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/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s