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.

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

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

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

Full Text of Court of Appeal Judgement Against Stroat Wind Turbine 14-Dec-2017 …

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

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

.
Full Text of Court of Appeal Judgement Against Stroat Wind Turbine 14-Dec-2017 …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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 – Judgment – 14-Dec-2017[15953]

.

 

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 2102
Case No: C1/2016/2699

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (PLANNING COURT)

THE HON MR JUSTICE DOVE

[2016] EWHC 1349 (Admin)

Cardiff Civil and Family Justice Centre

2 Park Street, Cardiff, CF10 1ET

 

Date: 14/12/17

Before :

 

LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE

 

LORD JUSTICE DAVIS

and

LORD JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

Between :

 

  (1)   FOREST OF DEAN DISTRICT COUNCIL

(2)   RESILIENT ENERGY SERVERNDALE LIMITED

 

 

 

Appellants

  – and –  
   

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF

PETER WRIGHT

 

 

 

Respondent

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

Paul Cairnes QC and James Corbet Burcher (instructed by Helen Blundell,

Solicitor Forest of Dean District Council) for the First Appellant

Martin Kingston QC and Jenny Wigley (instructed by Burges Salmon LLP)

for the Second Appellant

Neil Cameron QC and Zack Simons (instructed by Harrison Grant Solicitors)

for the Respondent

 

Hearing date: 8 November 2017

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Approved Judgment

 

 

 

 

Lord Justice Hickinbottom:

 

Introduction

  1. These appeals raise the single issue of whether, on an application for development proposed to be undertaken by a community benefit society, a proposed donation to the community of a proportion of the turnover derived from the development is a material consideration.
  2. The issue arises in the context of an application to the First Appellant local planning authority (“the Council”) by the Second Appellant (“Resilient Severndale”) for change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine, and the installation of a single, community-scale 500kW wind turbine at Severndale Farm, Tidenham, Gloucestershire (“the proposed development”). It was proposed that the turbine would be erected and run by a community benefit society, and the application included a promise that an annual donation would be made to a local community fund based on 4% of turnover from the operation of the turbine over its projected life of 25 years, to be achieved by way of a condition that the development be undertaken by such a society with the donation as part of the scheme.
  3. The Council granted full planning permission for the proposed development, with such a condition. In doing so, in favour of the proposed development, they expressly took into account the donation.  The Respondent (“Mr Wright”), a local resident, sought judicial review of the decision, on the basis that the promised donation was not a material planning consideration, and the Council had acted unlawfully in taking it into account.  In his judgment of 9 June 2016, Dove J agreed with that proposition, and quashed the grant of planning permission.  In these appeals, the Council and Resilient Severndale contend he was wrong to do so.
  4. Before us, Paul Cairnes QC and James Corbet Burcher of Counsel appeared for the Council, Martin Kingston QC and Jenny Wigley of Counsel for Resilient Severndale, and Neil Cameron QC and Zack Simons of Counsel for Mr Wright.

The Policy Background

  1. The Government wish to encourage renewable energy projects, and consider local communities have a part to play. In October 2014, the Department of Energy and Climate Change published a document entitled “Community Benefits from Onshore Wind Developments: Best Practice Guidance for England” (“the DECC Guidance”), in which the Ministerial Foreword said:

“Communities hosting renewable energy play a vital role in meeting our national need for secure, clean energy and it is absolutely right that they should be recognised and rewarded for their contribution.”

The introduction goes on to state that:

“Communities have a unique and exciting opportunity to share in the benefits that their local wind energy resources can bring through effective partnerships with those developing wind energy.”

  1. The document describes community benefits, in this context, in the following terms:

“Community benefits can bring tangible rewards to communities which host wind projects, over and above the wider economic, energy security and environmental benefits that arise from those developments.  They are an important way of sharing the value that wind energy can bring with the local community.

Community benefits include:

  1. Community benefit funds – voluntary monetary payments from an onshore wind developer to the community, usually provided via an annual cash sum, and
  2. Benefits in-kind – other voluntary benefits which the developer provides to the community, such as in-kind works, direct funding of projects, one-off funding, local energy discount scheme or any other non-necessary site-specific benefits.

In addition to the above, there can also be:

  1. Community investment (Shared ownership) – this is where a community has a financial stake, or investment in a scheme. This can include co-operative schemes and online investment platforms.
  2. Socio-economic community benefits – job creation, skills training, apprenticeships, opportunities for educational visits and raising awareness of climate change.
  3. Material benefits – derived from actions taken directly related to the development such as improved infrastructure.

This document contains guidance on community benefit funds and benefits in-kind (points 1 and 2).  The provision of these community benefits is an entirely voluntary undertaking by wind farm developers.  They are not compensation payments.

Material and socio-economic benefits will be considered as part of any planning application for the development and will be determined by local planning authorities.  They are not covered by this guidance…”.

  1. Prior to the DECC Guidance, many onshore wind developers already provided voluntary contributions in various forms over the lifetime of the project. The document goes on to say:

“The wind industry through RenewableUK has consolidated this voluntary approach by coming together to produce a protocol which commits developers of onshore wind projects above 5MW (megawatts) in England to provide a community benefit package to the value of at least £5,000 per MW of installed capacity per year, index-linked for the operational lifetime of the project.

Community benefits offer a rare opportunity for the local community to access resources, including long-term, reliable and flexible funding to directly enhance their local economy, society and environment….

The best outcomes tend to be achieved when benefits are tailored to the needs of the local community…”.

The DECC Guidance refers to a number of case studies where community benefit funds have been set up by wind farm developers, e.g. by West Coast RWE Innogy UK in respect of the Farr Wind Farm in Scotland (£3.5m over the lifetime of the wind farm).

  1. However, the DECC Guidance makes clear the relationship between the guidance it gives in the context of renewable energy policy, and the planning regime. Under the heading “Planning phase guidance; background to community benefits”, it states

“This document contains guidance on community benefit funds and benefits-in kind.  The provision of these community benefits are entirely voluntary undertakings by wind farm developers and should be related to the needs of the local community.

These community benefits are separate from the planning process and are not relevant to the decision as to whether the planning application for a wind farm should be approved or not – i.e. they are not ‘material’ to the planning process.  This means they should not generally be taken into account by local planning authorities when deciding the outcome of a planning application for a wind farm development.

Currently the only situation in which financial arrangements are considered material to planning is under the Localism Act as amended (2011), which allows a local planning authority to take into account financial benefits where there is a direct connection between the intended use of the funds and the development.

And Planning Practice Guidance [see paragraph 10 below] states, ‘Local planning authorities may wish to establish policies which give positive weight to renewable and low carbon energy initiatives which have clear evidence of local community involvement and leadership.

Socio-economic and material benefits from onshore wind developments are types of benefit that can be taken into consideration when a planning application is determined by the local planning authority and are not covered by this Guidance.”

  1. In addition, paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF”) states:

“To help increase the supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources.  They should:

  • Have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources;
  • Design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
  • Consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources;
  • Support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning…”.
  1. Planning Practice Guidance: Renewable and low carbon energy (ID: 5-004-20140306) contains guidance in relation to the approach to be taken to community-led renewable energy, which builds on paragraph 97 of the NPPF. Under the heading “What is the role for community led renewable energy initiatives?”, it states:

“Community initiatives are likely to play an increasingly important role and should be encouraged as a way of providing positive local benefit from renewable energy development. Further information for communities interested in developing their own initiatives is provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.  Local planning authorities may wish to establish policies which give positive weight to renewable and low carbon energy initiatives which have clear evidence of local community involvement and leadership.”

The Factual Background

  1. The Resilience Centre Limited (“the Resilience Centre”) was established in 2009 by Andrew Clarke and his wife. The rationale for the company is set out in Mr Clarke’s statement dated 2 December 2015.  It focuses on social investment, i.e. “the provision and use of capital to generate social as well as financial returns”, with the aim “to help build resilience in society in the context of climate change, and natural resource limitations and with a view to improving local economies” (paragraph 4).
  2. The Resilience Centre has sought to pursue that aim, and in particular overcome the problems of up-front community energy project costs, which are at risk if the project does not ultimately proceed, by developing “the Resilient Energy Community Model”. This involves the Resilience Centre and the landowner obtaining planning permission, but with a commitment to open up the project to individual investors from the community once planning consent has been obtained.  Since the Cooperative and Community Benefits Act 2014 came into force on 1 August 2014, their legal structure of choice has been a community benefit society registered under that Act, which, as I understand it, has various tax advantages.  By section 2(2)(a)(ii) of that Act, it is a condition of registration that “it has been shown to the satisfaction of the [Financial Conduct Authority]… that the business of the society is being, or is intended to be, conducted for the benefit of the community”.
  3. The Resilient Energy Community Model is focused upon the community, the socio-economic benefits of the model being said to include the following.
    1. The wind turbine is of “community scale”, i.e. it meets or helps to meet local energy needs, but does not seek to maximise output or exceed those needs.
    2. Through back-to-back power purchase arrangements, it both reduces the costs of energy locally and retains a greater proportion of money paid in power bills within the local economy.
  • It retains business rates within the district.
  1. It creates local jobs directly and indirectly.
  2. It provides a local educational resource.
  1. It also gives more direct financial benefit to the local community, in two ways. First, individuals in the community are invited to invest through a share issue in the relevant community benefit society, with the value of the contribution of the Resilience Centre and landowner being independently valued and reflected in their share in the project.  Expected returns for investors is in the region of 7% per annum.  Second, once the wind turbine is operational, a percentage of operating turnover is donated to the local community “to aid in building community resilience by helping the community to address current needs and future challenges” (paragraph 5 of Mr Clarke’s statement).  These funds are allocated to community causes by a panel of local people.
  2. This model has been used by the Resilience Centre, through single project limited companies and community benefit societies, for 500kW community wind power projects at Alvington (which is in the Council’s area) and St Briavels (which is just outside) which are operative, and two further projects at Kingswood, Stroud have obtained planning consent.

The Application

  1. Resilient Severndale, through the Resilience Centre as its agent, applied to the Council for planning permission for the proposed development on 29 January 2015. The application was accompanied by, amongst other things, a Planning Statement and an Environmental Report, and was supplemented by further letters from the Resilience Centre dated 10 and 15 July 2017.  The application focused on both the benefits of renewable wind energy and the new policy emphasis on the engagement of local people in the energy process.  The application documents therefore emphasised the community-focused nature of the development, paragraph 5.9.1 of the Environmental Report setting out the various benefits to the community which I have already outlined (see paragraph 12 above).
  2. One benefit was said to be:

“Sustainable Community Benefits over life of turbine averaging £40,000/MW installed capacity = 8X latest Government recommendations.”

That needs a little explanation.  As I have described, the DECC Guidance refers to a protocol which commits developers of wind farms with a capacity of more than 5MW to provide a community benefit package of £5,000 per MW of installed capacity each year (see paragraph 7 above).  A commitment was proposed here, where the proposed development was for only 0.5MW, of a donation to a community benefit fund of 4% of turnover or approximately £20,000 per year, equivalent to £40,000 per MW (i.e. eight times the protocol level).

  1. The Officer’s Report dated 7 July 2015 (“the First Officer’s Report”) advised the Council’s Planning Committee (“the Committee”) that the community benefit fund was not a material consideration that could be taken into account when considering the planning application, because (i) there were no clear controls and/or enforcement measures that could ensure the benefit was delivered, and in any event, (ii) the fund could be used to finance projects that were unconnected to low carbon energy generation.
  2. Resilient Severndale submitted further observations to the Council, which resulted in consideration of the application being deferred. Further submissions were then made, to the effect that the project would commit up to £1.1m in direct community benefits (i.e. 4% of turnover, together with £600,000 that it was estimated would be earned by the turbine over and above the community benefit society’s commitments which, under the terms of the society, would also be dedicated to the community), and relying upon a successful appeal to an inspector in relation to Alvington Wind Farm.  Further Officer’s Reports were then produced, the final report dated 11 August 2015 concluding that the community benefit fund was a material consideration in favour of the development.
  3. That day (11 August 2015), the Committee approved the application, the minutes expressly recording that, in doing so, “members had included the local community donation fund as a material contribution in favour of the proposals as part and parcel of the basket of socio-economic benefits which were relied upon by [Resilient Severndale]”.
  4. On 30 September 2015, the planning application was granted subject to a number of conditions, including condition 28 (a pre-commencement condition) which provided as follows:

“The development is to be undertaken via a Community Benefit Society set up for the benefit of the community and registered with the Financial Conduct Authority under the Co-Operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.  Details of the Society number to be provided to the local planning authority prior to commencement of construction.

Reason: to ensure the project delivers social, environmental and economic benefits for the communities of Tidenham and the broader Forest of Dean.”

That was the vehicle for ensuring that the promised community benefit fund would be delivered.

  1. The fund, once set up, will be allocated by a panel of local individuals established for that task; and the objects of the fund will include any community project. There was evidence before the judge that the St Briavels Wind Turbine Community Fund had been distributed for (amongst other things) the creation of a village handyman service, the maintenance of publicly accessible defibrillators in the village, the purchase of waterproof clothing to enable young members of the community to participate in scheduled outdoor activities in inclement weather, and to provide a meal at a local public house for the members of the St Briavels Lunch Club (a lunch club for older people) and club volunteers.

The Claim

  1. Mr Wright challenged the decision to grant planning permission by way of judicial review, on the basis that the community benefit fund donation was not a material consideration. He submitted that it did not serve a planning purpose, it was not related to land use, and it had no real connection to the proposed development.  In his judgment of 9 June 2016, Dove J accepted those submissions.
  2. Before this court, Mr Cairnes for the Council and Mr Kingston for Resilient Severndale submit that Dove J erred in law in his approach to the donation and his conclusion that it was not a material consideration in the planning decision-making process. They submit that, properly considered, the community benefit fund donation serves a planning purpose, and there is a real connection between it and the proposed development.  Furthermore, they submit, the judge’s conclusion that the donation is, as a matter of law, immaterial to the planning decision-making process is in contradiction to national policy and guidance which identifies renewable energy development as a positive material consideration.  Mr Kingston submits that the community fund donation is an inherent feature of the community involvement in the proposed development; and the result of the judgment, he submits, is to render that aspect of Government policy unlawful.

The Law

  1. The only issue that arises in these appeals is whether the proposed community benefit fund donation of a proportion of the turnover derived from the development was properly taken into account as a material consideration by the Council when it considered and approved the planning application for the proposed development.
  2. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) provides that, in dealing with an application for planning permission, a planning authority must have regard to all “material considerations”, including “any local finance consideration” defined in section 70(4) (added from 15 January 2012, by section 143(4) of the Localism Act 2011) as “(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or (b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy”.
  3. What amounts to a material consideration has been considered in a series of cases to which we were referred, including Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 (“Newbury”), Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates PLC [1985] 1 AC 661, R v Plymouth City Council ex parte Plymouth and South Devon Cooperative Society Limited [1994] 67 P&CR 78, Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759, R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited) v Wolverhampton City Council [2010] UKSC 20; [2011] 1 AC 437 and Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited [2017] UKSC 66 (“Aberdeen”). In his judgment at [20] and following, Dove J comprehensively and helpfully reviewed these cases (save for Aberdeen, which post-dated his judgment).  I can be relatively brief.  The relevant law is uncontroversial.  Indeed, all parties rely upon the same well-established propositions.
  4. So far as relevant to these appeals, the following propositions can be drawn from the cases.
    1. A planning decision-maker has a statutory duty to have regard to all material considerations; and to have no regard to considerations which are not material. Whilst the weight to be given to a material consideration is a matter for the decision-maker, what amounts to a material consideration is a question of law for the court to determine.
    2. The fact that a matter may be regarded as desirable (for example, as being of benefit to the local community or wider public) does not in itself make that matter a material consideration for planning purposes. For a consideration to be material, it must have a planning purpose (i.e. it must relate to the character or the use of land, and not be solely for some other purpose no matter how well-intentioned and desirable that purpose may be); and it must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development (i.e. there must be a real – as opposed to a fanciful, remote, trivial or de minimis – connection with the development).  These criteria of materiality, oft-cited since, are derived from the speech of Viscount Dilhorne in Newbury at page 599H, and known as “the Newbury criteria”.  They were very recently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Aberdeen (at [29] per Lord Hodge JSC, giving the judgment of the court).
  • For a benefit to be material, it does not have to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; although, by section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No 948), a planning obligation may only be taken into account in the determination of any planning application if it is so necessary. Although paragraph 206 of the NPPF provides that “planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary…”, the statutory requirement for necessity does not apply to the attachment of a condition to the grant of planning permission.
  1. Financial considerations may be relevant to a planning decision. For example, financial dependency of one part of a composite development on another part may be material, as may financial viability if it relates to the development.  However, something which is funded from the development or otherwise offered by the developer will not, by virtue of that fact alone, be sufficiently related to, or connected with, the development to be a material consideration.
  2. Off-site benefits are not necessarily immaterial. An off-site benefit may be material if it satisfies the Newbury

The Appellant’s Case

  1. Mr Cairnes and Mr Kingston accepted that the donation to a community benefit fund was an off-site benefit, and accepted that therefore, in order to be material, it must have a planning purpose and have a real connection with the proposed development. However, they submitted that Dove J erred in concluding that the proposed donation “is an untargeted contribution of off-site benefits which is not designed to address a planning purpose” (at [55] of his judgment); and that there was “no real connection between the development of the wind turbine and the gift of monies to be used for any purpose which appointed members of the community consider their community would derive benefit” (at [56]).  He erred, it is said, both in restricting the scope of the concept of “serving a planning purpose” and thus finding that the community benefit fund donation did not satisfy that criterion; and in finding that it did not relate to the development.
  2. Their submissions were wide-ranging, but three broad strands are apparent.
  3. First, in respect of a planning purpose, Mr Cairnes submitted that the community benefit fund donation is capable of providing – and will in fact provide – a “positive socio-economic impact within a confirmed community-led structure, reasonably proximate to the development itself”. Those benefits, and the “community resilience” that will arise as a result, directly engage with the way in which the land is used and communities are built.  The community benefit fund is not only sourced from the proposed development as a percentage of turnover (so, as Mr Kingston vividly put it, “the community benefits from every turn of the turbine blades”), but through a community-focused and community-led structure in the form of the community benefit society.  The fund therefore serves a planning purpose.
  4. Mr Kingston accepted that the community involvement through the community benefit fund does not relate to land use “in the strict sense”; but, he submitted, it fulfils a planning purpose in improving sustainability of communities, and is not less related to land use than (e.g.) the planning policy in relation to affordable housing, i.e. the policy encouragement to limit the occupancy of some housing to those with limited financial needs, which is recognised as a material consideration in planning applications.
  5. Second, Mr Kingston submitted that the community benefit fund donation falls within the scope of planning purpose, because it has a positive effect of a “constraint on the operation of the development” for the benefit of the community: it is the beneficial financial result of constraining the development to operate only for the benefit of the community. In this regard, the fact that the developer would be a community benefit society, rather than a strictly commercial enterprise, is vital.  The community benefit fund is not a gift or a bribe to obtain planning permission: it is an inextricable part of the scheme, and an inherent consequence of the development being community-led.  It would be inappropriate and wrong to disaggregate the community benefit fund, as a financial consequence of the scheme, from the other aspects of the scheme.  He submitted that the DECC Guidance, properly construed, draws an important distinction between community benefit funds that are sourced from a commercial venture, and those sourced from a community project.  Every payment from the fund would evidence continuing community involvement in the operation of the scheme, from which the fund would be derived.  There can be confidence that the relevant fund will be only used for local community purposes because, not only will it be distributed by a committee of local people, but the statutory provisions under which the community benefit society will be set up requires it to be conducted for the benefit of the community.  The Financial Conduct Authority has to be satisfied that that requirement is met.  Mr Cairnes went so far as to refer to “the unique nature of the financial contribution in the instant case”.
  6. Third, both Mr Cairnes and Mr Kingston submitted that the judge was wrong to consider that the classes of material considerations are closed; and, in particular, he failed to take into account the recent evolution in policy, which should be mirrored by a change in approach to material considerations. What amounts to a material consideration for planning purposes is flexible and dynamic, and responsive to evolving planning policy.  The DECC Guidance, NPPF and the PPG positively support both renewable energy, and specifically community involvement and leadership in local renewable energy projects.  There is thus strong policy support for treating developments such as this, on a planning application, more benevolently than a commercially-operated wind turbine.  In any event, the conclusion of Dove J requires a planning authority to ignore these relevant policy factors, and thus creates a “policy contradiction”.  Mr Kingston submitted that the judgment effectively renders unlawful the Government policy encouraging positive consideration of community involvement in renewable energy; and whether it is unlawful or not is, he submits, the central issue in this appeal.

Discussion

  1. Skilfully as those submissions were made, I am unpersuaded by them.
  2. Both Mr Cairnes and Mr Kingston – in my view, rightly – accepted that, on a planning application, it would be unlawful for a planning authority to take into consideration a donation to a community benefit fund by a commercial wind farm developer, because such a donation would not be a material consideration. For similar reasons, they accepted that an authority could not require such a donation as a planning obligation, whoever the developer might be.  However, they each submitted that the circumstances of this case, notably the voluntary donation derived from a community-led project and made to benefit the community, were materially different; but that submission faced the difficulty that, as I have indicated (see paragraph 28(ii) and (iv) above), neither the source of the funds nor the fact that a matter is regarded as beneficial to the public make a matter a material consideration for planning purposes (a matter to which I return below: see paragraph 51 and following).
  3. That led to Mr Kingston, in particular, submitting that the community benefits of this development have to be looked at as a whole, because the donation for the community benefit fund cannot be disaggregated from the other community socio-economic benefits that will derive from the development, some of which (it is common ground) are material in a planning context. However, it was not suggested that the 4% of turnover donation was “necessary” for the purposes of the grant of planning permission; nor could any explanation be given as to why the figure of 4% (rather than 3% or 5% or some other figure) was offered.  Nor was that donation “inherent” in the project, any more than an offer of a similar donation by a commercial wind farm developer would be “inherent” in his development.  In any event, an immaterial consideration cannot be made material by simply aggregating it with other considerations, some of which are or may be material.
  4. Nor was I impressed by Mr Kingston’s submission that the DECC Guidance distinguished between donations to the community made by a commercial developer and those made by a community developer, for two primary reasons.
  5. First, I am unconvinced that the nature of the proposed development scheme here is essentially different from what Mr Kingston described as a “commercial” scheme. I accept that there are differences in emphasis between the type of project Mr Kingston described: a commercial scheme may be more concerned with maximising profit, whereas in the proposed development the community would have more of an interest in the scheme at the expense of some profit.  Just as a commercial wind farm may not be entirely concerned with profit – as I have described, developers of such a wind farm are expected to make a voluntary donation into a community benefit fund – the proposed scheme here is not entirely altruistic.  The Resilience Centre is committed to local renewable energy; but, as Mr Clarke’s statement makes clear – and entirely understandably – it focuses upon the use of capital to generate financial, as well as social, returns (see paragraph 11 above).  It intends making a profit on this project, as a return for the at risk investment it has made.  Similarly, the landowner intends making a profit from his investment, his stake in the project being based on the value of his land with the benefit of planning permission.  If the project is opened up to individual investors, although they will be local, not all local people will be able to afford to invest and the number of such investors are likely to be relatively few – we were told that about one hundred, out of a community of about 4,500, have expressed an interest.  Those who invest will expect an estimated 7% per annum return.  Therefore, in each scheme, although I accept the emphasis and the distribution of income might be different, there are usually elements of both profit and voluntary contributions to the community.
  6. Second, in relying upon the DECC Guidance, Mr Kingston faced the difficulty of the document itself stating that community benefits are “separate from the planning process and are not relevant to the decision as to whether the planning application for a wind farm should be approved or not – i.e. they are not ‘material’ to the planning process” (see paragraph 8 above). He sought to address this difficulty by reference to the introduction to the DECC Guidance, which states that “material and socio-economic benefits will be considered as part of any planning application for the development and will be determined by local planning authorities.  They are not covered by this guidance.”  Mr Kingston submitted that the DECC Guidance draws a distinction between a community venture and a commercial venture with community benefits.  He submitted that, on a proper construction of the Guidance, community benefit funds and benefits in kind as the terms are used in the DECC Guidance introduction are restricted to such benefits as might be provided by otherwise commercial wind farm developers; whilst community investment, socio-economic community benefits and material benefits, as those terms are used, are restricted to community-led and -focused projects such as this.  On this analysis, the community benefit fund in this proposed development is an essential part of a bundle of socio-economic benefits which, it is submitted, the Guidance acknowledges are material planning considerations.
  7. There are in my view a number of difficulties with that analysis.
  8. First, a basic defect in the analysis is that, in my view, on a true reading the DECC Guidance simply does not draw the distinction between commercial and community wind developments which Mr Kingston seeks to rely upon. The community benefit fund in this case – the 4% of turnover year-on-year – falls firmly within the definition of “community benefit fund” given in the DECC Guidance, i.e. “voluntary payments from an onshore wind developer to the community, usually provided via an annual cash sum”.  It does not fall within the definition of “socio-economic community benefits”, i.e. “job creation, skills training, apprenticeships, opportunities for educational visits and arranging awareness if climate change”.  Nor does it fall within “community investment”, because it is clear that this category involves shared ownership, i.e. “where a community has a financial stake, or investment in the scheme”, which is not the case in a community benefit fund in which the community share in a benefit not ownership.  There is nothing in the Guidance to suggest that a donation which falls within “community benefit funds” is restricted to a donation from so-called “commercial” developers.
  9. That the community benefit fund in this case is distinct from the other socio-economic benefits (some of which are material planning considerations) was recognised by Resilient Severndale in its Summary Grounds of Opposition to Mr Wright’s judicial review, where it was said:

“12.  By letter of 15 July, [Resilient Severndale] confirmed:

  • The project would be brought forward by a community benefit society.
  • Separately to this, £500,000 would be donated to the local community over a period of 20 years.

[Resilient Severndale] confirmed on 7 August 2015 that it would accept a condition securing the first of the above.  Only this matter, not the community fund, is covered by condition 28 which the Committee elected to impose.  In this letter [Resilient Severndale]… challenged the approach of the officers to date in failing to refer properly to the social and economic benefits of the project.

  1. It is important to be aware that throughout the application process there was a clear distinction made between:

(a)   the establishment of a community investment scheme; and

(b)  the annual community donation.

  1. In this way the Committee were being directed to clear and demonstrable social and economic impacts on the local community (in this case beneficial) on the understanding that they, the Committee members, were entitled to take these benefits into account.”
  2. Therefore, from its letters of 15 July and 7 August 2015, and from its pleading in the judicial review, Resilient Severndale’s offer was clear, i.e. a community benefit fund donation distinct from the other benefits of the development. In my view, that correctly recognised the reality that the donation to the community benefit fund was outside the “socio-economic benefits” of the project and was, as the DECC Guidance confirmed, outside the scope of material planning considerations.  Given the nature of the offer, it is unsurprising that the First Officer’s Report advised the Committee that the community benefit fund was not a material consideration (see paragraph 18 above).
  3. I add for the sake of completeness, that neither does the fund fall within section 70(4) of the 1990 Act (see paragraph 26 above). That sub-section was added by the Localism Act 2011, as part of a suite of planning provisions which included the NPPF.  It set out “local finance considerations” which are to be treated as material considerations for planning purposes.  Of course, notwithstanding a failure of such consideration to comply with the Newbury criteria, Parliament through statute, unlike the executive through policy, could do that.  It is notable, however, that Parliament has not amended those provisions to include a community benefit fund donation, by whomever made, as such a material consideration.
  4. Second, at a higher level, although the DECC Guidance is not planning policy, even planning policy cannot convert something immaterial into a material consideration for planning purposes. Mr Kingston submitted that changing policy in relation to affordable housing resulted in a change of approach of the courts to accept affordable housing needs as a material consideration in, notably, Mitchell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1994) 69 P&CR 60.  However, that was a very different case from this.  As Saville LJ (with whom Balcombe LJ and Sir Roger Parker agreed) indicated (at page 62), it was uncontroversial that the need for housing in a particular area was a material consideration for planning purposes: Mitchell merely confirmed that there was no difference in principle between the need for housing generally, and the need for particular types of housing.  Contrary to Mr Kingston’s submission, I do not consider that Balcombe LJ’s short judgment suggests otherwise.  The issue was raised in the context of a challenge to an affordable housing policy, and whether that policy offended the Newbury  Balcombe LJ, like Saville LJ (with whom he agreed, and said that his observations did no more than elaborate Saville LJ’s leading judgment), merely confirmed that the need for affordable housing was a matter properly relating to the character and/or use of the land.  That is one of the Newbury criteria.  In my view, Mitchell is firmly based on conventional principles concerning the character and use of land, and did not affect the approach to material considerations.
  5. Mr Kingston frankly accepted that his reliance on a review of the affordable housing cases “maybe goes too far” (paragraph 19 of his skeleton argument). In my view, the affordable housing cases do not assist Mr Kingston’s cause: and, certainly, they do not support the proposition that, in considering whether a matter which does not satisfy the Newbury criteria can be treated as a material consideration, the court can consider how such a matter is treated by the executive government in its policy documents.
  6. In any event, whilst it is true that both paragraph 97 of the NPPF and the PPG encourage the use of renewable energy, and particularly community-led initiatives in that regard, neither encourage unrestricted gifts of money to the community; and, as Dove J said at [54] of his judgment, neither suggests that, where a proposed development is community-led, it is unnecessary to examine contributions associated with it to assess whether they satisfy the legal requirements of being a material consideration in the planning decision, i.e. the Newbury
  7. Both Mr Cairnes and Mr Kingston referred to the “policy contradiction” inherent in Dove J’s judgment, which (it is submitted) requires a planning decision-maker to ignore relevant Government policy encouraging renewable energy and, particularly, renewable energy projects which are community-focused and community-led. However, in my view, there is no such contradiction or problem.  The DECC Guidance is not part of the planning regime; nor is the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 or the Infrastructure Act 2015, which Mr Kingston also relied upon in support of the contention that the community involvement in projects is generally encouraged.  In any event, the planning regime is used to considering, in the same decision-making process, various material policies that may pull in different directions.  In respect of any proposed development, the adverse impact on one policy may have to be balanced against the policy benefits elsewhere in the regime.  There is no doubt that a policy that encourages community involvement in wind farm development may be a material consideration; but it is only material if and insofar as it complies with the Newbury  Where it does, then it is for the planning decision-maker to give it the weight that it considers appropriate.
  8. Turning to those criteria, where a financial contribution that is not a material consideration is put forward as part of an application for proposed development, it is sometimes said that that is an attempt to “buy” planning permission. In my view, that terminology (or even more pejorative terms such as “bribe”) is generally unhelpful.  In respect of materiality, the proper focus is upon the Newbury  No matter how well-intentioned the proposed donor might be (and I accept that, here, Resilient Severndale is well-intentioned), and no matter how publicly desirable such a donation might be (and I accept that, here, the proposed community benefit fund would benefit the community), such a donation will not be material for planning purposes unless it satisfies those criteria.
  9. As I have indicated (paragraph 28(ii) above), a planning purpose is one which relates to the character or use of the land. It is proposed that the donation by the developer here will be put into a community benefit fund, administered by local people for the benefit of the community, but without any other restriction, e.g. a restriction to use it for a planning purpose.  I have set out some of the beneficiaries of the similar fund set up in respect of the St Briavels Wind Farm (see paragraph 22 above).  I accept that all these are worthy community causes, but the provision of waterproofs for young people, and lunch for older people, do not seem to address any obvious planning purpose.  As Dove J found (at [48] of his judgment), “beyond being of some benefit to the local community, as recognised or defined by the local people administering the fund, there is no limitation on how the money might be used”.
  10. Nevertheless, Mr Cairnes and Mr Kingston submitted that “materiality” is a broad concept, the categories of which are never closed. This fund would benefit the community as identified by those responsible for its distribution – and, in that limited sense, contribute to the robustness or “sustainability” of that community.
  11. However, although the concept of materiality may be broad, it is not without limit; and the “categories” of materiality as set out in Dove J’s judgment, to which Mr Cairnes and Mr Kingston referred (e.g. matters which “ameliorate or address some impact on social or physical infrastructure” or “address some adverse land use consequences of the grant of permission”, or an “off-site contribution related to a planning impact”) are, in reality, merely different applications of the Newbury
  12. Mr Kingston, relying upon R (Welcome Break Group Limited and Others) v Stroud District Council [2012] EWHC 140 (Admin) (“Welcome Break”) and Richard Verdin trading as the Darnhall Estate v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 2079 (Admin) (“Verdin”), submitted that the community benefit fund donation is for a planning purpose because it is “the positive effect of a constraint on the operation of the development”. It is “simply the beneficial financial result of constraining the development to operate only for the benefit of the community” (paragraph 10 of his skeleton argument).  It is therefore, he submits, similar to Welcome Break, where the development was constrained to operate in a way that benefited local employment and the sale of locally sourced food; and to Verdin, where conditions constrained the construction of the development by requiring the use of small local building firms and using local procurement initiatives.
  13. However, in my view, Welcome Break and Verdin are of no assistance to Mr Kingston, each being very different from this case on their facts. The planning obligation relating to local food resourcing and local employment in Welcome Break was clearly, as found by Bean J (as he then was), directly related to the use of the land and the development; as was the condition relating to the use of local building firms in Verdin.  In this case, as I have described, it is envisaged that the donation will or may fund community causes which have no possible planning purpose or relation to the proposed development.
  14. Nor is R (Copeland) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2010] EWHC 1845 (Admin) or R (Working Title Films Limited) v Westminster City Council [2016] EWHC 1855 (Admin), upon which Mr Kingston also relied, of any more help to his cause. Mr Kingston relied upon these cases to show that social factors can be material in the planning context: the former concerned the relationship between a fast-food take-away and a school, and the latter the provision of a community hall as part of a large development in which planning permission was granted on the basis that “the level of social and community uses and public parking significantly enhances the development”.  However, as I have described, community and social benefits may, in their proper place, be in favour of the grant of planning permission.  But neither case suggests that the Newbury criteria do not apply to such benefits.
  15. Finally, Mr Kingston submitted that the fact that the operation of a community wind turbine, for the financial benefit of the community through a community benefit fund, is in itself sufficient for that benefit to be a material consideration, because, in addition to his other arguments (which I have dealt with above), it fulfils the clear planning purpose of improving the sustainability of communities, and/or, for the community generally, it ameliorates the adverse (visual and aural) impact of the wind turbine on the community. However, this is merely a recasting of the argument that any matter which benefits the community is a material consideration for planning purposes; and it would apply equally to a community benefit fund donation offered by a “commercial” wind farm developer as much as a “community” developer.  I have already dealt with the substance of that argument.
  16. In my view, for the reasons I have given, Dove J, who referred to and applied the relevant authorities, was right to proceed on the basis that the nature of the community benefit fund donation, and the vehicle it was proposed would provide it, were not such as to preclude examination of the contributions associated with it to see whether they satisfied the legal requirements of being a material consideration in the planning decision. He was entitled to conclude that “the community donation is an untargeted contribution of off-site community benefits which is not designed to address a planning purpose” (see [55] of his judgment).  He was also entitled to conclude that there is “no real connection between the development of a wind turbine and the gift of monies to be used for any purpose which appointed members of the community consider their community would derive benefit” (see [56]).  Indeed, he was in my view, undoubtedly right to draw such conclusions: and to conclude that, consequently, the Council was not entitled to take into account as a material consideration the offer of the community benefit fund donation made as part of Resilient Severndale’s proposal, as it did.

Conclusion

  1. Although, out of deference to the arguments put before this court, I have set out my own reasons for upholding the judge below, in my view Dove J’s conclusions were correct, essentially for the reasons he gave.
  2. I would dismiss the appeals.

Lord Justice Davis :

  1. In my view, Mr Cameron QC put his finger on the real point when he said that the question here is not whether the proffered benefits in question were desirable: it is whether (in planning terms) they were material.
  2. The Appellants were not, for example, really able to explain why a 4% figure by way of community donation was chosen to be put forward. Presumably it was, at least in part, calculated that such a figure would be attractive to the planning authority.  But the implication is that a corresponding application offering, say, 5% would have been still more likely to prevail; whereas a planning application making no such offer at all possibly might have failed.  These points of themselves seem to me to cast grave doubt on whether such a proposal was in truth integral to the planning application, as the Appellants sought to say, and on whether the proposal was material in a planning sense.
  3. Nor can I see any principled basis for departing from a proper application of the Newbury approach in a case such as the present. The fact that desirable objects (renewable and sustainable energy) and worthy causes (benefits to the community) are involved cannot of themselves mandate a departure from usual principles with regard to material considerations.  In any event, in the present case this ultimately in substance was to be a commercial development.
  4. I do not propose to say more. I agree that the appeals should be dismissed for the comprehensive reasons given by Hickinbottom LJ in his judgment.  I also agree with the judgment of Dove J in the court below.

Lord Justice McFarlane :

  1. I also agree.

.

.

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 Turbine Blades: A Toxic Legacy For Centuries to Come – So Much for Saving the Planet …

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

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

.
Wind Turbine Blades: A Toxic Legacy For Centuries to Come –
So Much for Saving the Planet ….
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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,

.

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

Wind Turbine Blades: A Toxic Legacy For Centuries to Come – So Much for Saving the Planet

***

Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal: 2 New Papers Expose The Environmental Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal

No Tricks Zone
Kenneth Richard
22 June 2017

“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues” – Ramirez-Tejeda et al., 2017

Despite an explosion in installed wind capacity since 1990, wind power had achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013.

Germany has assumed a leading role in promoting the consumption of renewable energy.  And yet even in Germany the share of energy consumption from wind power reached only 2.1% in 2016.

Despite its extremely limited infiltration as a world energy source, it is assumed that a rapid expansion of wind power will ultimately be environmentally advantageous both due to its reputation as a “clean” energy and because of the potential to contribute to reduced CO2 emissions.

Recently, however, the austere environmental impacts and health risks associated with expanding wind energy have received more attention.

For example, scientists have asserted that wind turbines are now the leading cause of multiple mortality events in bats, with 3 to 5 million bats killed by wind turbines every year.   Migratory bats in North America may face the risk of extinction in the next few decades due to wind turbine-related fatalities.

Frick et al., 2017

“Large numbers of migratory bats are killed every year at wind energy facilities. … Using expert elicitation and population projection models, we show that mortality from wind turbines may drastically reduce population size and increase the risk of extinction. For example, the hoary bat population could decline by as much as 90% in the next 50 years if the initial population size is near 2.5 million bats and annual population growth rate is similar to rates estimated for other bat species (λ = 1.01). Our results suggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.”

Wind Turbine Blades Last 20 Years…And Then They Are Tossed Into Landfills

Besides reducing wildlife populations, perhaps one of the most underrated negative side effects of building wind turbines is that they don’t last very long (less than 20 years) before they need to be replaced. And their blades aren’t recyclable. Consequently, 43 million tonnes (47 million tons) of blade waste will be added to the world’s landfills within the next few decades.

Liu and Barlow, 2017

“The blades, one of the most important components in the wind turbines, made with composite, are currently regarded as unrecyclable. With the first wave of early commercial wind turbine installations now approaching their end of life, the problem of blade disposal is just beginning to emerge as a significant factor for the future. … The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.”

“Although wind energy is often claimed to provide clean renewable energy without any emissions during operation (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015), a detailed ecological study may indicate otherwise even for this stage. The manufacture stage is energy-intensive and is associated with a range of chemical usage (Song et al., 2009). Disposal at end-of-life must also be considered (Ortegon et al., 2012; Pickering, 2013; Job, 2014).A typical wind turbine (WT) has a foundation, a tower, a nacelle and three blades. The foundation is made from concrete; the tower is made from steel or concrete; the nacelle is made mainly from steel and copper; the blades are made from composite materials (Vestas, 2006; Tremeac and Meunier, 2009; Guezuraga et al., 2012). Considering these materials only, concrete and composites are the most environmentally problematic at end-of-life, since there are currently no established industrial recycling routes for them (Pimenta and Pinho, 2011; Job, 2013).”

In a new paper entitled  “Unsustainable Wind Turbine Blade Disposal Practices in the United States”, Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017) further detail the imminent and unresolved nightmare of wind turbine blade disposal. The environmental consequences and health risks are so adverse that the authors warn that if the public learns of this rapidly burgeoning problem, they may be less inclined to favor wind power expansion. Advocates of wind power are said to be “largely ignoring the issue”. It’s an “issue” that will not be going away any time soon.

In light of its minuscule share of worldwide consumption (despite explosive expansion in recent decades), perhaps it is time to at least reconsider both the benefits and the costs of wind energy expansion.

‘Adverse Environmental Consequences’ For A Rapidly Expanding Wind Power Grid

Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017)

“Globally, more than seventy thousand wind turbine blades were deployed in 2012 and there were 433 gigawatts (GW) of wind installed capacity worldwide at the end of 2015. Moreover, the United States’ installed wind power capacity will need to increase from 74 GW to 300 GW3 to achieve its 20% wind production goal by 2030. To meet the increasing demand, not only are more blades being manufactured, but also blades of up to 100 meters long are being designed and produced.”

“The wind turbine blades are designed to have a lifespan of about twenty years, after which they would have to be dismantled due to physical degradation or damage beyond repair. Furthermore, constant development of more efficient blades with higher power generation capacity is resulting in blade replacement well before the twenty-year life span.”

“Estimations have suggested that between 330,000 tons/year by 2028 and 418,000 tons/year by 2040 of composite material from blades will need to be disposed worldwide. That would be equivalent to the amount of plastics waste generated by four million people in the United States in 2013. This anticipated increase in blade manufacturing and disposal will likely lead to adverse environmental consequences, as well as potential occupational exposures, especially because available technologies and key economic constraints result in undesirable disposal methods as the only feasible options.”

Problems With Landfills

“Despite its negative consequences, landfilling has so far been the most commonly utilized wind turbine blade disposal method. … Landfilling is especially problematic because its high resistance to heat, sunlight, and moisture means that it will take hundreds of years to degrade in a landfill environment. The wood and other organic material present in the blades would also end up in landfills, potentially releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and other volatile organic compounds to the environment.”

“The estimated cost to put blade material in landfills, not including pretreatment and transportation costs, is approximately US $60 per ton. [A typical blade may weigh 30-40 tons]. In the United Kingdom, where landfilling organics is not yet prohibited, the active waste disposal cost (which includes plastics) is approximately US $130 per ton.”

Problems With Incineration

“Incineration of blades is another disposal method with potential for energy and/or material recovery. … Combustion of GFRP is especially problematic because it can produce toxic gases, smoke, and soot that can harm the environment and humans. Carbon monoxide and formaldehyde have been reported as residue from thermal degradation of epoxy resin. Another residue is carbon dioxide, which poses concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, about 60% of the scrap remains as pollutant ash after the incineration process, some of which is sent to landfills, potentially contaminating the sites. Possible emission of hazardous flue gasses is also among the issues with incinerating wind turbine blades.”

“One key issue is that all these thermal processing techniques for wind turbine blades would also require fragmentation of the material into smaller pieces through mechanical processing before being fed into the reactors, increasing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.”

Problems With Mechanical Processing

“Mechanical processing is a relatively simpler disposal method that consists of cutting, shredding, and grinding the material to separate the fibers from resins, so it can be repurposed. This process is energy intensive and produces small fiber particles with poor mechanical properties that can only be used as filler reinforcement material in the cement or asphalt industries. … The dust emitted in the grinding process of FRP creates occupational health and safety risks for workers. Inhalation, as well as skin and eye contact can produce moderate irritation to mucous membranes, skin, eyes, and coughing. Occupational exposure and prolonged inhalation of such particles have been found to produce alterations of the cellular and enzymatic components of the deep lung in humans, identified as acute alveolitis.”

Problems With Chemical Degradation

“The last method is chemical degradation, which consists of first mechanically reducing the size of the blades, then degrading them using a chemical solution. … Although no industrial-level chemical recycling of thermoset polymers has been done yet, some hazardous chemicals such as nitric acids and paraformaldehyde have been used in testing and development processes. Occupational exposure to these chemicals can produce harmful respiratory diseases including potential nasal cancer, and dermal health effects.”

Advocates Of Wind Power ‘Have Largely Ignored The Issue’

“Few individuals and organizations recognize the problems inherently related to blade recyclability. This situation creates an obstacle for promoting policy interventions to solve these problems. As a result, manufacturers, wind farm operators, and advocates have largely ignored the issue, focusing efforts on promoting wind energy and addressing other issues such as negative impacts on wildlife and noise generation.”

“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues, inhibiting its growth as one of the main sources of electricity generation in the United States.”

NoTricksZone

NoTricksZone flatters these things when it puts the lifespan of wind turbine blades at 20 years. The whole unit has an economic life of little more than a decade (see our post here).

Wind turbine blade failure is one of the more common features of these wondrously ‘reliable’ things: Wind Turbine Terror: Spanish Home Hit by Flying Blade – Just 1 of 3,800 Blade ‘Fails’ Every Year

And it’s not uncommon for turbine blades to fail within months of coming into operation.

At AGL’s Hallett 1 (Brown Hill) wind farm, south of Jamestown, South Australia the blades on each and every one of its 45 Suzlon S88s failed within their first year of operation, requiring their wholesale replacement.

The 2.1 MW, Indian built turbines commenced operation in April 2008. Not long into their operation, stress fractures began appearing in the 44m long blades. Suzlon (aka Senvion aka RePower) claimed that there was a “design fault” and was forced by AGL to replace the blades on all 45 turbines, under warranty.

The photos below show the stubs from those blades outside Suzlon’s Jamestown workshop. The main bodies of the blades were ground up and mixed with concrete used in the bases of other turbines erected later (the plastics in the blade are highly toxic, and contain Bisphenol A, which is so dangerous to health that the European Union and Canada have banned it):

stubs-1

stubs3

Turbine blade failures, including events where 10 tonne blades are thrown to the 4 winds (aka ‘component liberation’) are so common that we are able to finish this post with a graphic documentary, the captions are linked to the stories behind the pictures:

turbine-separation

Sigel Township, Michigan, February 2016.

turbine blade germany

Ostsee, Germany, December 2015.

BladeFailure_Spain

Pontecesco, Spain, January 2016.

blade fail

Fenner, New York, February 2016.

turbinedutchbladeaccident

Leystad, A6 Highway, Netherlands, May 2009.

turbine blade donegal

Donegal, Ireland, December 2013.

turbine001 kerry

Kerry, Ireland, January 2015.

bladethrow-shredding-ocotillo

Ocotillo, California, May 2013.

blade-whitelee_accident

Whitelee (near Glasgow), Scotland, March 2010.

And, we’ll finish with the video that strikes fear into the hearts of those unfortunate enough to live within 2 kms of these things:

Terrifying, dangerous and pointless!

And, it must be comforting to know that the liberated components depicted above (along with 3,800 odd blade fails every year) were quietly dumped in landfills to deliver their toxic cocktail into aquifers and water supplies for centuries to come.

Welcome to your wind powered future!

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

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

The Full Text Of The GWPF Report On The £300Bn Cost Of The CLIMATE CHANGE ACT …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
The Full Text Of The GWPF Report On The £300Bn Cost Of The CLIMATE CHANGE ACT ….
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

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

Hi,

I believe that you will find this 56 page pamphlet regarding the cost of the Climate Change Act both informative and deeply shocking.
It is widely believed that the Climate Change Act is likely to be the most expensive Act of Parliament ever passed. When you consider it is enacted based upon unsound scientific theory that is both heavily debated and widely discreditted, such as the largely dishonest claims for the efficacy of Wind Turbines and their value to the generation of power, without considering the huge environmental damage done in their manufacture and installation, plus of course the damage to both the wildlife, soil and scenery. Damage which is not only cumulative but long lasting!

The many tons of concrete and the huge amount of steel used in their construction, together with the transportation, outweighs in damage and pollution any likelihood of gain they may pretend to, both in the short term and the long term!

gwpf-peter-lilley-300bn-pamphlet-dec-2016

The full text can be found here:

gwpf-300-bn-cost-dec-2016

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

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

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. 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

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: