shortfall of its own, by way of an overspend of some £115,000 in the matter of Planning and related legal fees, a high percentage of which is likely to have been as a result of failing to take the advice of their own Officers in the matter of granting planning for a wind turbine for Resilience against the wishes of the clear majority of the Council’s own effected rate payers!
Fortunately wiser heads have so far prevailed in two appeal Courts with 4 Judges unanimously voting/adjudging in favour of the effected rate payers!
In pure investment terms I must admit I incline to doubt the wisdom of investing in shares in a scheme, particularly other people’s, where the vendors have been unable to sell their shares – just what would the Council do when it wished to sell its shares which would likely to prove even less saleable than the owners have found them to be so far!
I do not pretend to legal training but if the shares could not be sold might it not be probable any apparent profit would rapidly turn to a considerable loss and furthermore might there not be a possibility of becoming liable for the very considerable costs of reinstating the damage the Wind Turbine had cased and reinstating the land it had ruined!

ALVINGTON FORESTER 21-Feb-2018 03

I incline to the belief that the more time passes the more people will realise that using wind as a source of power is seriously unreliable in Britain and the more this becomes apparent the less the income on the shares will be & the less will be the probability of selling ones shares – the entire concept of a ‘Community Fund’ of any substance in the long run sounds little more than an unsophisticated Ponsi scheme where it will last until the founder sells their stake in the scam and the new owners are not obliged to pay out one cent!

Individuals may of course gamble their own money but I would caution it is morally repugnant for a public body to gamble public money on a scheme where clearly the very foundations are suspect even by its style, such as the pretence of the description, a ‘Community Wind Farm or Wind Mill’, whatever the apparent bribes and incentives – or even a collective guilt at having become embroilled in a Ponzi Scheme!

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Brits Tear Down Lake District Wind Turbines to Restore Pristine Views: Locals Delighted …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Brits Tear Down Lake District Wind Turbines to Restore Pristine Views:
Locals Delighted …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

WT - TORN DOWN BY LOCALS - LAKE DISTRICT

Brits Tear Down Lake District Wind Turbines to Restore Pristine Views: Locals Delighted

Among the wind cult, it’s apparently the ‘aesthetics’ of these things that titillate the senses and get their juices flowing: just knowing that they’re out there somewhere (in someone else’s backyard, not their own) gently caressing the breezes, is more than enough for starry-eyed wind worshippers.

Ignore the hundreds of $billions squandered on subsidies for a power generation system, abandoned centuries ago, for pretty obvious reasons; ignore the chaotic, occasional delivery of power which, but for those subsidies, has no commercial value because it can’t be delivered as and when power consumers want it; ignore rocketing retail power prices in places like Denmark, Germany and South Australia (all said to run on sunshine and/or breezes and all paying the highest power prices in the world); and ignore the millions of birds and bats, sliced, diced and belted to Kingdom Come each and every year.

True enough, the wind cult is simply hard-wired to ignore reality.

But, funnily enough, real environmentalists, as well as those forced to live cheek by jowl with these giant whirling wonders, tend not to feel so warm and fuzzy about them, after all. Instead, community defenders, across the globe, will do anything to prevent them destroying the rural environments in which people are bound to live.

The N-I-M-B-Y charge levelled by eco-zealots tends to ring hollow, against the fact that no matter how many of these things get speared across the countryside, there will always – absolutely A-L-W-A-Y-S – be a coal or gas (or in South Australia and the UK, diesel) generation plant somewhere in the system, online, chugging away, burning fuel (or ready to do so in an instant) just to keep the grid from collapsing, whenever wind power output collapses on a total and totally unpredictable basis. And much hyped mega-batteries will continue to be ludicrously expensive, vanity signalling projects, providing a minuscule amount of power, at the margins.

So far, so pointless.

While the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers still attempt the line that rural communities are falling over themselves to get in on some wind farm action, as usual, the spin and the reality are paddocks apart.

Around the world, rural communities continue to fight back hard against the great wind power fraud.

Wherever wind farms have appeared – or have been threatened – big numbers of locals take a set against theses things and those ready to spear them into their previously peaceful – and often idyllic – rural communities.

Their anger extends to the goons that lied their way to development approval – and the bent officials that rubber-stamped their applications and who, thereafter, help the operators ride roughshod over locals’ rights to live in and enjoy the peace and comfort of their own homes and properties (see our post here).

Apparently, instead of falling in love with the look of these things, the moment there’s an opportunity to get rid of them, communities can’t contain their riotous delight. Funny about that.

Britain Starts Dismantling Wind Farms After Successful Lake District Campaign
The Times
Ben Webster
8 December 2017

A dozen 140ft wind turbines on the edge of the Lake District are due to be dismantled next summer after a decision which could result in many more being removed to restore views.

The wind farm on Kirkby Moor on the Furness peninsula in Cumbria would be the first large one to be taken down since they began appearing around Britain in 1991.

South Lakeland district council refused an application by the wind farm operator to keep the turbines operating for another ten years until 2027.

Under the original planning permission, granted in 1992, the turbines have to be removed by August 26 next year.

The council’s decision follows a campaign by the Friends of the Lake District (FLD) and the Open Spaces Society (OSS), which argued that the turbines blighted views from within the Lake District National Park.

The distance to the park boundary from the nearest turbine is 800 metres. Laura Fiske, FLD planning officer, said the decision set a precedent which would make it easier to resist applications from other wind farm operators to extend the life of visually intrusive turbines for which planning permission will soon expire.

She said: “This decision is a victory for the local communities who live in the shadow of this development imposed on them by the government in the early 1990s. This decision reflects the tireless effort they have put in to make their voices heard.”

Kate Ashbrook, OSS general secretary, said: “We objected because the turbines are a severe intrusion in a wild landscape, highly visible from many directions and in particular from the Lake District national park.

“Furthermore, the turbines occupy a significant area of registered common land, where the public has the right to walk and commoners have the right to graze stock. The moor is also criss-crossed with public rights of way.

Now we need to make sure that every trace of the turbines is removed when the current consent expires next year, so that this magnificent common is restored to its former glory”.
The Times

To view the original of this article & much more information exposing the crass concept & environmental damage of Wind Turbines CLICK HERE.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Deaf To The Environmental Damage Of These Costly, Noisy & Inefficient Eyesores …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Deaf To The Environmental Damage Of These Costly, Noisy & Inefficient Eyesores …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

consider the massive pollution caused in the manufacture of the tons of steel & cement, then consider the tons of pollution caused by transport of all this and the massive structure of the Wind Turbine itself and the miles of coppoer wire for the installation & windings of the generator – now consider the infrastructure of roads to service these useless & damaging monstrosities.

Many of the service roads are across & through wonderful open vistas and across ancient moorlands, forests and peat beds.

Then consider the costs and pollution that will be caused cutting up the tons of reinforced steel & concrete & transporting it to landfill sites when the technology becomes obsolete as did wind power in the past.

Just why would anyone be so stupid as to instal wind turbines were it not for the bribes, backhanders and opportunities for the wealthy to milk the subsidies paid by tax payers!

WT - ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE 07

See more of Wind Energy’s Absurd on Facebook
Here is just a quick extract found on TWITTER!

Another Wonderful Whack of the Day comes from that special Constable, John, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation/Renewable Energy Foundation, in a letter to the Scottish Daily Mail.

His truncheon whacks the Scottish Government and Paul Wheelhouse into next week.

Enjoy.

————————————————————————————-

Deaf to worries about these ugly, costly and noisy sites

By John Constable, Energy Editor, Global Warming Policy Forum

There is hardly a Munro left in Scotland from which you cannot see a wind farm. In recent years the landscape has been transformed by enormous turbines.

These structures are more than 100 metres (330ft) in height and when many are clustered together, they are highly visible even from great distances.

People who choose to live in the wild areas of rural Scotland do so for a reason: because they love it. Those who go walking in these places feel the same.

They find them beautiful, and they’re sensitive to the landscape and to visual intrusion. Many are upset by the large number of turbines that have been erected.

Wind farms have a huge impact on the local environment, and not only visually. From surprisingly far distances people can hear them and the noise they make is peculiar and intermittent – it wakes them up at night and they can’t get back to sleep. Wind farms do not make good neighbours.

They are often constructed in areas where there are no roads, meaning these have to be created, sometimes on peat.

This leads to real concerns over the balance of damage and benefit – the benefits of low emissions energy on the one hand, yet the damage to the local environment on the ground, and whether that is really justified.

Almost all of the UK’s wind farming is concentrated in Scotland, because the Scottish Government is not listening to the objections of the residents who have to live near these sites.

Because so much of the Scottish population is concentrated in urban areas, however good the environmental arguments made by local objectors are, there simply aren’t enough voices for the SNP in Edinburgh to care. The simple truth is that this is political statistics.

So it is perhaps not surprising that the Scottish Government’s new energy strategy is planning an expansion of the number of turbines.

The Government has accepted a lot of the spin coming out of the wind farm industry without being sufficiently sceptical. They’ve swallowed it all hook, line and sinker. Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse continues to say that onshore wind is the lowest-cost form of new generation energy, but this is simply not true.

Onshore wind is generally extremely expensive in comparison to electricity from conventional sources, particularly combined cycle gas turbines.

It is well known that the subsidy and system costs of existing wind farms put them well above the cost of other forms of energy. Subsidies in the UK for renewables in total now come to about £7billion per year.

You’re taking money – in other words, resources – from elsewhere in the economy and giving it to wind generators.

By redirecting resources towards the wind sector, you are suppressing activity in other parts.

So you may have created jobs in the wind sector but how many jobs have you destroyed in other fundamentally economic activities?

The costs for all forms of wind are high. The farms require more grid and special operations of the grid system to keep it balanced. These costs are not small.

When you add it all up, the total cost to the consumer of a unit from a wind farm is considerably higher than that from a conventional generator. So how is the Scottish Government going to pay for these new plans?

In the autumn Budget, the Chancellor said there would be no new subsidies for wind turbines – indeed all renewables – until 2025 at the earliest.

With new sites, wind farm operators will sometimes say they don’t require subsidies, but that remains to be seen.

This suggests to me, then, that the SNP is either hoping for a change in policy, or it is being deliberately vague in its ambitions. Does it believe any of this?

If all these turbines were to be built, the Government faces another problem: an enormous expansion of the grid to serve them. You need an awful lot of wire to get wind from the wind farms to the interconnectors that serve the grid.

As Scotland knows from the controversial Beauly to Denny power line, this is not an easy thing – it’s expensive and ugly – and someone has to pay for it.

A few people may well benefit from the further expansion of wind turbines in Scotland – land owners and wind farm operators, perhaps – but it is unlikely to be the Scottish people.

No automatic alt text available.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Wind Turbines Prove To Be A Failure In Scotland – I’ll Bet You Guessed The Reason Given ‘The Wind’! …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Wind Turbines Prove To Be A Failure In Scotland – I’ll Bet You Guessed The Reason Given ‘The Wind’! ,,,
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

Slump in electricity despite wind farms

  • Scottish Daily Mail
  • 22 Dec 2017
  • By Michael Blackley Scottish Political Editor

THE amount of electricity generated in Scotland slumped to a record low last year – partly because the weather was not right for wind farms.

Official figures show that though the number of wind turbines rocketed by nearly a fifth last year, they managed to produce less electricity than the year before.

Combined with the closure of Longannet power station, it meant total electricity production in Scotland fell to the lowest figure recorded.

Opponents said the statistics show that the SNP’s ‘obsession’ with onshore wind is ‘ill-conceived’.

An energy report published by the UK Government yesterday showed that the total amount of electricity produced north of the Border was lower last year than for more than a decade.

While the total capacity of wind turbines increased by 17 per cent, the amount of renewable energy generated slumped by nearly 11 per cent.

The UK Government’s energy trends report states: ‘Of Scotland’s generation in 2016, a record high of 43 per cent was from renewables, up from 42 per cent in 2015. This was mainly due to the large fall in coal generation following the closure of Longannet.

‘Absolute renewable generation decreased by 3.3 terawatt hours (TWh) in Scotland as a result of unfavourable weather conditions despite increasing capacity, a 17 per cent increase in wind capacity and a 23 per cent increase in solar capacity.’

The new figures show that the total amount of electricity generated by renewables fell from 21,759 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2015 to 19,676 GWh in 2016. Wind, wave and solar generated 12,815 GWh last year, compared to 14,100 GWh in 2015.

Total electricity generated fell from 51,351 GWh to 45,845 GWh, which was lower than any of the previous 13 years.

Scottish Tory energy spokesman Alexander Burnett said: ‘This is an utterly ridiculous state of affairs.

‘We have plenty of wind, so this clearly suggests the SNP obsession with windfarms is ill-conceived.

‘Perhaps it’s time the SNP opened its mind to other sources like shale extraction.’

The Scottish Government this week published proposals for a mass expansion in the number of wind farms. Developments in the pipeline will already increase the number of turbines from 3,335 to 6,292.

The Scottish Government yesterday stated that output from renewables in the first three quarters of this year has been 19 per cent higher than the same period of 2016.

It also pointed out that renewables provided a record 42.9 per cent of Scotland’s total electricity generated in 2016.

Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse said: ‘Scotland is on track for a record year of renewable electricity generation.

‘We will continue to support the renewable energy sector to grow further in Scotland.’

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: ‘Our diverse and flexible energy mix ensures that the UK’s electricity supplies remain secure, and as these statistics show, we generated more electricity in 2016 compared with 2015.’

WT - FALL IN ELECTRICITY 01

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hanley / Stroat Wind Turbine Spin by Applicant Regarding Its Rejection Again …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hanley / Stroat Wind Turbine Spin by Applicant Regarding Its Rejection Again …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

I do not believe it would be unreasonable to wonder if the degree of bias in this article might reflect the amount of advertising garnerted or hoped for from the prime subject of the article!

Clearly the Council was not only unwise but it has now been adjudgedlegally wrong to permit effective bribes by the applicant to influence their planning decision. It is worth noting that the subsidies for installing Wind Turbines are paid by tax payers and also from a levy on fuel bills – thus the claims of community benefit were in fact effectively being paid by the community to the community! Some bribe.

Effectively the the Courts have with consistency sided with the wishes of the clear majority of those effected by this application where it has been cleartly shown that the local community have been opposed to the immense & damaging instalation, despite our own Council made the vexatious decision to oppose the rate payers!

You will note that there is no balanced claim in the article showing just how incredibly environmentally damaging Wind Turbines are and just how unreliable and ridiculous the pretence they are beneficial is – nor how ineffective a source of energy they are and the irrefutable fact that the CO2 output in their manufacture is almost impossible for them to make compensation for in their working life.

It is worthy of note that the government has advocated that no further on land applications are considered – primarily of course because they are neither fit for purpose nor cost effective and are undeniably hugely ecologically damaging!

The lies presented by scoundrels seeking personal gain from these monstrosities are quite staggering, just as with the manner in which effective bribes are offered so that applicants can tap the system for these money spinning subsidies.

Forest of Dean wind turbine storm continues

By George Henderson in Planning

BLOODIED but unbowed – the group fighting to build a giant wind turbine in Tidenham were picking themselves up from the wreckage of an unfavourable court judgment this week.

The Woolaston-based Resilience Centre which operates community turbines at St Briavels and Alvington, has been fighting against a court judgment in 2016 which quashed planning permission for a third turbine in Tidenham.

And this week, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous judgment that the planning permission granted by Forest of Dean District Council was unlawful because it took into account the scheme’s financial donations to the community.

The donations – promised by the Resilience Centre to total between £500,000 – £1,100,000 – were to be administered through a Community Benefit Society formed under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.

The council accepted that the donations had been taken into account in granting the permission.

The question for the Court was whether that approach was lawful.

This week Lord Justice McFarlane, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Hikinbottom handed down their judgment which upheld the decision of the previous hearing.

But Sue Clarke, who heads the Resilience Centre, said the group still has a number of legal options to consider before it concedes defeat.

“Obviously we and the community were all very disappointed by the court’s decision,” she said.

“But there is a possibility of further action with a number of options open to us.”

The judges’ decision boiled down to their ruling that the financial benefit to the community should not have been regarded as ‘material’ to the granting of planning permission.

To view the original article CLICK HERE.

.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

%d bloggers like this: