PS-72: Mrs. Molly Mayo to the Effected Community

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

.

PS – 72:

(PS-72: Mrs. Molly Mayo to
the Effected Community Opposition Group)

MAYO, Molly to ‘Effected Commumnity’ Opposition Group

30-Sep-2015

Dear All

Time is now of the essence since we are into the 6 week period and counting down, when we have to make our decisions about going for Judicial Review.  Rob is getting Buxtons’ opinion about the feasibility of such a move and we will obviously be guided by them.

Please could you come to Wibdon for Tuesday night 6 October 19.30. to have a discussion about whether we go forward and the reality of funding such an exercise.There are already some significant offers of finance towards JR should we go forward and it is by no means out of our grasp.

At a previous meeting it was decided that James and Robert would be the ‘trutees’ (I apologise for not knowing the correct terminology) of this exercise and that individuals – when appropriate – would privately make their financial support known to them. We wished to do it this way so that no one was precluded form the group if unable to offer finance, since we still need the energy and support which has kept us going this far. It is also fair to say that every little helps and so donations do not have to be large.

We are trying to gauge peoples commitment for the fight, should we go ahead, and so even if you can’t make it on Tuesday please could you let me know whether you are interested in continuing or not. All I need is a simple yes continue or no. I don’t wish to know anything about the financial side of things. Should you wish to make a comment on this then both Rob’s and James’ emails are in the addresses at the top.

Please pass this email on to anyone else who may be interested.

Have a great weekend and enjoy the weather – don’t forget the Forest Showcase at Speech House on Sunday. It should be good even with the resilience tent!

Hoping to see you on Tuesday

Molly

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines 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), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that 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

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

Advertisements

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

.

PS – 70:

29-Sep-2015
(PS-70: Energy secretary on track to slash solar subsidies)

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

29-Sep-2015

Hi,

this is I appreciate regarding solar power but does show that we are very much a part of policy with wind/renewables in the package.

I also am given to understand that plans are NOT considered granted until the date of the day the permission is published as granted – thus technically/legaly Severndale WT has not been granted yet as FODDC have not as yet published the approval – nor have they published the details of the financial undertakings agreed, by whom and the details of their binding terms regarding the bribes the community are to receive from their own money!

As the terms have to be agreed I would contend they are a matter of legitimate public challenge and can not be considered acceptable if arranged by a cosy deal between applicant and a few Council members!

I also understand that FIT (Feed In Tariff) rates are fixed as those that pertain at the time linking for the first feed in.

The Government having given due warning in Parliament that construction subsidies and FITs were to be cut or removed it may be deemed that all plans not granted (PUBLISHED) prior to 01-Oct-2015 would not be eligible for subsidies beyond those possibly offered subsequent to PUBLICATION date with FITs as at the date of connection, without subsidy!

Energy secretary on track to slash solar subsidies

by Lauren Fedor

Amber Rudd is expected to cut subsidies for solar power by as much as half

ENERGY secretary Amber Rudd is gearing up to slash solar power subsidies as part of the government’s latest effort to cut costs for consumers.

Last year, Britain installed more solar panels than any other country in Europe. More Britons took advantage of the scheme than the government anticipated, with over 600,000 homes and businesses reportedly installing solar panels.

Given the greater-than-expected rate of take-up, and concerns that the subsidies – which are paid for via energy bills – were putting undue pressure on household budgets, the government began slashing the subsidies, which currently stand at 12.9p per kilowatt hour. The subsidies started as high as 43p per kilowatt hour under the last government.

But it is widely expected that Rudd will go even further, cutting the current rate by as much as half this autumn.

Earlier in the year, Rudd announced a consultation on the solar subsidy scheme, which is expected to close the first week of September.

When she opened the consultation, Rudd said: “Our support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly.”

“As costs continue to fall it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidies,” she added. “We’re taking action to protect consumers, whilst protecting existing investment.”

When contacted by City A.M. yesterday, an energy department spokesperson echoed Rudd’s earlier comments, saying: “We always look to get the best deal for consumers, so when forecasts showed that spending on renewable energy subsidy schemes was set to be higher than expected, we were determined to get a grip.”

The government has already removed subsidies for other renewable energy initiatives, including the guaranteed level of subsidy for biomass conversions. It is expected to reveal the results of a separate consultation, on feed-in tariffs, next month.

— Update: This article has been amended to show the 43p per kilowatt hour subsidy was under the previous government.

Unashamedly I take the liberty of once again reminding all that the criteria on which plans for wind turbines have been ‘Called In’ by the minister feature large the matter of ‘Effected Community’, even Mark Harper our own NP has written, on our behalf subsequent to our lengthy meeting with him in his constituency offices, to the Minister questioning the deffinition of ‘effected community’, it is therefore worth reminding all who communicate with the Council, the MP or the Minister on this matter might once again care to define that ‘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 33 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William – Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from proposed turbine
BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm – within 750m from proposed turbine
BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m from proposed turbine
BROOKES, Tracey & Andy – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine
BROWN, Louella & David – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine
CROSS, Nigel and Samantha 3 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
DAVIDSON, Pam – The Garstons – within 750m from proposed turbine
ELSBY, Nigel & Linda, Stroat House, within 1.5km from proposed turbine
FORD, Claire & Roger – The steps – 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 – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine
NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue 4 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
REES, James & Clare  – Greystones within 775m from proposed turbine
SMITH, Pam & David – Old Post Office 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 effected community’ – other than those who have signed standard letters provided and vigorously solicited, by the applicants, either as potential direct beneficiaries in the scheme, family, tenants or employees of the applicant!

I also am minded that it is the right of each member of the effected community to act in their own interest and that of the community in registering their objection to the application as did their elected representatives on the Parish Council, who were clearly not influenced by the applicant being a part of that Council nor its planning committee, unlike the more distant FoDCC, who could not by the wildest stretch of the imagination be termed as members of the effected local community, any more than the applicants cosy agreement with the FoDDC to include totally uneffected individuals in a 5Km radius as was perversely claimed!

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines 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), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that 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

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS-69: A Further Response to Mrs. Mayo & Supporting Examples

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

.

PS – 69:

23-Sep-2015
(PS-69: A Further Response to Mrs. Mayo & Supporting Examples) 

REPLY

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

23-Sep-2015

Hi,

Indeed you are correct – a meeting is provisionally booked for 07-Oct-2015 in Woolaston

I was advised of it early this month by Laurie Pennington, who I believe is party to organise it, members of those with views on opposition are invited and I was awaiting confirmation before circulating it amongst our own group.

Laurie and several others from Woolaston, Alvington, Aylburton etc. have given us a great deal of support in opposing the hugely suspect Severndale application, a process which I for one consider to have been corrupted and regarding which I believe FoDDC have acted ultra vires, grounds on which I believe it is the duty of the Se.State to call in the plans.

I believe that the manner in which we have been supported calls for us to aid others facing the development by stealth of a full blown wind farm developing along the Severn Estuary, anyone wishing/willing to attend this meeting is more than welcome to let me know and I will ensure they receive the relevant details at the end of this month giving at least 7 days notice.

ON A DIFFERENT NOTE:
I was reading Paul Staine’s blog this morning and noted this article:

Al Gore Attacks Rudd’s Subsidy Slashing Plans

by technoguido

Al Gore made time during his busy ‘international statesman’ schedule today to attack Amber Rudd’s plans to cut green crap. Speaking at the “Beyond Paris” event in London, Gore told the audience “I try to never interfere in the politics of another nation“, before doing exactly that:

“This country’s commitment to zero carbon buildings has been cancelled, the green deal cancelled… the renewable obligation and contracts for difference gone, public ownership of the green investment bank has been privatised …Will our children ask, why didn’t you act? Or [will they] ask, how did you find the moral courage to rise up and change?”

Al Gore believes belives that the world is facing man-made induced catastphic climate change. Here’s a video of Gore claiming he invented the internet…

She’s making all the right enemies…

If nothing else, I am always pleased to find informative sources which are as keen to produce the facts as I and as time pressured as I, hence they too have blogs with almost as many spelling mistakes as the Telegraph and Guardian ;-))

You will I am sure be well aware that Al Gore and the other rascal Pachauri who were paid with a Nobel Prize as the individuals behind the IPCC Report which was so readily dismissed as with The Real Global Warming Disaster.

I understand that Pchauri has since lost his seat on the IPCC and has been exposed as deeply partisan being a senior executive of Tatta Industries! Also you may be aware of The Oregon Principle wherein almost 30,000 individuals directly involved in climate issues including mostly scientists signed a repudiation of the much vaunted IPCC Report and also the fact that many of those quoted as contributors to the IPCC Report were scientists who had written articles that were contra the claims of the report and also many who had asked to have their names removed from the report due to its inaccuracy and dishonesty!

IF you wish to learn more of the facts do see:

http://eureferendum.com/results.aspx?keyword=al%20gore

&

Watts Up With That? | The world’s most viewed site on …

wattsupwiththat.com/

Former meteorologist and weather expert Anthony Watts maintains this site, skeptical of the man-made global warming topic.

&

Read Professor Ian Plimer’s book

Heaven And Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science

Do also note the some 26,000 eMails that we conveniently leaked from The University of East Anglia which showed conclusively that anthropogenic effects on global warming and climate change were minimal and the data had been deliberately distorted!

The reasons for this massive global scam are a further matter but suffice to say they led to the passing of a Bill through Parliament founded on a near total lack of fact that was known as ‘The Climate Change Bill’ which is believed to be THE most expensive Bill in the history of the British Government, a Bill which only now is being realised to be both nonsense and undeliverable – hence the work of the present Government with such as Amber Rudd and Greg Clark working to bring about rational change.

Anyone wanting to garner more facts on this issue is welcome to contact me, suffice to say:

In the year 220: A great frost in England was reported to have lasted 5 months

In 353: a great flood in Cheshire was claimed to have killed 5,000 people and many livestock

In 508: all the rivers in Britain were reported to have been frozen for 2 months

In 738: there was a great flood in Glasgow

In 797: there was extensive drought and thus famine in England

In 800: a great gale on Christmas Eve from SW tore down many trees & destroying many homes and within a year there was extensive sea inundation & epidemics amongst cattle

In 944: a great storm destroyed about 1,500 homes in London alone

In 954: there were 4 years of famine

In 974: a great earthquake struck Britain

In 975 > 976: a great famine in England

In 993: a very hot & dry summer

In 994: again a summer of drought & heat destroying fruit & crops

My point being that we live on a planet of great volatility and ever changing weather and when one considers the prevalence of famine and prolongued appauling weather we have experienced in the past, most probably caused by the erruption of the Northern end of the Mid Atlantic plate join particularly Mount Hekla, we should perhaps count our good fortune in living in a period of global warming.

The historic record shows of course that AFTER global warming there is a general increase in CO2, most probably brought about by the output of plant life which flourishes in periods of warmer damper weather!

It is interesting to note that periods of warfare seem closely linked with periods of cold and thus famine and one need only think of 1066 which was the culmination of some 50 years of famine, most probably due to volcanic dust from Hekla and its region in Iceland! As was the famine in the mid 1500s, the French Revolution, the period when the King of Scotland begged to join with England leading to the Act of Union, the little ice age of the 1800s etc. etc.

To destroy our Country by littering it with inefficient, immensly costly eyesores like Wind Turbines is an obscene folly!

Though I concede it is a marvellous system for self enrichment of the relatively wealthy at the expense of the largely overtaxed poorer population – hence the present Government’s efforts to redress the folly!

Let us hope that the Secretary of State carries out his duty and Calls In the application for a wind turbine in Stroat and then gives due consideration to that in Alvington on which no consequential construction has taken place on site and dismisses out of hand the plans for Woolaston and others up and down the Severn Estuary in the FoD & across Britain before this folly further damages our country and the public purse to no comensurate gain.

Let us hope he takes note of the Effected Communities as the Government policy has been enacted to do viz:

As with the ‘Effected Community’ in Stroat, being those contacted by the Council originally who are directly effected including:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
which includes 33 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William – Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from proposed turbine
BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm – within 750m from proposed turbine
BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m from proposed turbine
BROOKES, Tracey & Andy – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine
BROWN, Louella & David – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine
CROSS, Nigel and Samantha 3 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
DAVIDSON, Pam – The Garstons – within 750m from proposed turbine
ELSBY, Nigel & Linda, Stroat House, within 1.5km from proposed turbine
FORD, Claire & Roger – The steps – 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 – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine
NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue 4 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
REES, James & Clare  – Greystones within 775m from proposed turbine
SMITH, Pam & David – Old Post Office 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.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines 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), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that 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

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS-68: GL-W > Molly Mayo re Inappropriate Action by Sec. State Greg Clark MP

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

.

PS – 68:

22-Sep-2015
(PS-68: GL-W > Molly Mayo re Inappropriate Action
by Sec. State Greg Clark MP) 

From: Greg Lance-Watkins [mailto:greg_l-w@btconnect.com]
Sent: 23 September 2015 01:52
To: ‘Molly Mayo’
Cc: ‘MARK HARPER MP’; ‘Mark Harper MP for The Forest of Dean’; ‘National Planning Casework Unit’; ‘Secretary of State Greg Clark MP’; ‘stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk’
Subject: RE: Wind Turbines and Greg Clark

REPLY

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Hi,

In response to Molly Mayo’s eMail re The inappropriate Severndale Farm Wind Turbine application.

Personally I believe face to face meetings are best value.

I also believe that a letter on behalf of the ‘Effected Community’ should be sent to The Sec. State with relevant courtesy copies to our own MP Mark Harper, who is notably the Government’s Chief Whip charged with steering Government policy through Parliament and as a Treasury Officer and an Accountant is all too well aware of the inefficacy of these giant Wind Turbines and our public purse’s inability to continue enriching self serving wealthy land owners and corporations at the expense of the wellbeing of the State and beleaguered tax payers facing the inescapable responsibility for austerity.

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

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
which includes some 33 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William – Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from proposed turbine
BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm – within 750m from proposed turbine
BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m from proposed turbine
BROOKES, Tracey & Andy – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine
BROWN, Louella & David – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine
CROSS, Nigel and Samantha 3 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
DAVIDSON, Pam – The Garstons – within 750m from proposed turbine
ELSBY, Nigel & Linda, Stroat House, within 1.5km from proposed turbine
FORD, Claire & Roger – The steps – 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 – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine
NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue 4 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
REES, James & Clare  – Greystones within 775m from proposed turbine
SMITH, Pam & David – Old Post Office 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!

I also am minded that it is the right of each member of the effected community to act in their own interest and that of the community in registering their objection to the application as did their elected representatives on the Parish Council, who were clearly not influenced by the applicant being a part of that Council nor its planning committee, unlike the more distant FoDCC, who could not by the wildest stretch of the imagination be termed as members of the effected local community any more than the applicants cosy agreement with the FoDDC to include totally uneffected individuals in a 5Km radius was perversely claimed!

I have pasted below the URL regarding the application which Sec.State Greg Clark MP turned down, as featured in the publication >PlanningResource< for anyone who wishes to read it:

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1365124/secretary-state-overrules-inspector-wind-farm-rejection

Secretary of state overrules inspector in wind farm rejection

22 September 2015 , Be the First to Comment

Four wind turbines up to 100 metres tall to blade tip were rejected in east Anglia despite an inspector recommending that permission should be granted.

The secretary of state had called in the application and he noted that the council did not oppose the proposal. Indeed, the council had resolved to grant permission. Nonetheless, the scheme was opposed by a landscape protection group who had been granted Rule 6(6) status. The inspector had acknowledged that the applicant had a fallback position available involving a consent for two turbines which would be built in order to provide a financial return on investment. Thus, the scheme involved a net addition of two turbines, the secretary of state concluded.

Despite the inspector concluding that the landscape had a low sensitivity to change the secretary of state held that the impact would be significantly adverse and this would be coupled to an overbearing impact on the outlook of some local residents. Some of the turbines would be sited between 835 and 1,100 metres from the rear elevation which would introduce intrusive elements from the private garden and conservatory. Although it would not render the dwelling an unattractive or unpleasant place to live it would not comply with a development plan document which sought to prevent overbearing development. Having applied the transitional provisions of the written ministerial statement of June 2015 the secretary of state was not satisfied that the planning impacts on identified communities had been addressed. The benefits of generating up to 8MW of electricity and mitigating climate change did not outweigh this harm.

Inspector: John Braithwaite; Inquiry

Another version in the same publication reads:

Clark cites ‘non-compliance’ with new community backing test in fresh wind farm refusal

22 September 2015 by Jamie Carpenter ,

Communities secretary Greg Clark has overruled an inspector to reject plans for four turbines in the east of England, citing ‘non-compliance’ with new rules requiring wind applications to have community backing among his reasons for blocking the proposal.

Greg Clark: refused wind application

The refusal is the second time this month that the secretary of state has cited the strict new rules requiring onshore wind applications to address the planning impacts identified by affected local communities in a decision letter.

Energy firm REG Windpower’s application to build four wind turbines to the north-east of Peterborough had been called in for determination by the secretary of state in June 2014.

Following an inquiry, inspector John Braithwaite recommended that planning permission be granted. But in his decision letter, Clark said that he disagreed with the inspector’s conclusions and recommendations.

Clark’s decision letter said that the secretary of state “attaches considerable weight to the significant adverse effect that the proposal would have on the character and visual amenity of the landscape as well as to residential amenity of some neighbouring properties in respect of outlook”.

The decision letter added that Clark had given “significant weight” to “non-compliance” with new tests for local authorities to apply when determining applications for wind energy development, set out in a written ministerial statement issued in June.

Under transitional arrangements set out in the written statement, permission may be granted if local planning authorities are satisfied that the proposal has “addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing”.

Clark’s decision letter said that he “is not satisfied that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed”.

He said that, in response to a letter sent in June 2015, “several members of the affected communities have related the concerns which they expressed previously about the planning impacts of the scheme”, including harm to the residential amenity of some neighbouring properties and the character and visual amity of the landscape”.

Earlier this month, Clark refused permission for a scheme comprising ten wind turbines in Lincolnshire. His decision letter said that he “is not satisfied that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed”.

Does look fairly positive from our persperctive as ‘The Effected Community’ so let us hope that Justice will be seen to be done in an equal handed manner, which would clearly mean the Sec.State would overturn the application as the FoDDC entered a cosy relationship with the applicant and went so far as to set irrational terms for ‘The Effected Community’, to suit the applicant rather than the rational facts!

Clearly FoDDC’s behaviour appears to have been ultra vires in a number of ways, all of which I would incline to believe should ensure the Sec. State should ‘call in’ the application thereby ensuring the industrialisation of Hanley Hill at Severndale Farm with this inappropriate installation never goes ahead as it is clearly contra Government policy as stated in their manifesto and their various statements since being elected. Not least being the consideration of the planning impacts identified by the affected local community!

Let us hope our elected Government has the integrity to stand by their word.

I would also be minded, were I Sec.State, to Call In the application made in Alvington where no consequential signs of construction have taken place also any plans for the installation at Woolaston or any other installation of these hugely damaging and costly constructions that are so inefficient and demanding of tax payer subsidy, in these times of inevitable enforced austerity, in the Forest of Dean and these United Kingdoms in general as they are unaffordable and impractical as a drain on the public purse as the Government policy has shown.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

 

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines 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), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that 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

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS-67: Delay/Hold on Planning from Secretary of State

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

.

PS – 67:

19-Sep-2015
(PS-67: Delay/Hold on Planning from Secretary of State)

By email
Please ask for: Jeffrey Penfold Tel: 0303 44 45614 Email: Jeffrey.Penfold@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Your ref: P0365/15/FUL
Our ref: NPCU/RTI/P1615/75891
Date: 19 August 2015
Dear Mr Colegate
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015
Application by the Resilience Centre for the construction and operation of a 500kW single, community scale, wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 60m and a maximum tip height of 87m: application number P0365/15/FUL
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to the above planning application.
2. In exercise of his powers under Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Secretary of State hereby directs your Council not to grant permission on this application without specific authorisation.
This direction is issued to enable him to consider whether he should direct under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the application should be referred to him for determination.
3. I would be grateful for acknowledgement of your receipt of this letter. Please contact me on the number above if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely
Tom King
Tom King Authorised to sign on behalf of the Secretary of State.

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines 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), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that 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

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS-66: GL-W > An Effected Community Member

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

.

PS – 66:

18-Sep-2015
(PS-66: GL-W > An Effected Community Member)

To: MARK HARPER MP <fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com>; Mark Harper MP for The Forest of Dean <HarperM@Parliament.UK>; ‘National Planning Casework Unit’ <npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk>; Secretary of State Greg Clark MP <GregClarkMP@parliament.UK>; stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk; PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESSES REDACTED; Cllr Helen Molyneux <helen@molnet.co.uk>; Helen MOLYNEUX <Helen.Molyneux@fdean.gov.uk>

REPLY

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

18-Sep-2015

Hi,

Stroat Community Comment On Wind Turbine FoDDC #P0365/15/FUL

Thanks for your support, though I stress the primary article in my letter to Mark Harper MP was brought to my attention by Molly Mayo.

Regarding how to get the message to Greg Clark MP you will note that I mailed relevant copies of my letter to Mark Harper direct to Greg Clark MP as the Minister considering the rationalle of ‘Calling In’ this application, in the light of our factually based and reasoned requests, based upon planning issues and considerations, to ensure ‘Justice is seen to be done’.

Perhaps you and others could be encouraged to write letters in support, utilising the facts which you have noted and consider both important and relevant, all be it in a different format.

You may also wish to highlight the sector wherein part of the planning application guidance from the Government states that applications, inorder to be approved, should comply with the Council’s pre identified suitable sites, in their structure plan.

I have searched as best I can (as has D.W.O.), on the FoDDC site and can not identify any such deffinition of any such sites, which would seem to preclude the granting of such an application.

I must stress that Mark Harper did stress, in his own words, the point that ‘Councillors can not be prevented from making crap decisions’, though I would contend that in the case of this clearly ‘crap decision’ was in fact not only ultra viries but failed to consider basic planning issues, considerations, details, guidelines and law with the decision totally contra the Government manifesto and public announcements and undertakings to reduce this area of irresponsible profligacy with respect to the public purse and the recommendation of the professional Officer appointed and salaried by the Council to give legal and planning guidance to the amateurs on the planning committee, amateurs despite their duties and income as Councillors.

It is clear that our own MP is dissatisfied as he has accepted our contention that the Government guidelines have failed to define the ‘effected community’, thus leaving the door open for Councils to reach cosy deals with applicants that can greatly missrepresent the issues to the advantage of the applicant.

Mark Harper also clearly has doubts that the thinly veiled bribes as presented in  an aesopian manner taking unethical advantage of NLP as ‘Community Benefits’ should be considered as a planning issue, which is more than obvious when there is no understanding or ethical deffinition of ‘The Community’, hence he has questioned the Minister on our behalf.

We would contend that ‘the effected community’ is clearly displayed by the Council themselves; being those whom the Council themselves contacted in the first place to advise them that the development was to take place in their community – ie those within the 1.5km. radius contacted by letter – clearly not including individuals in the unaffected 5km. radius area chosen by the applicants, nor the applicant, their family, tennants and employees as they are subject to potentially undue influence, as evidenced by an application where the realistically effected communuity was outnumbered by an employer able to bring pressure on their staff & tennants to support them as ‘the boss’, even where they were 5kms. away!

Let us not forget that the fundamental tennet of British law and our society is that ‘Justice must be seen to be done’ patently this has not been the case in this instance, to date.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

Opposing A Wind Turbine:

http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-applic

ation-for-stroat

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Skype: gregl-w

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines 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), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that 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

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS-65: GL-W > Mark Harper MP Thanks + Some Precedent examples

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

.

PS – 65:

17-Sep-2015
(PS-65: GL-W > Mark Harper MP Thanks + Some Precedent examples)

To: MARK HARPER MP <fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com>; Mark Harper MP for The Forest of Dean <HarperM@Parliament.UK>; ‘National Planning Casework Unit’ <npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk>; Secretary of State Greg Clark MP <GregClarkMP@parliament.UK>; stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk; PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESSES REDACTED; Cllr Helen Molyneux <helen@molnet.co.uk>; Helen MOLYNEUX <Helen.Molyneux@fdean.gov.uk>

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

17-Sep-2015

Hi,

Stroat Community Comment On Wind Turbine FoDDC #P0365/15/FUL

further to the meeting you were willing to have with myself and four other members of the effected community, relative to the dubious planning application for a giant wind turbine at Severndale Farm, Stroat on the open flats ajoining the River Severn, some 100 feet plus taller than Gloucester Cathedral, which I clearly denounced as ultra viries and a corruption of due process and deeply suspect, as I was able to factually show.

I thank you for your time and note your reticence to become involved and thank you for breaking with your normal policy of remaining on the fence and actually having written bringing certain of our concerns, with which you had sympathy, to the attention of the Minister concerned Greg Clarke MP of whom we have made detailed application to have the plans ‘Called In’, based upon what we consider to be sound planning grounds.

Please note the article below, which I have sourced, followed by its links one and two. I trust this will assist you in any further assistance you can provide as the MP for the directly effected community, who by a notable majority reject this application on sound planning grounds:

Clark rules that wind appeal fails to satisfy new community backing test

15 September 2015 by Jamie Carpenter , Be the First to Comment

Communities secretary Greg Clark has refused permission for a scheme comprising ten wind turbines in Lincolnshire, ruling that the project had failed to comply with strict new rules requiring such proposals to address the planning impacts identified by affected local communities.

Onshore wind: new written statement rules applied in recovered appeal decision (picture by Vieve Forward, Geograph)

Energy firm RWE Innogy had appealed against the decision of West Lindsey District Council to in November 2013 refuse to grant permission for the application to build ten wind turbines on land north of Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire.

In a decision letter issued this week, Clark agreed with the conclusions and recommendation of inspector Paul Jackson, who recommended that the appeal be dismissed. An alternative scheme comprising eight turbines was also rejected.

In his decision letter, Clark said that he had attached “substantial weight” to a written ministerial statement issued in June, which set out new tests for local authorities to apply when determining applications for wind energy development involving one or more turbines.

The written statement said that local planning authorities should only grant permission if the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a local or neighbourhood plan, and following consultation, “it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing”.

In his decision on the Lincolnshire appeal, Clark applied transitional arrangements for where a wind application had already been submitted to a local planning authority at the date on which the statement was made and the development plan does not identify suitable sites.

In such instances, the letter said, local authorities can find proposals acceptable if they are satisfied that planning impacts identified by local communities have been addressed, and that therefore the proposal has their backing.

Clark’s letter said that. having applied the transitional arrangements to the Lincolnshire scheme, he “is not satisfied that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been addressed”.

The letter said that there had been “extensive involvement” of the local population throughout the process. Affected communities had expressed concerns about harm to the landscape, visual amenity and the setting of heritage assets, “and it is clear from the inspector’s report that those planning impacts have not been addressed”, Clark’s letter added.

It said: “As those planning impacts as identified by the affected communities have not been addressed, the proposed scheme would not meet the transitional arrangements set out in the written ministerial statement, and the secretary of state gives significant weight to this.”

Clark’s letter concluded that the “combined adverse impacts” of the scheme would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh” its benefits.

LINK ONE:

House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS42)

Department for Communities and Local Government

Written Statement made by:

Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government (Greg Clark)

on 18 Jun 2015.

Local planning

I am today setting out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so

that local people have the final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling the commitment made in

the Conservative election manifesto.

Subject to the transitional provision set out below, these considerations will take effect from 18

June and should be taken into account in planning decisions. I am also making a limited number

of consequential changes to planning guidance.

When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind

turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:

  • the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local

or Neighbourhood Plan; and

  • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected

local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.

In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to

have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource

as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the

backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority.

Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has already been submitted to

a local planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites, the following

transitional provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal

acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts

identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.

LINK TWO:

new tests for local authorities to apply when determining applications for wind energy development :

What tough new planning tests for onshore wind farms mean for applicants and authorities

26 June 2015 by Susie Sell , 2 comments

New planning guidance on deciding onshore wind farm applications sets tougher tests for developers and could lead to a decline in applications, according to experts.

Wind farms: onshore developments face uncertain future after government announced early end to subsidy

The new Conservative government appears to have wasted no time fulfilling its manifesto pledge to “halt the spread of onshore wind farms”. Last week, planning guidance introduced two local authority tests to determine whether to permit wind projects.

Figures from trade body RenewableUK show approval rates for wind farms dropped markedly between 2012/13 and 2013/14 (see infographic), but experts said the changes create an even tougher climate for developers and could lead to a decline in applications.

The guidance says if a council wants to grant permission for a wind project involving one or more turbines, it must be sited in an area “identified as suitable for wind energy in a local or neighbourhood plan”. It also says councils may only give permission if the “planning impacts identified by affected communities have been fully addressed”.

In a written statement, communities secretary Greg Clark said whether a proposal had the backing of a community will be a matter of planning judgement for councils. He added that a “transitional provision” would cover outstanding applications in areas where a development plan has not identified suitable sites. In such cases, proposals can be found acceptable if the second test – that planning impacts are fully addressed – is met.

The guidance came alongside a government announcement that a key subsidy for onshore wind developers would end a year early. The changes reflect a commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto to “end any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms and change the law so that local people have the final say on applications.”

Yana Bosseva, planning adviser at RenewableUK, said it is not aware of any councils that have identified suitable areas for wind development. “That creates a policy vacuum for wind farm applicants who have potentially been working for months on consultation and are now ready to submit their planning application,” she said.

Bosseva also pointed to possible confusion over the interpretation of whether planning impacts have been “fully addressed”. She added: “It’s important to note is that this is guidance and that the National Planning Policy Framework still has positive provisions for renewable energy. So it’s about the relationship between policy and guidance.”

Duncan Field, partner and head of planning at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said the guidance creates a “tougher climate” for wind projects, adding that it will likely require more forward planning of sites. “More groundwork will need to be done before you even get to the application stage now,” he said. “We are probably looking at a significantly increased delay in delivering new sites.”

However, Field said there is still “plenty of scope” for future onshore wind farms. “If wind farm developers want more certainty about their development pipeline, they will have to work hard with councils to find appropriate sites to be allocated in the plan before making an application,” he added.

Paul Maile, partner at law firm Eversheds, said applicants would be “incredibly nervous” after the updates. “This is not just because of the uncertainty from the proposed subsidy changes, but also because a degree of objectivity and predictability is removed from decision-making process.”

Maile added that the guidance and subsidy change would “reduce the number of applications coming forward”. He said: “It’s a combination of two uncertainties: first, in the planning system as to whether a consent might be achievable, and second, whether a project will be economically viable. That’s a great deal of risk for any applicant.”

Michael Wilks, who leads on nationally significant infrastructure projects for the Planning Officers Society (POS), said he does not believe that many local plans contain spatially specific strategies allocating sites for wind energy, “in part because it would be so politically contentious that a local authority would avoid that debate and rather assess individual applications as they arrive”.

Philip Ridley, head of planning at both Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils and POS’s natural resources specialist, said the tests set out in Clark’s statement would make it “almost impossible” for consent to be granted. The government has “put so many costly hurdles in place no developer is going to risk the investment to begin to take a scheme forward”, he added.

Earlier this week, energy secretary Amber Rudd told MPs that the Planning Inspectorate would not be able to overturn local decisions on onshore wind projects. However, a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman confirmed that developers will retain the right to appeal decisions although they will have to take into account the “clear requirement” for local backing.

John Rhodes, director at consultancy Quod, said the statements made by the government would be important material considerations in any onshore wind proposals and “will no doubt weigh heavily with local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate”. He added: “It will be a brave, determined or reckless promoter who now brings forward wind farm proposals onshore in the light of the government’s strongly stated policy.”

END OF ARTICLES.

I trust this will give some insight into the present planning muddle and offer  some hope to those in the effected community as opposed to the perceived misrepresentation of the law made by FoDDC Planning Committee, who would seem to have struck a cosy deal to suit Resillience, who are acting for Councillor Maria Edwards’ application, in a manner that would seem to be ultra viries and as such a corruption of the due process, which should not reach cosy deals with applicants with or without public consultation.

The Government manifesto, on which Mrs. Maria Edwards was elected, clearly states that it was essential that the effected community MUST approve the application and by no stretch of the imagine can the 5km. radius be considered to be the local effected community being an area which includes the whole of Chepstow, St. Arvans and part of Tintern in the devolved area of Monmouthshire, lumped in as a part of the National Area of Wales! Nor was the claim that was made to and by the FoDDC planning committee that support of 2 to 1 in favour of the commercialisation a true reflection of the facts pertaining to the effected community within a 1.5km. radius. Nor in fact does it reflect the cosy arrangement reached for Councillor Maria Edwards by the Planning Committee on which she sits, of 5kms., nor even for the equally misleading 3km. radius and as was shown it does not reflect the community of Tidenham even though it is, I believe, the largest Parish in Britain, where the Parish Council of Tidenham representing the Tidenham community unequivocally voted to reject the application.

I trust the Minister will take note of your letter and the many other facts which show this to be an application which provides a clear case to ‘Call In’ the plans and stand by the Government’s manifesto and its various official and well documented statements of policy. Policies for which you are the Government Chief Whip and as a Treasury Officer and a qualified accountant are well aware of the inefficiency and unreliable nature of wind turbines as an alternative source of power – a source we, as a country deeply in debt and facing inevitable cuts and austerity, can no longer afford to subsidise and thereby enrich wealthy land owners and corporate interests!

I would like to once again thank you for your time and such support you have felt able to offer the effected local community to date and look forward to your continued, and hopefully increased support, for the effected community as your constituents both in the matter of ‘Calling In’ and should it be required to ensure justice is seen to be done any subsequent ‘Judicial Review’.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

 

Greg Lance-Watkins

eMail:  Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines 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), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that 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

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/