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

.

PS – 37:

02-Jul-2015
(PS-37 Yet Another ACCIDENT within sight of Hanley Hill)

It is of note that there is yet another vehicle with its front end smashed in, an orange car, abandoned in the ditch near Hanley Farm shop!

I have not heard the extent of injury of those involved as yet but will add the detail if I find out!

Further facts have come to hand:
I am told that a car had broken down and was in Hanley public lay-by – a friend called from Lydney to help arrived and indicated intent to turn into Chepstow end of Lay-by and stopped facing oncoming traffic within a few seconds a car drove into the back of his car and shortly after that the orange car drove into the back of the two static cars!

The 3 car crash happened just before 17:00hrs., Police attended and all 3 vehicles were removed by 20:30hrs., fortunately, I am told, with no consequential injuries.

Photos to follow.

There have been 2 fatalities and various very serious injuries within view of Hanley Hill in two fatal accidents so far this year and a total of 5 fatalities within sight of Hanley Hill in recent years, plus of course numerous other accidents on this particularly dangerous stretch of road with its multiple junctions and the particularly dangerous Hanley layby which itself has multiple junctions and much increased traffic due to commercialisation as a multiple occupancy office venue, a farm shop and a single dwelling converted to multiple occupancy!

It is legitimate, since the primary cause of accidents according to The MoT/DVLA, is distraction – just imagine how we can expect the fatality and serious injury rate is likely to escalate as traffic levels increase with the 5,000 new houses already with planning approval granted from Lydney to Chepstow if the gross iresponsibility of granting and installing a wind turbine 337 feet above the River Severn on Hanley Hill is granted next to the A48 – the most dangerous road in Europe in terms of fatalities per mile travelled.

There was also an accident nearby earlier in the week – sadly as yet I have no further details.

The cost to the public purse of these accidents likely to be caused by the distraction of a wind turbine pale into insignificance relative to the subsidies payable on a wind turbine or any potential theoretical benefits and thus I would contend that such a scheme/scam would only be undertaken by those with an utter disregard for the area and the lives of others.

 

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.

For more details of the Film & TV industry in the FoD which in the long term the FoDDC will destroy in their crass amateurism and corrupt bias CLICK HERE

“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:

• 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 – 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

• CARPENTER, Garry, Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat,, approximately 1.3kms from proposed 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!

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

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 or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best.

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

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.

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:

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!

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.

• 
  

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

.

“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)

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.

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:

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!

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.

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.

“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:

• 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 – 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

• CARPENTER, Garry, Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat,, approximately 1.3kms from proposed 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!

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

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 or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best.

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

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.

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group

CHANGES
INDEX

The Majority of updates are made as PS
(Post Scripts) at the end and are numbered:

05-May-2015
06-May-2015
09-Apr-2015
including newly elected councillors & updating etc.
11-May-2015
extensive additional details added
resultant from an emergency meeting held in Stroat
13-May-2015
14-May-2015
15-May-2015
16-May-2015
18-May-2015
(PS-15: My objection to the Planning Application)

19-May-2015
(PS-16: Including Parish Council Agenda)
21-May-2015
22-May-2015
(PS – 17 particularly)

24-May-2015
25-May-2015
26-May-2015
(particularly re PS-21:S. Glos & PS-22: re ‘Bat Survey’)

27-May-2015
(PS-23: Scale Representation, Based on Google Earth View
& Planning Appeals see: PS-24 & PS-25.)

Later update 27-May-2015
(PS-26: Parish Council Planning Committee Meeting summary
& vote 5:1 to oppose The Application see)

29-May-2015
(PS-26: to scale pictures of Turbine
in correct location!)

31-May-2015
(PS-27 a comment from NY)

18-Jun-2015
(PS-28 A Meeting + Update)

19-Jun-2015
(PS-29 New Govt. End to Subsidies)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-30 Press Report on New Turbine Subsidies)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-31 Amber Rudd MPs Statement on Subsidies
Discussed on Conservative Home)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-32 Some up to date stats & extrapolation thereof)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-33 Government Statement re Wind Power 18-Jun-2015)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-34 Gov. PRESS RELEASE re Wind Turbines,
Local People To Get Final Say 18-Jun-2015)

20-Jub-2015
(PS-35 A Legal Caveat To Councils, Officers & Councillors:)

22-Jun-2015
(PS-36 HANSARD: HoC Debate & Statement of today’s date)

02-Jul-2015
(PS-37 Yet Another ACCIDENT within sight of Hanley Hill)

02-Jul-2015
(PS-38 Planning Consultant Julia Joseph’s correspondence to date)

03-Jul-2015
(See update to PS-37 re ACCIDENT)

03-Jul-2015
(PS-39 New environmentally damaging Wind Turbine
installed at Rockhampton)

06-Jul-2015
(PS-40 House of Commons BRIEFING PAPER
‘Onshore Wind Power’ Paper #04370)

06-Jul-2015
(PS-41: DECC Letter to David Warren confirming details that Onshore Wind Turbines
are no longer to be granted planning permission after 18-Jun-2015
or be built after Mar_2016)

07-Jul-2015
(PS-42: Wind Turbine Application & appeal turned down in Devon on similar grounds to those pertaining at Severndale Farm)

11-Jul-2015
(PS-43: Seems 50 Turbines are Required in St. Briavels!)

12-Jul-2015
(PS-44: A fortuitously timed report on the dangers for motorists on the A48, particularly Woolaston to Chepstow)

15-Jul-2014
(PS-45: Circular from FoDDC to the ‘Community’)

20-Jul-2015
(PS-46: A general letter of objection [lengthy!] in response to PS-45 above)

20-Jul-2015
(PS-47: A specific letter of objection [brief!] in response to PS-45 above)

21-Jul-2015
(PS-48: Formation of:
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group )

22-Jul-2015
(PS-49: FoDDC moves Planning Meeting from 08-Sep-2015 to 11-Aug-2015!)

22-Jul-2015
(PS-50: Letter from

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
to members of the community)

24-Jul-2015
(PS-51: DECC – Onshore wind Letter 01)

24-Jul-2015
(PS-52: Sec.State Rt.Hon. Amber Rudd Aviva speech on Climate Change)

25-Jul-2015
(PS-53: Letter/Circular regarding PS-51 above)

30-Jul-2015
(PS-54: Exposing the environmental damage caused by Wind Turbines)

08-Aug-2015
(PS-55: Letter to Planning Committee Members from
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
drafted by Robert Hillman)

11-Aug-2015
(PS-56: PRESS RELEASE by:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
Subsequent to Planning Meeting)

16-Aug-2015
(PS-57: G.L-W. letter to Mark Harper MP requesting his attendance at

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group meeting)

17-Aug-2015
(PS-58: Robert Hillman’s letter on behalf of
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
requesting the Council’s procedure be ‘Called In’)

18-Aug-2015
(PS-59: Meeting of Planning of 11-Aug-2015 AUDIO Recording posted – LINK)

19-Aug-2015
(PS-60: Article of 07-Jul-2015 showing Wind Turbines are more expensive and more pointless than you may have realised – JUST A COSTLY SCAM!)

19-Aug-2015
(PS-61: Considering/Fisking the comments reported in the local press, regarding the planning consent – seeking the truth!)

23-Aug-2015
(Opening preamble above, with pictures & scale montage)

04-Sep-2015
(PS-62: Media Coverage of 26-Aug-2015 & Comment Thereon)

05-Sep-2015
(PS-63: Report of meeting with Mark Harper MP)

07-Sep-2015
(PS-64: Mark Harper MP > GL-W + SecState Greg Clark MP)

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

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

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

22-Sep-2015
(PS-68: GL-W > Molly Mayo re Inappropriate Wind Turbine
+ Precedent set by Sec. State Greg Clark MP)

-Sep-2015
(PS-69: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-70: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-71: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-72: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-73: )

23-Sep > 07-Oct-2015
(PS 74: Correspondence between Dai Oakley & Stephen Colegate re FoDDC Local Plan for Wind Power Generation)

26-Oct-2015
(PS 75: Correspondence From: Greg Clark MP, Mark Harper MP – calling into question & seeking to justify the fairness of The Minister’s Failure To Set Aside The Planned Wind Turbine and the failure of FoD MP Mark Harper & FoDDC Planning To Acquit their duty & reject the plan on the basis of legal guidance & a level playing field.)

23-Oct-2015
(PS 76: Greg Clark MP, Mark Harper MP, FoDDC Planning Committee, FoDDC Planning Committee Need to justify their behaviour.)

13-Nov-2015
(PS 77: Yet Another Example Of Double Standards highlighting Greg Clark MP’s failure to act in accord with the law regarding Stroat!)

14-Nov-2015
(PS 78: Request for Greg Clark MP, Mark Harper MP, FoDDC CEO, FoDDC Leader, FoDDC Planning Committee to Justify their behaviour.)

14-Nov-2015
(PS 79: The Evil Con, Environmental Damage & Personal Greed That Underpins Wind Turbines.)

12-Nov-2015
(PS 80: The EFFECTED COMMUNITY Seeks CROWD FUNDING to PROTECT THE SEVERN ESTUARY.)

12-Nov-2015
(PS 81: PROGRESS REPORT on LEGAL CHALLENGE against SEVERNDAL Wind Turbine.)

 16-Nov-2015
(PS 82: To SEARCH The Data & RESEARCH SOURCES to confirm the facts provided.)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 83: It seems Alvington & Aylburton’s ‘effected community’ have been as soundly betrayed by its elected representatives as have those in Stroat to date …)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 84:Subsidies for renewables “least effective” for the environment: economist)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 85: the Economics of Climate Change:
The Paris Conference and Its Aftermath)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 86: Fight climate change efficiently.)

03-Mar-2012
(PS 87: Christopher Booker Was Exposing the Wind Turbine Scam back in 2012 in The Telegraph.)

05-Jan-2013
(PS 88: The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy.)

24-Nov-2015
(PS 89: Wind Power Sends Power Prices Skyward,
Risks Total Grid Collapse & Fails to Cut CO2 Emissions.)

30-Nov-2015
(PS 90: How the story of Climate Change impacts Stroat.)

03-Dec-2015
(PS 91: there seems to be no level playing field when political interests are being lobbied!)

07-Dec-2015
(PS 92: The Latest News On Judicial Review & Thank You.)

01-Jan-2016
(PS 93: Wind Turbine Accident data.)

02-Jan-2016
(PS 94: Wind Turbine Fires & Fatalities Are NOT Uncommon!)

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:

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!

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.

• Attendance record
• Declarations at meetings

Home address:

Cllr. Helen Molyneux

• Lance Allan
  Phone: 01291 – 628867
  EMail:
• Roy Birch
  33 Bigstone Grove, Tutshill NP16 7EN
  Phone: 01291-624326
  EMail:
• Sheila Bollen
  3 Buttington Road, Sedbury
  Phone: 01291 – 620812
  EMail: sheila_bollen@hotmail.com
• Dr Fiona Bowie
  5 Castleford Gardens, NP16 7LF
  Phone:
  EMail: Fiona.Bowie@KCL.co.UK
• Nikki BoullivantPhone: witheld Nurse on Shift work
  EMail: nikki1002@hotmail.co.uk
• Stephen Ford – Chairman
  5 Orchard Farm Close, Sedbury NP16 7BG
  Phone: 01291 624178
  Mobile: 07908 634570
  EMail: steve@fourm-ltd.co.uk
• Sandra Gregory
  The Mews, 40 Inner Loop Road, Beachley NP16 7HF
  Phone: 01291-621573
  EMail: sandra.gene@btinternet.com
• Andrew Hossack
• Helen Molyneux
  Bluff House, Stoulgrove Lane, Woodcroft, Chepstow, NP16 7QE
  Phone:  01291 625013
  Bus. email: Helen.Molyneux@fdean.gov.uk
  EMail: helen@molnet.co.uk
• John Powell – Vice Chairman
  39 Wyebank Road, Tutshill NP16 7ER
  Phone: 01291-624901
  EMail: ann.powell@mail.com

vacant seat – Parish Councillor

IF YOU CAN HELP by providing further/missing contact data on these public servants please phone or email me accordingly.
Thanks.

PLEASE NOTE:

The Parish Plan (on their own website) has an interesting bit – under the heading “Development” It clearly states “The parish council’s development policy is to support small scale in-fill development to cater for local needs and to OPPOSE large scale extensions of village boundaries OR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN OPEN COUNTRY”.
Let us hope they honour their own undertaking on which they were elected to represent the community’s interests which the community has made very clear do not sustain this self serving Industrialised structure as is being applied for and which the applicants and their largely out of area supporters would seem to be trying to bully into existence with misleading photo montages seemingly photoshopped, aesopian language and misleading or obfuscated data backed by abuse, intimidation and threats!
Fortunately it is the duty of both the Parish Council and the District Council to support the community not the narrow profit motives of the wealthy few who are acting against the interests of the community, the Parish ‘Development Policy’ and the District Council’s ‘Structure Plan’!

• PS – 02:

  The following PPS (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates) are standing on 07-May-2015, with any responsible probability of election:

  Mark HARPER MP (incumbent & re-elected 07-May-2015)
  eMail: FoD@GloucestershireConservatives.com
  tel.:    01594 – 823 482
  I have spoken with Mark Harper’s office and am assured that if he is re-elected he will be happy to support an application for an extension of the consultation period in the light of the timing of the application. I am also assured that he will address the views of concerned constituents.

  PS – 03:

  It is interesting, in the light of the following article in the National media: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/01/tories-plan-attack-windfarms?CMP=share_btn_link

  that the wife of the applicant Mana Jane Edwards is seeking a position of increased influence as a Conservative Councillor!

  PS – 04:

  May I also draw your attention to the detailed and strenuous objections made by the CPRE, with whom I am in touch, against the now rejected application for a similar wind turbine in Alvington, which can be found at: http://www.aylburtonvillagehall.org.uk/P1396_CPRE_Objections.pdf

  PS – 05:

  Below is a very helpful series of comments with some additions and ammendments, and their source, including the apposite title for the application. to send a letter of objection of your own.

  Severndale Wind Turbine Proposal Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow NP16 7LL P0365/15/FUL Case officer: Stephen Colegate www.saynotosevernturbines.org.uk http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/

  Suggestions for residents who wish to object to the proposed turbine at Severndale Farm

  * We recommend writing a simple letter on one sheet of paper stating your objection in clear terms.

  * You should start your letter:

  Dear Sirs,

  please be advised that I wish to object to the Severndale Wind Turbine Proposal P0365/15/FUL for the following reasons:

  1. … 2. … etc.

  Please state in your letter that you are a resident or have a strong connection with this area.

  * You can send one letter from each member of your family.

  * Please encourage friends, neighbours and relatives to do the same.

  * The planning authority wants to hear your views because they will help them reach a decision. Comments may also be submitted by email to planning@fdean.gov.uk or online through the planning pages at http://www.fdean.gov.uk/

  PLEASE ACT RAPIDLY we have very little time to register objections as your letter MUST be with the FoD Council by Tuesday 19-May-2015

  I strongly suggest that you include in your letter the fact that the consultation period is wholly inadequate for such a major and complex industrial instalation sited so  visibly and dangerously and even the various Councils in the area were not made aware of the application until the 05-May-2015 in a period of flux due to local and National elections! May I also remind you that Michael Fallon; for and on behalf of the Government, which has been returned to Governance; stated on BBC Radio 4 that there would be no further grants and subsidiies for these industrial installations for those that had not been GRANTED Planning permission prior to the election!

  Letters should be sent to FODDC Planning, Council Offices, High Street, Coleford, GL16 8HG

  Try to get your comments to the planning authority by Tuesday 19th May at the latest.

  These notes will help you to send a letter that represents your personal opinions and concerns.

  Have you or the parish council ever been directly consulted over this proposal by the developer?

  Were you aware of these plans before an application was submitted?

  Are you concerned about the impact of the huge size of turbine on the landscape around Stroat? It will have an overwhelming and overbearing presence on its surroundings.

  Here is an approximate indication of its size though in this photomontage, which unlike those of the applicant, does not take an extremely wide angle view to minimise the effect in a manner which I defy them to show to be a responsible and honest indication and is of very questionable accuracy!

  Severn Vale without a wind turbine!

  Is it the proposed industrial installation too close to either residential properties or the road or both?

  Are you concerned that its proposed size (height 283 feet [87m] + the 72 feet [22m] of Hanley Hill above the Severn total height 337 feet!, span 164 feet 50m ) 1/3rd again higher than Gloucester Cathedral or that is 3 times the height of Nelson’s Colum and 3 times the height of the largest tree in the Forest of Dean! is completely out of all proportion in this setting? This is 152 feet higher than the spire of St. Mary’s Church, Lydney.

  Perhaps you are concerned at the building of a huge moving structure in an open rural landscape with far-reaching views across the Severn Estuary which is completely unacceptable.

  Perhaps your concern is the strobe effect together with the distracting nature of such a towering industrial installation so very close along side the A48 as a further distraction adding to the danger on this road which is officially recognised as the most dangerous road in EUrope particularly in terms of fatalities, on a stretch which has, within sight of this monstrous construction killed 2 people so far this year and has experienced many many lesser accidents!

  Are you worried by the huge size of the turbine, its noise and its blade flicker?

  Do you think that it will affect your health and well-being?

  Are you anxious about its possible effects on wildlife in this area such as birds and bats – particularly the migratory birds that annually collect nearby and fly around Hanley Hill before their departure.?

  The turbine will be only 220 metres from the A48.

  There was for a short period an electricity pylon on Hanley Hill which was removed, together with others, to enhance the visual amenity of the area. Such pylons were far smaller and less intrusive than the proposed wind turbine and considerably less danger to the many low flying planes and helicopters that frequent the immediate area, both military & civilian.

  Greatly exaggerated claims of 35% capacity factor have been made about the output of this turbine. An identical turbine at St. Briavels, only 3.5 miles away, over the last two years has achieved only 20% capacity. This turbine has only produced an annual community benefit of £8,000 however the developer claims that there will be a community benefit of up to £20,000 for the Severndale turbine.

  Are you concerned that wind turbines have proved to be a failure at times of peak demand when there is a shortfall on the grid due to either lack of wind or too much wind to drive the turbine and similar periods when turbines produce more output than the grid can cope with!

  Are you concerned at the huge output in CO2 of the manufacture of cement, not recorded in 3rd. world manufacturing countries and the huge CO2 output of manufacture and transporting materials that require subsidies to errect this vast structure! Not to mention the years of leachate discharge of CO2 from the constructed concrete block mounting and the industrial service roadway!

  Are you concerned that the Government finds itself in the foolish position of having to use tax payers money to fund paying the owners of these very wind turbines the tax payers have funded to put their industrial devices out of use due to excess output relative to grid requirement!

  The proposed turbine is available either as a 500kW or an 800kW version. The developer has gone for the 500kW version in order to benefit from its much higher feed-in tariff. He is seemingly not interested in renewable energy generation only in maximising his profits.

  To stress the point above were the applicant really interested in alternative energy perhaps he can explain why he has never converted the rooves of his many buildings to solar pannelling, which would be far less damaging to the environment!

  Are you concerned at the disruptive potential and danger to life of increasing the heavy duty damage of the many 100s of truck loads of spoil from the site and materials to the site during construction.

  Does the probability of damage to the highway of several miles of heavy duty cabling installation to connect to the grid? Where will this connection be? Lydney 5 miles away?

  More wind turbines are being planned at sites along this side of the Severn estuary. Resilience is targeting small communities one by one. If these plans are passed, you will be living in the middle of a line of huge turbines between Chepstow and Lydney.

  Are you concerned at the risk to aircraft in view of the many civil and military journeys made through this corridor on a daily basis at a low level.

  Are you concerned at the inevitable heavy duty servicing road with an essential 60 m bell mouth join to the A48?

  Are you concerned at the glib way in which public consultation is dismissed based upon long out of date general data put forward in 2012 which is not being considered?

  Are you concerned that no current environmental impact study is being made and why is there not in the light of the planning applications granted and in process for additional housing and traffic on the A48?

  Are you concwerned at the prospect of the possibility that if this industrial developement may preclude planned future developements of housing between Chepstow and Lydney inclusively?

  Might the granting of this installation be made because the District Council fears defending an appeal based upon now outdated experience with arcane legal applications? Thus may this application set a dangerous precedent for seried ranks of these giant industrial installations being made on the banks of the Severn Estuary between the M48 Chepstow bridge and Gloucester?

  Are you concerned that the first and seemingly only public opportunity to consult will be a limited time presentation by and on behalf of the applicant at the first available Parish Council meeting since the election on the 20-May-2015 at The Memorial Hall in Tidenham at 19:00hrs.

  Are you concerned at the huge efforts made and the many jobs sustained in tourism in the area that may well be threatened by the industrialisation of the estary banks?

  Are you concerned that the wishes and needs of this small rural community are being effectively trampled underfoot by the applicant’s desire to make personal profits when one considers even the public investment can well be from profit motivated individuals and organisations with no interest or connection with the area?

  Are you concerned that the validation of this major industrial application was launched under the cloak of the National & local elections and very few of the local residents who will be effected are even aware or have been notified – I have not even noticed announcement signs at the applicant’s other commercial enterprises as a regular customer and visitor to his farm shop?

  As a resident of the same small hamlet is there a reason why so many of us have not been notified of this industrialisation of our rural community?

  Are you concerned at the fact that there is no apparent consideration of the military barracks at Beachley or the communities of Sedbury, Tutshill, Woodcroft, Chepstow, Alvington, Woolaston, Aylburton, Lydney, Thornbury, Olbury-on-Severn, Berkley, Sharpness, all of whom, and others will be effected!

  Are you concerned that not only is the historic significance of Hanley Hill is being overlooked or even deliberately ignored and there is no mention of the many historic sites in the immediate local area such as the pre historic Broadstone, the Roman mint, sites of various Roman villas and a possible Roman temple = a ‘Mansio’ or stopping point for Romans in transit having crossed or about to cross the Severn taking advantage of the low tides.all within a few 100 yards and the fact that the A48 in this area is itself a Roman road, leaving the great likelihood of further remains being found locally in the future!

  PLEASE include as many of these points as may concern you in the order of importance to you and also PLEASE bring this site to the attention of all who you can so that they can have their say in view of the dishonestly short time and advertising of this major industrial development

  PLEASE use social media to spread the word and use the hash tag #StroatWind on Twitter.

  The following are NOT valid reasons for objections (including them they may well weaken your case):

  * Loss of a beautiful view from your home.

  * Value of your property – this will be significantly reduced and your home will become difficult to sell. Some properties in the area may become unsaleable.

  DON’T DELAY! Keep it simple Keep it clear Keep it true Be sure to get your comments to the planning authority by Tuesday 19th May

  PLEASE also request a long extension of consultation time it is notable that as at start of business Monday-11-May-2015 there are no citizen/resident contributions on the FoD planning site either of concerned residents and not even the expected makewieght claims inspired by the applicant’s professional partners, as occurs in other such applications, which would seem to indicate few of the effected individuals and organisations like the Councils of Chepstow, Lydney, Tidenham, Oldbury, Thornbury and the many other communities which will have the visual ammenity of their environs significantly diminished!.

SEE:

PS – 06:

• You may find this correspondence of value with both its invaluable facts and quotes and its many links:

This gentleman (Clive Hambler) is an author and lecturer at Oxford, I emailed him today and he responded in 20 minutes with so useful information for me. I have emailed a few more organisations linked to bats, birds and bees and will email James Delingpole tomorrow about his article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227983/wind-turbines-are-a-human-health-hazard-the-smoking-gun/ to see whether he may wish to comment on the application. At 18:16 10/05/2015 +0100, you wrote: Hello Clive My name is Claire and I live on in a house along the A48 just 3 miles out of Chepstow, and am lucky enough to be surrounded by all kinds of wildlife. We can see the river severn from our windows and we felt very lucky that our 3 young boys were able to take advantage of their surroundings. However last week we were sent a planning application from our local council, Forest of Dean (Ref: P0365/15/FUL ) suggesting that a 87m wind turbine be placed just 455m from our home. On researching this proposal I found that it was just one of a handful that is being planned by the same company (resilience) up this side of the severn all within just a few miles of each other. <http://www.saynotosevernturbines.org.uk/>http://www.saynotosevernturbines.org.uk/ (as shown in the link) There are many objecting groups in the area but I fear that they are no being listened to and even when the planning application is refused, the application has gone to appeal and won. We have a long battle ahead of us and I discovered a article you wrote in 2013 <http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/>http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/ which I felt highlighted all of the issues that these wind turbine will impact. I worry not just about the impact on my children and our lifestyle but also about the wildlife that we see every day and also the birds that return here to nest each year. We have a family of swallows who return to one of our sheds, they have done this for the last 10 years. I would be ever so grateful if you could help in any way, even a letter of objection or comment would be very much appreciated, also if you know of anyone else or any organisation that may wish to help. We only found out on May 1st and have until May 18th to respond and try to get the message to more people that they may affect, it is a mammoth task when there is so much to research . Anyway I thank you for taking the time to read this email and hope to hear from you soon. Kind Regards Claire Ford Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 19:00:00 +0100 To: dinkey_4d@hotmail.co.uk From: clive.hambler@zoo.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: Severn Estuary Wind Turbines Hi Claire, I’m sorry to hear of your problem. Putting wind turbines near such an important wildlife site (one of the best in Britain) is more daft than the usual plan. I’m very glad the Spectator article has proved useful. I will have a look at the plan and might send the planning officers a note. It’s risky commenting on sites one is remote from. I have suggested that swallows and relatives are at relatively high risk from wind turbines: http://wcfn.org/2013/07/01/tip-of-the-iceberg/ Have you seen these articles, and the references in them: http://www.swlg.org.uk/uploads/6/3/3/8/6338077/spwln_final_small.pdf. There are reports you can find on Google of seabirds (‘seagulls’) being killed by wind turbines. They are a treat to terns, shawaters, swans, scoter, geese etc etc. For other detrimental impacts of wind power, see Hambler, C. & Canney, S. M. (2013). Conservation. Cambridge University Press. Here’s the section from it on wind farms; sorry the formatting may come out a mess: “Solar power and wind power have a low energy density, and thus require very extensive collecting surfaces, and can be particularly problematic if they are to feed into grids designed for centralised power generation.Wind turbines and their cables kill birds and bats – many of which breed slowly and range widely – with impacts far beyond the site boundaries. Wind farms can be population sinks or traps (Section 6.1), attracting and killing predators and bats (Long et al., 2011). Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagles are threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In North America, wind farms kill protected species (such as bald and golden eagles, and migrants) and will become a grave threat to numerous species unless adequately regulated (Drewitt & Langston, 2008; American Bird Conservancy, 2011). In California, tens of thousands of raptors have been killed, threatening the golden eagle population. Similarly, in Spain, millions of birds and bats are killed each year, threatening the Egyptian vulture population, and over 400 Griffon vultures were killed in 1 year at Navarra alone (Plate 3). Norwegian wind farms kill over 10 white-tailed eagles per year, and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against opposition by ornithologists. Densities of a range of upland birds are reduced within about 500 m of wind turbines in Scotland, whilst in North America tall structures displace sage grouse. Offshore wind farms (with associated lighting and maintenance ships) are a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks) and risking interference with navigation. Bats are killed by impacts, and by pressure shocks near the blades of turbines (Nicholls & Racey, 2007; Arnett et al., 2008), with migratory and forest species being highly vulnerable. There are also substantial impacts from the turbines’ foundations, cables, cable trenches, lighting, construction and access roads, with important montane forests being destroyed – as in Vermont, USA.” Are there any bat colonies within about 10km of the area, or woods or caves which might host them? I think it’s far from ethical to put structures known to attract and kill bats within several kilometers of colonies, especially for very rare species. It might be argued that deaths can reasonably be anticipated, and it’s thus illegal. That argument has worked in a prosecution in the USA involving birds of prey: http://news.yahoo.com/guilty-plea-bird-deaths-wind-farms-first-081651963–finance.html http://www.thegwpf.org/wind-turbines-killed-600000-bats-year/ I think the British guidelines for bats are inadequate, given attraction to turbines from over 14 km: http://wcfn.org/2013/07/01/tip-of-the-iceberg/ For the study of Europe’s bats being killed in wind farms in Germany, see: The catchment area of wind farms for European bats: A plea for international regulations Voigt, C. C. et al 2012 Biological Conservation 153, 80-86. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712002091 http://www.alphagalileo.org/Organisations/ViewItem.aspx?OrganisationId=1120&ItemId=122066&CultureCode=en Other sources: http://windfarmaction.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/brief-summary-of-recent-international-research-on-the-risk-to-bats-from-wind-turbines/ Bats in Greece: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3161/150811012×661765 Bats stop wind farm in Wales: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2013/01/05/giant-wind-turbine-plan-on-anglesey-halted-by-bats-55578-32548018/ The expert / NGO who can best advise on the continental figures for wind farm mortality for birds and bats is Mark Duchamp, of Save the Eagles international and formerly the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW): Mark Duchamp <save.the.eagles2@gmail.com> Paying reliable consultants to do bat surveys might be a good investment. For example, Bioscan UK do bat surveys. I’ve recently had similar correspondence from other people concerned about wind farms, bats and birds, who might be able to share their experiences with you. Pooling information seems sensible. You can say I gave you their contact details, in the hope it’s to mutual benefit sharing relevant knowledge: John Yelland <yelland.john@live.fr> trying to save bats on the Isle of Wight Anthony J Trewavas <trewavas@ed.ac.uk> bats in Scotland Peter Gardner <peter.gardner@indecon.co.uk> bats Bedfordshire Oliver Sheard <olivers100@hotmail.co.uk> Huddersfield See also the huge argument over Navitus Bay and wind farms – offshore sites might have similar issues to onshore ones near key wildlife sites. There are a lot of comments on the plans which you might track down though here: http://www.challengenavitus.org.uk/ Hope that helps. Sorry if the above focus on bats is less useful – but I had compiled the references above for a similar enquiry, so you might as well have them in case they are relevant! Bats are relatively strictly protected, but wind farms are often permitted in places which show little real planning concern for at-risk species. Best wishes, Clive

PS – 07:

• Campaign starts against Tidenham wind turbine
• Wednesday, 13 May 2015
• RESIDENTS living along the River Severn are campaigning against a planning application to put a 60m high wind turbine at Severndale Farm, Tidenham.
  With the length of the blades taken into account too, the maximum height of the wind turbine would be 87m, which would make it visible from Chepstow to Woolaston, and out across the Severn.
  The application has been made for “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”.
  Despite the application having been submitted on Thursday 29th January 2015 and published online on Tuesday 10th March, there have been no public comments published on the District Council’s website at the time of going to press.
  Claire Ford, who lives in neighbouring Stroat, says: “We received a letter from the Forest of Dean District Council on 1st May for a 60m wind turbine which is in fact 87m high when fully constructed. The proposed wind turbine is just 455m from my home.
  “I have three young children and am terrified of the impact this turbine will have on their futures as there are so many health issues these turbines can cause.
  “A small group of concerned residents met on Sunday evening (10th May) which was the first meeting to pull ideas together, discuss the issue and perhaps come up with a course of action.
  “Stroat is such a small village though it will be hard to get the message out to the wider area fast enough.”
  The deadline for residents to comment closes on Monday 18th May and plans can be viewed on the Forest of Dean District Council’s website at http://www.fdean.gov.uk under the planning portal with the reference number P0365/15/FUL
• To view the original article CLICK HERE
• PLEASE NOTE The deadline for comments IS Monday 18-May-2015 as stated on the FoD planning web site confirmed in conversation with Stephen Colgate the Planning Officer designated to this application 13-May-2015 12:00hrs by me directly.

PS – 08:

• To clarify the issue of deadline for comments:
  
• The media article in PS – 07 was correct in stating the official deadline for comment is Monday 18-May-2015.
• I appreciate that a resident contacted the designated planning officer  Stephen Colgate as follows:
• From: REDACTED
  Sent: 06 May 2015 20:33
  To: Stephen Colegate
  Subject: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for comments
• Dear Stephen
  I understand you are the case officer for the above planning application.
  Please can you explain why the timescale for this application is allowed to coincide with local elections. I have spoken to a parish councillor about my concerns, but that individual is not standing for re-election. Clearly I am unable to express my views to newly elected representatives until after the results of elections are announced. This means I have less time to put across my views to elected local representatives, than would normally be the case in such planning applications.
  Please can this matter be considered and the timescale for comments be extended.
  Given the pressing timescales, I look forward to your early response.Kind RegardsREDACTED
• a copy of the letter and the response was sent to me by the concerned resident, together with the reply received from Stephen Colgate, which I agreed with the resident seemed to contradict the conversation I had had with Stephen Colgate subsequent to his response to the correspondence:
  
• 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 REDACTEDRE: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for commentsPlease 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.RegardsStephen Colegate
  Senior Planning Officer
  Forest of Dean District Council
  Tel: 01594 812375
  Email: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk
• PLEASE NOTE:
• I have, since the circulation of the letters above, had a lengthy conversation with Stephen Colegate and although it is easy to misunderstand his response which was made to the one resident who had explained their misgivings and problems in obtaining representation and information, he claims that the response was peculiar to ONLY that individual.
• The position still stands that the official deadline, as listed on the FoD planning site, is Monday 18-May-2015, whether you or I may consider that reasonable is of no concern to the facts!
• The deadline is, and will remain Monday 18-May-2015.
  That said Tidenham Parish Council have obtained an extension for the Parish Council to make a submission up until 27-May-2015 as an outcome of the fact that the first opportunity for the Parish Council, with its new councillors, to sit is Wednesday 20-May-2015 at 19.00hrs. – a meeting at which the applicant’s professional representatives aim to make a sales pitch to show how this publicly subsidised profit motivated venture may benefit the community – a situation which sound both implausible and untrue to me and smacks of little more than local bribery!
• ALL OF THAT SAID:
  May I suggest that IF you are reading this after the 18-May-2015 that you submit your comments and views regardless as I am sure and am informed they will be taken into account as long as they are received before Stephen Colgate has made his submission for the Council Planning Committee for the 30-June-2015.
• Personally I am indebted to Gabriella Kirkpatrick for having represented my request for a delay, prior to the election, that Stephen Colegate was not minded to heed requests for an extension led to her then calling in the plans to ensure they were dealt with by the planning committee thus ensure some element of democracy!
• Unfortunately Gabriella Kirkpatrick was voted out of office and I note Maria Edwards, the wife of the applicant, is now on the Council under the guise of a Conservative seat – which seems strange in the light of the Conservative Party committment in its manifesto and elsewhere to remove subsidies on all Wind Turbines for which application is granted after the election!
• If you wish your views, facts and comments to be given their due weight may I strongly suggest that you seek to ensure they are with the Council on or before 18-May-2015 with copies to your MP, your County Councillors and your Parish Councillors!
  

PS – 09:

• The following site notices should be displayed: but on vigerous inspection on 12-May-2015 only one could be found
• 
• The text of the notice being:

• The following application has been received:-
  At:
  Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow

  Proposed Development:
  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.

  Application Number : DF4282 P0365/15/FUL
  The application can be inspected during office hours at:

  Forest of Dean District Council, High Street, Coleford, Glos, GL16 8HG
  Tel: 01594 810000

  A copy of the application has been sent to the appropriate Town/Parish Council Clerk, who may make the application available for public inspection at its discretion.

  Comments on this application should be made in writing to the above address by 19th May 2015
  Group Manager- Planning & Housing

• &
• 
• On vigerous inspection on 12-May-2015 only one could be found, located curved around the gate of an unrelated property on the main A48.
  We know of absol;utely no signs that have been displayed other than on the main road where there is no viable parking, no footpath and the ambient speed is 40 >80 mph
• As Stephen Colegate assured me he sent out 107 letters of notification – however he did not break that down between statutory bodies and effected individuals!
• He also conceded he had not sent notice to all who will be effected as that would run to 1,000s – how right he is!

PS – 10:

• Please note – there has been an anonymous mailing to home owners, which has been seen by many as personalised and threatening, please be assured this mailing has nothing to do with this site and we repudiate such tactics. Further we do not believe that it was mailed by the applicants to discredit their opposition, as some have speculated!

PS – 11:

• One is forced to wonder just what elements of democracy pertain in planning applications like this one, which seems morally reprehensible and set up to enrich the wealthy and those devious enough to make them at the expense of their communities, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and funded by subsidies comprising taxes levied on the unwilling poor through ethically bankrupt taxation on their electricity bills.
• Compounding this seeming dishonesty is the repugnant fact that the applicant’s wife stands for the Council without making it clear to the elec torate she may well be considered to have ulterior motives, and now we find that not only do they aim to shoehorn this application through without a current public exhibition but as you can see from this leaflet they claim to have had one! You will note thwe product they seem to have been forced (expediently) to withdraw, previously was not for the same item having been a smaller capacity turbine:
  
• Very few of those who will be directly disadvantaged by this monstrous carbuncle industrialising this unique rural area with its long visual aspects and largely untramelled views attended the failed display of 3 years ago.
• This is almost as dishonest as trying to relly on an environmental impact report that is also historic and would seem to have paid no cogniscence to the obscene damage to bird life had the report included the period when large numbers of migratory birds congregate over a period before setting out for warmer climes – a period when they wheel and swoop all around Hanley Hill, whilst roosting in the reed beds alongside the river, a period essential to ensuring they can catch enough insects to put on that extra fat that will provide them with the energy standby for their long flight and ensure they do not die in their thousands due to lack of nutrition. Amongst those not killed by wind turbines!
• Let us not forget the Pylon which once stood on Hanley Hill was considered unsightly and was removed!

PS – 12:

• It is interesting to note that a near identical planning application was made, but for a smaller Turbine in 2011.
• Forest of Dean District Council planning applications
• Planning Application P0596/11/EIA, Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepst…
•  

• EIA Screening opinion

  Council

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Council Reference

  P0596/11/EIA

  Address

  Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow Mon NP16 7LL

  Application Url

  http://publicaccess.fdean.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LIV9LIHI03R00

  Location (from postcode)

  51.6618428540645, -2.63423225672715

  Decision

  EIA Required

  Applicant Name

  The Resilience Centre Ltd

  Start Date

  2011-03-16

  Further details

  Date Received

  Wed 16 Mar 2011

  Appeal Status

  Not Available

  Appeal Decision

  Not Available

  Alternative Reference

  Not Available

• The application was withdrawn, presumably because the applicants felt it was doomed to failure.
• It is noted the new application was madesubsequent to the proroguing of Parliament for Local & General Election, acting as a huge distraction and seemimngly ensuring no action was taken to oppose this unsighty, costly and dangerous induastrial installation for a considerable period – as proven by the FoDDC Planning site where no public objection was made/displayed until AFTER the election, even then at a time when the FoDDC web site had no listing of the new councillors!
• It is further worthy of note that the applicant’s wife stood for and was elected to the council without any indication of her interest in the pecunniary advantages of this inappropriate application – were I cynical I might consider this to be an deliberate act of dishonesty for personal gain and a breech of the ethics of democracy!

PS – 13:

• A valuable contribution to preserving the Severn Estuary from this industrial profiteering, of so little benefit to anyone other than the applicant:
• From: Adrian Edwards <edwards.adrian@btinternet.com>
• Subject: Planning Objection Ref. PO365/15/FUL
• Date: 15 May 2015 09:52:50 BST
• To: council@fdean.gov.uk
• Cc: gregl-w@btconnect.com
• We wish to register our objection in the strongest to terms to the above planning application for the following reasons;
  1. This constitutes the start of significant industrial development which is not in the county development plans. How many more may be envisaged up the valley?
  2. The construction is completely out of keeping with the environment.
  3. The potential for unacceptable noise levels.
  The report produced by Hoare Lea does not give assurances that noise levels will not be exceeded quite the contrary it states that it could well exceed acceptable levels. Since the models they refer to are not specific to this location all the data produced is merely a comparable extraction in their opinion.
  The aspects of VLF (very low frequency) effects has not been addressed since it is still a contentious issue. None of the reports refer to altitude effects and many of the local properties are at a similar or higher altitude as the propeller blades.

  The propagation and noise levels in a vertical plane have not been addressed or conveniently dismissed. Adrian Edwards M.Sc. C.Eng. FIET

PS – 14:

• A further interesting submission in opposition:
• By Peter Adlam CLICK HERE
• also that by Lisa Davies-Evans of 5 Philpots Court, Tidenham CLICK HERE
• & by Sam Cross CLICK HERE
• PS – 15:
• May I draw your attention to some of the relevant the facts about our parish:
• Landscape and Biodiversity
  
• The Parish includes five Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), a Ramsar Site, a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), part of the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and 10 Key Wildlife Sites. The Rivers Severn and Wye have the second biggest tidal range in the world, with a 14m difference between mean low and mean high water at the parish boundaries.
  
  The following details are taken from a study undertaken as part of the Forest of Dean Integrated Rural Development (IRD) programme which has mapped the biodiversity of the whole district.
  
   
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
  
  •   Severn Estuary – 15,950 ha
  
  •   Pennsylvania Fields, Sedbury 27.0 ha
  
  The site represents the only example of brackish pastureland overlying alluvial soils in Gloucestershire, including some nationally rare plant species.
  
  •   Poor’s Allotment, Tidenham Chase 28.6 ha
  
  •   Shorn Cliff and Caswell Woods, opposite Tintern 69.2 ha
  
  •   Lower Wye Gorge, Woodcroft and Ban-y-Gor 29.2 ha
  
  The woodlands of the lower Wye Valley form one of the most important areas for woodland conservation in Britain (comparable with the Caledonian pine-woods, the oceanic oakwoods of western Britain, the New Forest and the mixed coppices of East Anglia), including a number of nationally rare plant species. These woods sit in a matrix of unimproved grassland and other semi-natural habitats, which together make the Wye Valley one of the most diverse, rich and attractive areas in southern Britain.
  
   
  Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
  
  River Wye 2,234 ha
  
   
  Key Wildlife Sites
  
  •   Lippets Grove GWT Nature Reserve, Tidenham Chase
  
  •   East Wood Limestone Pavement, GWT Nat. Res., Tidenham Chase
  
  •   Beachley Saltmarshes, Beachley Point
  
  •   Beachley Grassland, River Wye floodplain, Beachley
  
  •   Ridley Bottom GWT Nat. Res., Kelly’s Lane, Tidenham Chase
  
  •   Park Grove, Sedbury
  
  •   Redding Well Alderwood, Stroat
  
  •   Walter’s Weir, Lancaut
  
  •   James’s Thorns, Wye Valley, Tidenham Chase
  
  •   Ladysmith, Severn bank, Sedbury Cliff
  
  The Countryside Agency has announced that at some point in the future it will consider again the designation of parts of the Forest of Dean as an AONB, the Parish Council will need to consider this carefully if it is likely to impact on the Parish, or if there is wish to see additional parts of the parish designated as such.
  
  In October 2005, as part of the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, in the West of England, including Gloucestershire, areas of Open Countryside and Registered Common Land become open to public access. In our parish this covers the natural heath area of Poor’s’ Allotment. Poor’s Allotment is managed by an independent charitable trust. Some of the area is rented for livestock grazing, adjacent to Park Hill Lane. The natural Heath area is managed by English Nature and is home to a number of significant species – both flora and fauna. Income from the Trust is used for the relief of need in the par
• To view the original of this statement CLICK HERE
• Further may I draw your attention to the fact that in neither the Parish documentation, nor that of the Forest of Dean District Council plans nor even Government outline plan is there any plan or warning of the possibility of industrialising any area of this parishes nor any grant to abbrogate on our responsibility to protect the amenity, its visual aspect, nor significantly impact in a dilaterious manner and deliberately increase the danger for the many 10s of 1,000s who pass through it on the A48 Roman Road along the banks of the estuary, whether commercially, as residents or as tourists.

 

PS – 15:

•  Herewith my objection to the application (sorry the formatting has become a little muddled!):
• HOME OWNER, RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER
  In the Parish of Tidenham
  AT:
  Home Cottage,
  Stroat,
  Tidenham,
  The Forest of Dean,
  Gloucestershire,
  NP16 7LR
  01594 – 526 337
  18-May-2015
  FODDC,
  COUNCIL OFFICES,
  HIGH STREET,
  COLEFORD,
  GL16 8HG
  PLANNING Department: planning@fdean.gov.uk
  CASE OFFICER STEPHEN COLEGATE: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk
  COPY:
  MARK HARPER MP: fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com
  PARISH COUNCILLORS clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk
  Re.: Planning Application PO365/15/FUL
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT of INITIAL WIND TURBINE
  Severndale Farm, Stroat, Tidenham, NP16 7LL
  
  • TOTAL 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 + mountDear Sirs,
  Please be advised of my extensively researched and implacable objection to the industrialisation of this Rural Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.Fuller reasons and many detailes and links to accurate and proven facts opposing the installation may be found at:
  http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat/
  where many detailed factual arguments are raised, together with the views and opinions of many well informed individuals together with views and opinions of many local individuals.It would clearly be deleterious of anyone involved in the decision making in this application not to study the details enumerated therein.Minded of the constraints of time permit me to put the time required in perspective – a responsible finding of facts from the source quoted may take as much as a day out of YOUR life however by the proud boast of the applicant this monstrous carbuncle in our midst will be present and effecting many 1,000s of lives over the next 25 years and it is highly unlikely that the monstrous concrete block on which the 87m. high tower with its 158 foot span blades will stand will ever be removed!I appreciate the gadarene rush to profit from the subsidies, required to enable the pretence that wind turbines are cost effective, however like the Gadarene there is every probability that this will lead to a leap off the cliff for those effected!I object to this application on the grounds that there is no proven case for installing these monstrous intrusions and any pretence that they may provide a ‘community benefit’ of any consequence is dwarfed by the many disadvantages to the community and society as a whole, and thus appears to be little more than a sop, or to put it clearly a bribe!A measure of the dishonesty of this application, which strengthens my resolve to oppose it is:
  01. The headline figure of the height of the industrial structure is 60m. it is only when one drills down in the small print that it becomes apparent it is not a mere 60m. but will tower over the Severn Estuary in splendid un camouflaged isolation (until of course this precedent may be granted permitting seried ranks of them) by 337 Feet!
  02. It is claimed dishonestly by the applicant that there has been public consultation – there has been absolutely no public consultation, it would seem to be that the applicant seeks to mislead the planners by alluding to a sales presentation made by themselves, to an invited audience some 3 years ago! After which the applicants withdrew their application, no doubt in the realisation they had failed to convince!
  O3. It would seem that the applicants seek to further mislead by claiming that an environmental study has been presented when no such adequate environmental study has been made as:
  A. The study has not considered the deleterious effects of their proposed industrial action to the reed beds between their proposed installation and the river, which are the gathering ground for migratory birds, which gather to feed. and thus fatten to provide the necessary energy, prior to their long migration south to warmer climes for the winter – birds which WILL be slaughtered in consequential numbers as the turbine blades smash them from the side – the report pays no cogniscience to the differences of impact at different seasons.
  B. The study has made no allowance for the distance of travel of either noise, light flicker or safety lighting, particularly on the rising ground of the Forest approaches behind it – where many homes and farms and their livestock WILL be effected. It should be noted that the low frequency hum from the turbine, which they admit will be between 35 & 45 DB on a substantial radius of grounds & homes, below it will be likewise yet travel considerably further on a level with the source! Sound tends to travel further in a set pressure (altitude) density of air, particularly low frequency, long wave pattern sound, thus can cause considerably more damage to a wider radius stretching for several miles –
  eg the low frequency communication of elephants which can be detected over 20 miles away!
  C. I have been unable to trace a single solitary risk assessment of the damage done to micro organisms and their predatory food chain in soil, yet it is known that the continuous low frequency vibration radiates in the soil, causing a fall off in both micro organisms and the worms and the like that feed on them, including the larvae of the many insects on which the migratory birds are utterly dependent. The loss of such life and the vibration leads to compression of the soil and a form of soil cancer.
  D. I appreciate that the RSPB has made no objection nor any se4rious consideration however I would suggest that without implementation of an FoI report it would be wise to discount their input, or failure to input, as it is widely believed the Wind Turbine promoters are amongst their substantial donors!
  E. There would seem to be absolutely no consideration given to the impact on the many raptors in the area and even more significantly to the many owls that patrol this territory at night, with no hope of seeing the rotating blades until they are struck and killed – leading to a damaging increase in both mice and rats!
  F. Astonishingly the so called environmental report fails to even mention the Environmental Agency’s flood warning maps that show Severndale Farm WILL potentially be effected!
  04. I also object to these plans being put forward at this time, which so redolently smacks of ‘A good time to bury bad news’!
  The planning application was validated on 17-Apr-2015, after Parliament had been prorogued – thus from then forward the peoples of this community were without meaningfull representation and all in the political diaspora were involved in the flux of election.
  We had no MP representing us until 08-May-2015 and beyond during which the new Parliament was coming to existence as a Government.
  We had no meaningfull Councillors as they were seeking election or re-election and even now have not been accurately listed on the web site of FoDDC. In fact I believe they have not been sworn in yet, let alone selected for the various committees – particularly planning!
  We are as yet unrepresented by Parish Councillors who are due to be sworn in on 20-May-2015 and the first occasion on which they can consider the matter before the, to be selec ted, planning committee is the 27-May-2015!.This is clearly a shoddy and unsatisfactory manner in which to pretend to a democratic process.I incline to believe that the application was made at this time deliberately to suit the applicant and thus I believe the Council has little option but to act with integrity and extend the period by at least the 37 days that have been lost from the 17-Apr-2015 until the 27-May-2015.
  Fortunately with her last two clear days the outgoing councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick acted decisively and with integrity and at my request ‘called in the plans’.
  05. I am also minded to oppose this application as, although within electoral law, the candidacy of Mrs. Maria Edwards for a council seat is of some moral turpitude as although she was standing as a Conservative Councillor she seems to have overlooked the gathering opprobrium of her own party for the siting of wind turbines on land and the stated intention of providing nil public funding for all applications that were made and not granted prior to the election. I incline to the understanding that Mrs. Edwards failed totally to make it clear to the electorate that were she elected it would prove potentially fortuitously profitable for her as the wife and thus partner in the application for the wind turbine at Severndale Farm – had she told the truth to the electorate I believe she would not have stood any chance of being elected and unseating a candidate with the community’s interests at heart!
  I believe Mrs. Edwards’ position to be morally repugnant and her status as being out of keeping with the very principles of democracy regardless of the fact she may declare her interests at a later stage it does appear she obtained her position by deception.
  06. I appreciate that in return for the massive subsidies enjoyed by installers of this failed concept of power generation hereto fore there is a limp and implausible attempt to claim a ‘community benefit’ when quite clearly there is no meaningfull benefit gained that even begins to compensate for the damage such an industrial installation in so clearly a rural AoONB and loss of visual amenity for so many 1,000s of people, minded this edifice will be visible from Gloucester and much of South Gloucestershire and of course much of the FoD, being some 337feet high when Gloucester Cathedral is a mere 229 feet high!The pretence of a community benefit is palpably little more than an effort at justification by the applicants. much beyond the very personal member of the community and his own bank account.To justify this statement may I point out the public accounts of one of the applicants. who also has a similar interest in the wind turbine at St.Briavels which values that interest of around 50% as being £500,000 – perhaps besides free/subsidised electricity for Severndale Farm the applicants could make clear the relevance to the community of the small sop they offer relative to the £! Million value of their subsidised installation with a mere 20% efficacy and thus were it 100% effective the value would doubtless be in excess of £5 Million!I regret that a pretence at a ‘Community Benefit’ seems little more than an insignificant bribe relative to the huge benefit for the applicants developing this industrial installation and the damage done to this AoONB not to mention the loss of amenity, potential health risks, damage from noise, flicker and safety lighting not to mention the visual damage resultant from this installation – bear in mind that The Forestry Commission advise me that the largest genus of tree that grows in the FoD is the Douglas Fir which in our climate grows to a height6 of just over 115 feet or one third of the height of this 337 foot wind turbine with its 158 foot blades!I do not include the value of property as it would seem that the loss of property value for possibly 100 people is of no planning significance when measured against the gain of one or two individuals – it may not be a planning issue but to any individual with one wit of morality it is a very clear issue!
  07. A particular reason I am opposed to this application is both personal and public in that as a user, on a regular basis, of the A48 which besides being designated as a Roman road is recognised as the most dangerous road in Europe based, I understand, on death rate per mile in terms of vehicle miles.
  Minded that a principal cause of accidents is ‘distraction’ there can be no more convincing an argument against this industrial installation, being both close to the road and clearly inappropriate in such an open rural setting as it towers over the river by 337 feet and is a moving object dominant in line with such beautiful views – a half seen and even more distracting object at night with its alarm security lighting for the very many low flying light aircraft and the many helicopter flights in its immediate proximity – flights which are frequently below the height of this moving edifice. An even more dangerous object and distracting installation in the dense sea mist that frequently rolls up The Severn Estuary.
  08. One should also be minded that in consideration of the Roman ruins in the immediate area it is worthy of particular note that in ajoining fields there is the platform of what is believed to be a Roman temple, also of a Roman villa there is also I understand a Roman Mansio (a Mansio being the stopping point for Roman troops distanced by the marching regime of Roman Centurions on the move) this particular Mansio was the point at which troops gathered to await the right tide when crossing the Severn south or mustering to dry out and get in good order after crossing from South Gloucestershire.It is likely that there are other features as yet undiscovered.
  It is also worthy of note that Hanley Hill is known to be the Moot and as such was the meeting point for residents of Tidenham and thus has both medieval and pre medieval significance.
  09. It is also worthy of note that there was at one time an electricity pylon sited on Hanley Hill which was removed as it was considered unsigtly and the cabling was diverted.
  10. Please also be advised of the letter of objection to a similarly sited, though better camophlaged, application locally, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which contains many relevant points significant to this current application, which can be read at:

  Click to access P1396_CPRE_Objections.pdf

  11. This installation is far too close to the river, thus on the open historic flood plane and sticking out like a sore thumb and visible for miles around, this huge industrial structure, which will be over 150 feet taller than St. Mary’s Church in Lydney and 3 times the height of Nelson’s Column in London, with its related noise and visual impact is far too close to residential properties and will effect far more properties than were it situated, like most other such structures, as being in a valley many more properties are effected on a level with the structure and its visibility will be for miles around being on so prominent and open a site.
  12. I also object to this and other similar applications on purely ethical grounds as there is something particularly distastefull and morally bankrupt about the funding of these ‘white elephants’ as they are part funded by taxing the poor, through their unavoidable electricity bills, and then handing the cash to landowners and the wealthy – I find this to be utterly reprehensible.
  13. I am further opposed to these installations, particularly in such an inappropriate position when it is now well proven that wind turbines are not only an ecologically unsound method of generating electricity but greedy in two natural resources in short supply, namely the excess use of copper, which is an increasingly diminishing strategic resource and rare earth extracts available from only China where it is increasingly extracted utilising this scarce resource in an irresponsible manner in the manufacture of the turbines.
  14. These applications should further be rejected as it is increasingly apparent that they are so inefficient that the Government finds itself in the ludicrous position of subsidising owners with taxes levied even on the poor to fund subsidies to pay owners to take their turbines off line – turbines which those very same tax payers were taxed to fund the construction of.
  15. I further reject the idea of constructing this wind turbine in the light of the many 100s of truck movements that will be necessitated on the already over crowded and dangerous A48, which clearly to judge by the numerous potholes Gloucester highways can not afford to properly repair leaving the tax payer with unsound and unsafe roads and increased wear and tear, not to mention direct damage, to vehicles – indubitably a fairer and more intelligent use of subsidies than these follies as applied for.
  16. I am additionally opposed to this industrial installation in the light of the inevitable need for a service road with either a 110 or 150 tonne load capacity to allow for access by heavy lift crane facilities – a service road that will require an unsightly bell mouth junction on the A48 in the proximity of Hanley Farm shop and the property of Wibdon Farm some 60 meters in extent!
  17. In support of the rejection of this application I also believe that the probability that this application may prove a precedent if it is irresponsibly accepted for the erection of many more similar industrial installations despoiling the rural banks of the River Severn and its estuary and their visual amenity for its people and its visitors.
  18. I am also opposed to this application on the very real danger to jobs in the area, many of which are dependent on tourism and day visitors to the area all of whom will find their enjoyment of this AoONB with its many wonderful view points debased should this and similar installations be approved, this application alone will be visible from many of the classic view points in the FoD and almost all such view points in South Gloucestershire – we have a duty of care for future generations to ensure they can enjoy the unbefouled FoD we have all enjoyed.
  19. I believe that it is unprincipled to believe there is any sound motivation to grant this application funded in part by unwilling tax payers who can ill afford the subsidies to enrich a few selfish individuals. The concept of smaller investors being able to participate is debatable in that that may bring no local benefits as the investment will be open via the internet to the world at large as is the applicants fatuous petition orchestrated on the internet and accessible around the world, in the realisation that petitions are prone to abuse I understand local residents decided it would be unethical and counter productive to raise a petition, just as they have it would seem extended their encouragement to comment to local residents only.
  20. It is important to note, in deciding to reject this application, the claimed green aspects of such wind turbines – firstly their justification is grounded in the widely discredited IPCC report of Al Gore & Rajendra K. Paschauri where many of the claimed supporters have requested removal of their names and the signators to exposes of the theory far outweigh the supporters in their denunciation of the IPCC Report with the leak of East Anglia dUniversity documentation encompassing some 20,000 eMails that proved beyond doubt that much of the detail in the IPCC report was downright dishonest at worst and largely unsound being based on selective use of data!
  Do also note that Rajendra paschauri with his close partisan associations with Tatta Industries has recently been ousted from his job and Al Gore is now soundly discredited and the report itself has been accepted in Court to be insufficiently accurate to teach as a science in schools in Britain.
  21. Penultimately in considering this application it is important to accept the fact that any concept of benefit to the green carbon footprint is far outweigjhed by the enormouse level of carbon output in the production of the cement alone let alone the carbon footprint of transportation of the required other ingredients of the concrete block that will act as the mount, let alone the carbon footprint of the manufacture, fabrication and construction of the enormous industrial structure.
  On optimum output it will take at least 10 years to ‘repay’ the carbon cost of construction and as even the applicant’s claimed figure projects a 35% of optimum output, which can be considered optimistic as their other wind turbine at St. Briavels has an output of around 20% – thus reducing profitability to allow a mere £8,000 for so called ‘community benefit’ which was originally projected at £20,000 where £8,000 to £20,000 is likely to be the cost in lost value for any single property in its damage zone in terms of noise and loss of visual amenity and constant flicker day and night whether from sunlight or safety lighting!
  22. Finally let us consider in my opposition to this application the obvious fact that if the applicant had a genuione concern for the environment, as his recent award would show in 2014 one wonders why he did not advise the competition organisers that he was on the verge of despoiling the natural beauty of the area and installing a dangerous and overbearing industrial installation 337 feet above the River Severn ajoining the already overcrowded A48 adding to the likelihood of fatalities for people and birds alike.
  Was there a genuine interest in alternative energy rather than enrichment via subsidies surely the applicant would have clad his many relatively new barns with solar panels which would have been considerably less visually damaging to the area at large, would pose no additional danger to road users and wildlife and which have a proven track record of being cost effective without public funding from taxation!With regard to my opposition to this application as a resident in the immediate locality of this proposed industrial installation please be assured that together with the 22 reasons for my opposition it would be relatively easy to identify a further 78 reasons giving 100 sound reasons why on scientific grounds, amenity grounds, danger grounds and wildlife grounds this application is not only unsound but morally unsupportable, further as you can see from the web site:
  http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat
  appropriate links to supportive documentations for such a selected 100 reasons to oppose the installation can readily be provided.It is for these many and varied reasons that I oppose the application and would ask that as responsible planning authority that the applicant would seem to have a paucity of sound and proven benefits to offer to justify the application beyond narrow personal interests without ‘community benefits’ or benefits for society at large that would in any way counteract the harm done were this application to be approved, be that now or at appeal – an appeal the applicant would be likely to lose were they minded to persue a rejection, in the light of the change of policy of Her Majesty’s newly elected Government with its undeniable and clear majority – a policy change attested to both by the Minister concerned Michael Fallon prior to the election and by the party manifesto.Thus I call upon the relevant authorities to responsibly represent and uphold my opposition to this application.
  Regards,
  Greg_L-W.
  Greg Lance – Watkins
  HOME OWNER, RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER
  In the Parish of Tidenham
  AT:
  Home Cottage,
  Stroat,
  Tidenham,
  The Forest of Dean,
  Gloucestershire,
  NP16 7LR
  01594 – 528 337

PS – 16:

Tidenham Parish Council

To: Members of the Public & Press 13th May 2015

You are invited to attend a meeting of Tidenham Parish Council that has been arranged for Wednesday 20th May 2015 at 19:00hrs in the War Memorial Hall, Coleford Road, Tutshill, for the transaction of business according to the enclosed agenda.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Carol Hinton
Clerk to the Parish Council
Wood Cottage, Clanna, Gloucestershire, GL15 6AJ. Telephone: 01594 530779
http://www.tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk

Note: Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Council and Committees, unless specifically excluded due to the confidential nature of the business. Members of the public can ask questions or make representation during item 19 but the council cannot make a decision on any matter which is not specified on the agenda.

AGENDA

1. CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

2. VICE CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Vice Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Vice Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

3. ATTENDANCE
a) DECLARATIONS OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE
i) To receive a report from the Clerk regarding the receipt of declarations of acceptance of office of councillors.
ii) To decide when any declarations of acceptance of office which have not been received as provided by law shall be received.
RECOMMENDATION: That if any declarations of acceptance of office have not so far been received they should be received prior to the next meeting of Full Council.
b) To receive apologies for absence from those councillors unable to attend.
c) To consider for acceptance those apologies received with reasons for absence.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
a) To confirm if the Clerk has received copies of all councillors Register of Interests for publication.
b) To receive Declarations of Interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of officers and in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 in respect of members.
Interests may be declared at any time during the meeting should they become apparent.
c) To consider any Dispensation Requests received by the Parish Clerk and not previously considered. (All councillors appointed to the Mopla Cottages committee should request a dispensation once appointed, to be considered at the next meeting of the Council.)

5. PRESENTATION BY ANDREW AND SUE CLARKE of the RESILIENCE CENTRE
Andrew Clarke from The Resilience Centre will give a presentation on the proposed community wind turbine at Stroat.

6. REMIT OF COMMITTEES
To consider for adoption the remit of committees (see Clerk’s Report item A and document attached)

7. STANDING COMMITTEES
To Appoint members to standing committees as approved by the adoption of ‘Remit of Committees’(see Clerk’s Report item B)
Amenities Committee
Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee
Finance and Probity Committee
Mopla Cottages Committee

8. PUBLIC AND CHARITABLE BODIES
To consider appointments to Public and Charitable Bodies (see Clerk’s Report item C)
Poor’s Allotment
Sedbury and Beachley Village Hall
Tidenham War Memorial Hall
Severn Area Rescue
Citizen’s Advice Bureau
Wye Valley Consortium

9. STANDING ORDERS
To consider adoption of Standing Orders (see Clerk’s Report item D)

10. FINANCIAL REGULATIONS
To consider adoption of Financial Regulations (see Clerk’s Report item E)

11. APPOINTMENT OF BANKERS
a) To consider safety of investments/bank accounts.
b) To consider confirmation of Bankers and account signatories. (see Clerk’s Report item F)

12. COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
To consider adoption of Complaints Procedure (see Clerk’s Report item G)

13. PROVISION OF INFORMATION UNDER FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT
To consider adoption of Provision of Information – model publication scheme (see Clerk’s Report item H)

14. MEDIA POLICY
To consider adoption of Media Policy (see Clerk’s Report item I)

15. ASSET REGISTER
To consider adoption of Asset Register as shown in Annual Accounts. (see Clerk’s Report item J)

16. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
a) To consider for approval as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15th April 2015
b) To consider any questions arising from those minutes.

17. COMMITTEES
a) To receive reports, minutes and recommendations from committees already circulated, enclosed herewith or to be circulated and to consider any questions arising from them.
i). Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee meeting held on 22nd April 2015
Questions to members of the previous committee present at the April meeting.

18. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
To receive and note any announcements from the Chairman of the meeting.

19. PUBLIC CONSULTATION ***
To receive and consider any questions from the Public, which may be answered but not debated.

20. POLICING IN THE PARISH
No report received.

21. PARISH CLERK’S REPORT
To receive and consider the Parish Clerk’s Report (copy attached). All items requiring the council to make a decision are specified separately on this agenda.

22. FINANCE
a) To receive and approve the Financial Statement for April 2015
b) To approve payments according to the Financial Statement for April 2015
c) To consider the Annual Accounts and sign Statement if approved. (see Clerk’s Report item K)

23. GENERAL POWER OF COMPETENCE
To note Tidenham Parish Council is no longer eligible to use the General Power under The Localism Act 2011: The General Power of Competence. (see Clerk’s Report item L)

24. TRAINING
To consider training courses for new and previous councillors (see Clerk’s Report item M)

25. COUNCILLOR VACANCIES
To consider advertisement and selection of candidates for co-option as Councillors to fill 3 vacancies. (see Clerk’s Report item N)

26. BACKUP OF ADMIN COMPUTERS
To consider use of ‘cloud’ backup service for both admin laptop computers. (see Clerk’s Report item O)

27. CCTV
a) To receive and note update on CCTV in Parish from Councillor Ford
b) To consider proceeding with CCTV on current basis

28. WEBSITE
To consider new Website (see Clerk’s Report item P)

29. CORRESPONDENCE
To consider any other correspondence as detailed in the Clerk’s Report (see Clerk’s Report item Q)

30. COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
To receive and note any matters which councillors wish to raise and where appropriate add to the agenda for the following meeting or meetings of committees.

31. FUTURE MEETINGS
To note the dates of future council and committee meetings:
Wednesday 27th May –
Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee
Wednesday 3rd June – Finance Committee 7pm followed by Mopla Cottages Committee
Wednesday 10th June – Amenities Committee
Wednesday 17th June – Full TPC Council Meeting

*** Allows a period not exceeding fifteen minutes for members of the public to make statements and ask questions of the Committee
This item does not preclude Suspension of Standing Orders by the Committee to allow participation on Items on the Agenda
i) Each person will be required to state his or her name and address
ii) Each person will be allowed no more than three minutes plus a brief follow-up to any answers given by the Committee
iii) Questions may be answered but not debated by the Committee
iv) Any issues that the Committee considers require consideration should be referred to the next meeting of the Committee or deferred to the next Full Council Meeting Tidenham Parish Council

To: Members of the Public & Press 13th May 2015

You are invited to attend a meeting of Tidenham Parish Council that has been arranged for Wednesday 20th May 2015 at 19:00hrs in the War Memorial Hall, Coleford Road, Tutshill, for the transaction of business according to the enclosed agenda.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Carol Hinton
Clerk to the Parish Council
Wood Cottage, Clanna, Gloucestershire, GL15 6AJ. Telephone: 01594 530779
http://www.tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk

Note: Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Council and Committees, unless specifically excluded due to the confidential nature of the business. Members of the public can ask questions or make representation during item 19 but the council cannot make a decision on any matter which is not specified on the agenda.

AGENDA

1. CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

2. VICE CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Vice Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Vice Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

3. ATTENDANCE
a) DECLARATIONS OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE
i) To receive a report from the Clerk regarding the receipt of declarations of acceptance of office of councillors.
ii) To decide when any declarations of acceptance of office which have not been received as provided by law shall be received.
RECOMMENDATION: That if any declarations of acceptance of office have not so far been received they should be received prior to the next meeting of Full Council.
b) To receive apologies for absence from those councillors unable to attend.
c) To consider for acceptance those apologies received with reasons for absence.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
a) To confirm if the Clerk has received copies of all councillors Register of Interests for publication.
b) To receive Declarations of Interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of officers and in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 in respect of members.
Interests may be declared at any time during the meeting should they become apparent.
c) To consider any Dispensation Requests received by the Parish Clerk and not previously considered. (All councillors appointed to the Mopla Cottages committee should request a dispensation once appointed, to be considered at the next meeting of the Council.)

5. PRESENTATION BY ANDREW AND SUE CLARKE of the RESILIENCE CENTRE
Andrew Clarke from The Resilience Centre will give a presentation on the proposed community wind turbine at Stroat.

6. REMIT OF COMMITTEES
To consider for adoption the remit of committees (see Clerk’s Report item A and document attached)

7. STANDING COMMITTEES
To Appoint members to standing committees as approved by the adoption of ‘Remit of Committees’(see Clerk’s Report item B)
Amenities Committee
Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee
Finance and Probity Committee
Mopla Cottages Committee

8. PUBLIC AND CHARITABLE BODIES
To consider appointments to Public and Charitable Bodies (see Clerk’s Report item C)
Poor’s Allotment
Sedbury and Beachley Village Hall
Tidenham War Memorial Hall
Severn Area Rescue
Citizen’s Advice Bureau
Wye Valley Consortium

9. STANDING ORDERS
To consider adoption of Standing Orders (see Clerk’s Report item D)

10. FINANCIAL REGULATIONS
To consider adoption of Financial Regulations (see Clerk’s Report item E)

11. APPOINTMENT OF BANKERS
a) To consider safety of investments/bank accounts.
b) To consider confirmation of Bankers and account signatories. (see Clerk’s Report item F)

12. COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
To consider adoption of Complaints Procedure (see Clerk’s Report item G)

13. PROVISION OF INFORMATION UNDER FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT
To consider adoption of Provision of Information – model publication scheme (see Clerk’s Report item H)

14. MEDIA POLICY
To consider adoption of Media Policy (see Clerk’s Report item I)

15. ASSET REGISTER
To consider adoption of Asset Register as shown in Annual Accounts. (see Clerk’s Report item J)

16. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
a) To consider for approval as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15th April 2015
b) To consider any questions arising from those minutes.

17. COMMITTEES
a) To receive reports, minutes and recommendations from committees already circulated, enclosed herewith or to be circulated and to consider any questions arising from them.
i). Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee meeting held on 22nd April 2015
Questions to members of the previous committee present at the April meeting.

18. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
To receive and note any announcements from the Chairman of the meeting.

19. PUBLIC CONSULTATION ***
To receive and consider any questions from the Public, which may be answered but not debated.

20. POLICING IN THE PARISH
No report received.

21. PARISH CLERK’S REPORT
To receive and consider the Parish Clerk’s Report (copy attached). All items requiring the council to make a decision are specified separately on this agenda.

22. FINANCE
a) To receive and approve the Financial Statement for April 2015
b) To approve payments according to the Financial Statement for April 2015
c) To consider the Annual Accounts and sign Statement if approved. (see Clerk’s Report item K)

23. GENERAL POWER OF COMPETENCE
To note Tidenham Parish Council is no longer eligible to use the General Power under The Localism Act 2011: The General Power of Competence. (see Clerk’s Report item L)

24. TRAINING
To consider training courses for new and previous councillors (see Clerk’s Report item M)

25. COUNCILLOR VACANCIES
To consider advertisement and selection of candidates for co-option as Councillors to fill 3 vacancies. (see Clerk’s Report item N)

26. BACKUP OF ADMIN COMPUTERS
To consider use of ‘cloud’ backup service for both admin laptop computers. (see Clerk’s Report item O)

27. CCTV
a) To receive and note update on CCTV in Parish from Councillor Ford
b) To consider proceeding with CCTV on current basis

28. WEBSITE
To consider new Website (see Clerk’s Report item P)

29. CORRESPONDENCE
To consider any other correspondence as detailed in the Clerk’s Report (see Clerk’s Report item Q)

30. COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
To receive and note any matters which councillors wish to raise and where appropriate add to the agenda for the following meeting or meetings of committees.

31. FUTURE MEETINGS
To note the dates of future council and committee meetings:
Wednesday 27th May – Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee
Wednesday 3rd June – Finance Committee 7pm followed by Mopla Cottages Committee
Wednesday 10th June – Amenities Committee
Wednesday 17th June – Full TPC Council Meeting

*** Allows a period not exceeding fifteen minutes for members of the public to make statements and ask questions of the Committee
This item does not preclude Suspension of Standing Orders by the Committee to allow participation on Items on the Agenda
i) Each person will be required to state his or her name and address
ii) Each person will be allowed no more than three minutes plus a brief follow-up to any answers given by the Committee
iii) Questions may be answered but not debated by the Committee
iv) Any issues that the Committee considers require consideration should be referred to the next meeting of the Committee or deferred to the next Full Council Meeting

PS – 23:

Here is a view of the wind turbine to scale, unlike the photoshop mock-ups from the applicants this places the giant turbine in its correct location – as seen on Google Earth’s view from level with a part of Hanley Lane Laybye at the Fairview end.

You will note, if you try hard, the two towers of the M$* Chepstow Severn Bridge in the photograph.

The applicant’s selected views, as displayed on the FoD planning web site, are well presented but seem to indicate the turbine will be some 90 meters from the actual site defined! Also all seem very selective, to minimise the effect of such an immense industrial structure.

PS – 24:

Wind Turbine Application Appeal Rejected:

See also the press report at:
http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/10076243.Appeal_to_build_four_wind_turbines_near_Stinchcombe_is_dismissed/

To View The Full 25 Page Planning Appeal see:
http://www.programmeofficers.co.uk/posl/documents/Gloucester/CD9/CD9.5.pdf

PS – 25:

ALVINGTON COURT FARM WIND TURBINE APPEAL:

PS – 26:

PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE:

19:00hrs 27-May-2015 @ Tidenham Memorial Hall
The planning committee of 6 elected councillors considered the Planning Application to Industrialise the Hanley Hill agricultural Severndale Farm site with a massive Wind Turbine.

Some 40 members of the public, 6 members of the planning committee and the admin clerk Kevin Duffin attended.

The public were permitted to comment and Liz Brown of Wibdon Cottage, Stroat started the ball rolling with a well researched list of reasons for opposition to the application including the fact that the various surveys were flawed being long out of date and also that no meaningful consultation with the ‘community’ had been undertaken there having been only a sales exhibition some 3 years ago!
She also presented some far more accurate representations of both the location and the size of the monsterous turbine which were provided to the committee and passed around, though not as large and glossy as those provided by the applicants at the previous Council meeting they were clearly better representations of the reality of both the siting and the size of the turbine.

01.  Arrow Indicates Wind Turbine to Scale

02. Wind Turbine to Scale from Philpots Court Farm

03. Wind Turbine to Scale from Hanley Lane & Boughspring

04. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath looking North East

05. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath above Philpots Court Farm

Mrs. Brown was followed by David Mitchell-Smith of the Old Post Office, Stroat who, being a retired Police Inspector, showed the many reasons why the siting of a large wind turbine dominating the A48 was dangerously even potentially fatally inappropriate in terms of safety and showed how the paultry sums allegedly likely to pass to the community of around £25K were insignificant when a fatality would cost us around £1.9M whilst a serious injury would cost some £250K and even a mild injury would cost around £20K and to be minded that frequently injuries in an RTA where impact speeds of 100 > 120mph could be reasonably expected were frequently multiple with multiple costs!

A gentleman from Sedbury stated that he was in favour of the scheme, without consideration of the downside risks and damage, as he had bought into the propaganda of anthropogenic global warming & the climate change story and the need for these installations, he also let on that he was an investor in the St. Briavels turbine – thus presumably profitting from the obscene subsidies granted to these false solutions to energy supply!

The retired councillor Bernard Bowshall spoke in an informed manner in opposition addressing the fact that such turbines were grossly inefectual in producing energy and the siting of this installation at the proposed venue was wholely inappropriate.

Greg Lance – Watkins of Home Cottage, Stroat spoke next stating that not only was he domicile in Stroat but had lived in the immediate area for some 35 years and was opposed in both general and in specific to the installation of these wind turbines as they were not fit for purpose to effectively produce electricity, were anti community, unsightly and contra the interests of the electorater locally and the principles of conservation both in terms of the topography, the wildlife and the numerous points of historic interest in very close proximity such as a Roman Mint, a Roman Temple site, a Roman Mansio, a Roman villa and the fact that Roman coins had been found on the land – further that Hanley Hill on which the turbine was to be sited, destroying the integrity of the hill had never been propery excavated despite the fact that it was the site of the Moot for Tidenham, where all major events in the parish/area were discussed or celebrated from the Medieval period and long before. The fact that the A48 was a Roman road yet was the most dangerous road in the EU was once again raised.

Sue Davies for the applicant then spoke with a repeat of her sales pitch of the previous Parish Council meeting, which I found to be aggressive, fairly incoherent, misleading and utterly unconvincing, wherein she picked off points that she found selectively suitable yet failed to justyify the installation or its location.

The meeting then continued with the Planning Committee making various points, there was near unanimity in the belief that the site was totally inappropriate, it was also stated that there was no clear case for wind turbines as a viable alternative power source, and seemingly the effective bribe of a payment from the subsidies by the applicants to the community at large was dismissed as the irrelevant sop that it clearly is, and the matter was not mentioned. That there was an Act of Parliament precluding the building of such industrial installations within 1,500 meters of domestic properties was also highlighted as were the limited exceptions to that Law, none of which would seem to apply.
Only one voice of disent was heard from the failed Green candidate in the recent elections, who had however retained her Parish Council seat, who extolled the benefits of wind turbines with something of a lack of factual data though she did assure those present that she had spent a considerable amount of time with the applicant’s professional partners Sue & Andrew Davis of Resiliance listening to their case in favour! She did however claim that she considered these industrial edifices to be a thing of beauty!

Fortunately the Council committee was not swayed by her rather strange presentation which seemed to totally overlook the position of the residents of the parish or those effected – when it came to the vote Dr. Fiona Bowie was the only person in favour and the other 5 councillors on the elected planning committee were resolutely opposed.

Personally from her arguments in favour and the manner in which she presented them, spiritted as her blandishments may have been, however unconvincing I and other residents found them to be, I would doubt her Doctorate to be in Logic!

PS – 27:

My thanks to a friend in New York who has read this web site for the following article:

Wind Farm invasion at an end as Tories plan to ‘pull plug’ on any new turbines

THE wind farm invasion blighting Britain could come to an end under new government’ plans to pull the plug on funding for new turbines.

By Martyn Brown, Political Correspondent

PUBLISHED: 17:04, Sun, May 31, 2015 | UPDATED: 17:28, Sun, May 31, 2015GETTY

PS – 28:

STROAT WIND TURBINE MEETING 19:30hrs. Friday 19-Jun-2015 + Update.

Hi,

re: Hanley Farm Giant Wind Turbine Planning Application PO365/15/FUL – standing 3 times the height of the tallest tree in The Forest of Dean & 100 feet higher than Gloucester Cathedral – an application to industrialise the AoONB ajoining the SSI unshielded from standing out in the landscape with the risk of acting as yet another, but the most notable, moving distraction ajoining THE most dangerous road in Europe.

For more details, facts and opinions see:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

A MEETING:
19:30hrs. Friday 19-Jun-2015 – sorry about the short notice!
You may not have seen these to scale photographs of this industrial structure which are on the web site and would clearly damage our community, putting at risk the lives of drivers on the notoriously dangerous A48, where sadly fatalities are commonplace – a fact that is likely to be exacerbated by such a huge moving structure so close to such a busy road – not even taking into consideration ther added danger of several 100 large vehicle movements during its construction and the heavy haulage service equipment which will be required over time!

VIEW PHOTOS IN PS-26 ABOVE /\
01. Arrow Indicates Wind Turbine to Scale
02. Wind Turbine to Scale from Philpots Court Farm
03. Wind Turbine to Scale from Hanley Lane & Boughspring
04. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath looking North East
05. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath above Philpots Court Farm

As a member of the community who would be most damaged by this planning application were it to be foist upon the community – you will be pleased to note that the application was rejected with only one vote, based largely on political dogma rather than planning issues or factual details, in favour by our community council’s planning committee.

Many very varied letters of objection, many with copious detailed facts and a wide variety of pertinent planning issues have been lodged from members of the community, in defence of Tidenham and the beauty and amenity of the area and the Severn Estuary in general rather than the parochial NIMBYism.
Amongst the many letters of objection are very accurately dealt with by amongst others Robert Hillman, of Philpotts Court – a professional in the field of planning; also a very sound letter on behalf of members of the community by Julia Joseph, also a professional planning consultant; a letter from David Mitchell_Smith a retired Police Inspector, outlining the danger to drivers and transport on the A48 (potentially fatal) for 12 to 15 years, the likely survival period of this installation as shown by the track record of similar installations; & consider the various letters from medical Doctors with concerns at the effect on health for those living near the turbine both from noise, vibration and flicker – particularly those who even the applicants concede will experience noise levels of 35DBs, however they would seem to have failed to note the DB exposure of many who will be effected – as with The Equestrian Centre and other properties just as close or those level with the turbine and blades in the community on Hanley Lane, Tidenham Lane & Rosemary lane who will be on the same level and thus in the air density band of the noise output!
I will refrain from over detailed reiteration of the many well argued and accurately and well presented facts showing the grounds for objection to this application, as I feel sure that not only will the officer concerned make clear the detail of some of these submissions but thus in not labouring the point I feel there is no need to yet again show how febrile is the applicant’s case for this industrialisation of this beautiful rural area.
Were there a genuine interest in alternative energy supply, a ause at which Wind Turbines are notoriously ineffectual, perhaps the applicant would consider placing on every south facing roof of the many matt black barn they own a shiny black solar panel – as at least solar panels do perform with some degree of valid efficacy. I appreciate there may well be less grant income from this more productive electricity generation scheme, however such level of efficacy may concern the applicants as it could well outstrip the capacity of the proposed link and line capacity of the grid at this point, whereas the lesser output of a wind turbine most of the time may make such a connection viable without the added expense (no doubt grant aided) of installing a new grid cable to a suitable sub-station!
It is also worthy of note the inaccuracy of many areas of the application, which have been far more eloquently presented than could I, as with one property where the applicant said ‘some windows will have an oblique view of the installation’, when in fact the property in question has 19 windows directly facing this enormous carbuncle blotting the landscape!
There was also a very poor spread of communication on the entire issue within the community, it is to be hoped that a part of the planning committee will act with forethought and ensure the applicants position a static balloon in situr indicating the true height of the upper blade tips, so that all may be aware of the actual size of this immense turbine, which were it standing in The Wye at Wintour’s Leap view point would out top the cliffs and in its planned site will be higher than Tidenham Memorial Hall and will not only effect the views from various listed buildings but also visible from many of the historic view points in the Forest of Dean that attract so many tourists who bring jobs and wealth to the area.

One should also be minded that at a very recent count of the items of support very very few are other than standard letters seemingly gathered on the internet and drummed up from individuals with little direct interest, including many from far afield and when counted would seem only to represent some 54 households, many from outside of the community and with an undeniable disregard for the community! Seemingly most of the various such letters have been commercially obtained by the applicants or their agents in the interest of tapping into the subsidies in a cynical effort to exploit a now discredited subsidy structure for these economically non-viable structures.

It is to be hoped that our representatives will act with integrity, in the spirit of the law wherein it has been shown and decided that these wind turbines – be they industrial farms with many turbines or small holdings of a single turbine, or as in this case a collective of small holdings with a common ownership interest of the professional agents for the application who have valued their interest in a mere single site at St. Braivels, although it is only 20% effective as being £1/2Million thus seemingly valuing the subsidy income at around £1Million in profitable value even on an basis of 80% failure to perform!
That the Government has clearly stated it will withdraw subsidies from April 2016, it would clearly be an act of gross defiance for the planning authority to assist an applicant to get their plan in ‘under the wire’, particularly as to date there has been absolutely no meaningful public consultation in current terms nor a current comprehensive bat or bird survey – merely an update lacking convincing year round scientific survey data.

It is clear that this application is not seen as in the interest of the community it is the applicant’s aim to foist it upon.
We are now in the latter stages of the application with a site meeting by the FODDC planning committee scheduled for 10:55hrs. 23-Jun-2015.

Although the prefered period for public submissions is officially over it is legally incumbent upon the planning authority to accept submissions up until the date at which the application is heard by the Council Planning Committee. Though I am sure Stephen Colegate, the designated council officer responsible for presenting the report on this application for the elected Councillors to consider, would appreciate it if any late submissions could be sent in as soon as possible, for both his and the planning committees perusal and consideration.
Representation has been made on behalf of a body of us by Sue & Peter Wright expressing our concerns at the fact that Tidenham Parish is somewhat short of ethical and uninvolved representation in this matter, as the applicant Moira Edwards is a new Councillor who is on the planning committee having stood recently for the Council, yet having failed to inform the electorate that she was the applicant in a majoreffort to change the nature of this region by industrialising a very visible and rural part of the Parish. Our second representative Gethyn Davies who is a member of the planning committee and has made it known it is thus his duty to consider the matter only on planning issues thus possibly not representing the interests of the parish, the AoONB, the SSI and the visual amenity of the area nor representing his constituents who will have the noise and flicker effect inflicted on them . Our third representative is Helen Molynew, not only is she a new Councillor but let us not forget she is the Mother of the Council Leader whose nomination was sponsored by the applicant Mrs. Edwards!

We are blandly assured that members of the planning committee are honour bound to prorogue themselves by declaration of interest – however this does nothing to allay our fear that we are not validly represented as a Parish in any meaningfull manner, as is expected of our democracy!

Perhaps this is why there has been no meaningful consultation, why largely misleading photo montages have been accepted from the applicants, why sinage was not present for a substantial period of that required, why the application is being accepted as put forward with outdated reports and why facts would seem to have been misrepresented by the applicant.

It may also explain why the approval of the application fell during the period in which Parliament had been prorogued for the General Election and public attention was diverted and we found ourselves with new and inexper5ienced councillors in situ to represent our community, were they able in the light of their personal interests!

Penultimately:
My personal thanks to Mark Harper MP for his personal attention to my letter of concern and objection re planning application PO365/15/FUL, and my thanks for having taken up various of the issues on my behalf with Mr. Peter Williams, Group Manager, Planning and Housing department at the FODDC and his considered response ref: FD111709 01-Jun-2015.

My letter having been a copy of my letter of objection and concern eMailed to Stephen Colegate, which interestingly would not seem to have been published on the FODDC Planning Web Site, unlike others sucvh as the many repetitive standard letters of support for the applicant! I am tempted to speculate why!

To discuss these issues it is my pleasure to pass on to you an invitation to a meeting at the home of Molly & Keith Mayo, at Wibdon Farm, Stroat on the main A48 road on the left if you are approaching from Chepstow.

Should you require any further details please feel free to phone me, if you can not find the answers on the web site at:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

I do hope you can attend the discussion hosted by Molly & Keith Mayo at Wibdon Farm 19:30hrs. Friday 19-Jun-2015 – sorry about the short notice!

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

PS – 29:

News story

Changes to onshore wind subsidies protect investment and get the best deal for bill payers

PS – 30:

Taxpayer subsidy for wind farms to end a year early as locals get the right to veto new turbines near their homes

• Tory government aces subsidies for onshore wind farms from April 2016 
• Energy Secretary Amber Rudd said: ‘We’ve got enough wind energy’
• Government surveys show 65% of people support onshore turbines 

By Matt Chorley, Political Editor for MailOnline

Published: 09:34, 18 June 2015 | Updated: 09:50, 18 June 2015

Taxpayer subsidies for wind farms are to be axed a year early with local people given chance to block turbines near their homes. 

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd today said ‘we’ve got enough wind energy’ as she promised to end new public subsidies for onshore developments.

But the Scottish government immediately threatened a legal challenge to the decision, claiming it will have a ‘disproportionate impact’ north of the border.

Taxpayer subsidies for wind farms are to be axed a year early with local people given chance to block turbines near their homes

During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to ‘halt the spread of onshore wind farms’.

David Cameron warned they often fail to win public support and are unable by themselves to provide the energy capacity that the country needs.

The Tory manifesto proposed to ‘end any new public subsidy for them and change the law so that local people have the final say on windfarm applications’.

However environmental campaigners and some in the renewable energy industry have criticised the Conservatives for attacking the cheapest form of clean energy.

Government surveys suggest onshore wind farms are supported by 65 per cent of people. But Miss Rudd told Sky News: ‘People who actually live near them aren’t so happy. Generally people in the country like them, but living right next to them isn’t so good.

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd today said ‘we’ve got enough wind energy’ as she promised to end new public subsidies for onshore developments

‘But the fact is I think we’ve got enough wind energy and there are other sources of renewable energy that we need to use our precious money to support.

‘So it’s a question of getting that balance right, balancing between making our targets and doing it in the most cost-effective way.’ –

Under the plans, the ‘renewables obligation’ scheme, through which subsidies are paid to renewable schemes, will be closed to onshore wind farms from April 1, 2016.

There will be a grace period offered to projects that already have planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance and evidence that the scheme has the right to use the land.

This could allow up to 5.2 gigawatts (GW) of wind capacity to go ahead – potentially leading to hundreds more wind turbines going up in the countryside across the UK.

The renewables obligation has already been closed to large scale solar farms, amid Tory concerns that the technology was a blight on the landscape, and is due to close to all new renewables schemes in 2017.

A new system for subsidies for low carbon energy, known as ‘contracts for difference’ is being brought in, and it is not clear whether new onshore wind farms will be eligible for the scheme in the future, though it is believed to be unlikely they will.

More than £800 million of subsidies – which are paid for through consumer bills – helped onshore wind generate 5 per cent of the UK’s total electricity last year, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said/

But Scotland’s Energy Minister Fergus Ewing MSP threatened to take the UK Government to court over the decision to end subsidies.

He said: ‘The decision by the UK Government to end the Renewables Obligation next year is deeply regrettable and will have a disproportionate impact on Scotland as around 70 per cent of onshore wind projects in the UK planning system are here.

‘This announcement goes further than what had been previously indicated. It is not the scrapping of a ‘new’ subsidy that was promised but a reduction of an existing regime – and one under which companies and communities have already planned investment.

‘Onshore wind is already the lowest cost of all low carbon options, as well the vital contribution it makes towards tackling climate change, which means it should be the last one to be scrapped, curtailed or restricted.’

Government surveys suggest onshore wind farms are supported or strongly supported by 65 per cent of people

WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said: ‘This decision risks undermining the development of the cheapest form of renewables in the country, and is bad news for Scotland’s clean energy ambitions.

‘Cutting support early for the lowest cost renewable technology is a backward step that will either see bills rise or climate targets missed.

‘Opinion polls consistently show onshore wind to be one of the most popular forms of electricity, generating thousands of jobs across Scotland and helping to cut our carbon emissions.

‘We urge the UK Government to rethink its plans to end early its support for onshore wind.’ 

Greenpeace UK energy and climate campaigner Daisy Sands said: ‘Ministers have just moved to raise everyone’s energy bills by blocking the cheapest form of clean power, whilst continuing to back the impossibly expensive Hinkley C and going ‘all out’ for unpopular, risky, and unproven fracking. 

‘Even if this omnishambles of an energy policy survives the many legal challenges threatened against it, it will send a clear message to international investors that the UK government is willing to wreck our power sector to please their most ideological backbenchers. This mistake will cost the UK dearly.‘

PS – 31:

A possible crumb of comfort, in the short term, for those seeking to exploit the tax payers to feast on subsidies at the expense of the environment, as they exploit the unscientific claims surrounding climate change, global warming and the efficacy of wind turbines for their personal profit at the expense of the community:

Rudd must avoid more hot air on wind farms

By Henry Hill Last updated: June 20, 2015 at 8:03 am

During the five years of the Coalition, a popular question was what a Conservative government would look like if it were not restrained by Nick Clegg and his phalanx of balls and chains.

The early days of David Cameron’s second term offer many answers, but Amber Rudd has offered one of her own by announcing an end to Government subsidies for on-shore wind developments.

In the last Parliament the turbine-sceptic agenda was championed by Eric Pickles, who campaigned for local vetoes over new developments.

Along with gay marriage and aid spending, wind farms were part of an eclectic clutch of policies UKIP were attacking heavily on, and the Tories were keen to limit the damage.

To that end John Hayes was appointed Energy Minister, with instructions from David Cameron to “deliver a win for our people on windfarms”.

However he proved unable to loosen Ed Davey’s hold on the Department, and after what Politics Home describes as a “short but heavyweight reign” he was moved out of DECC after only eight months.

Of course, last month Davey’s grip on power was loosened decisively when he lost his seat to the Tories, who now have a chance to make good on their promises in this area as in so many others.

Yet the devil lies in the detail: the previous Government would often make an announcement that garnered impressive headlines yet delivered rather less than said coverage implied.

Indeed, the Telegraph reports that a ‘grace period’ loophole built into Rudd’s announcement could still allow for the subsidised construction of almost three thousand turbines before the wind farm support programme is finally halted.

In addition to predictable resistance by the wind energy industry, the Scottish Government looks set to pick a fight over the subsidies and has threatened possible legal action.

Rural campaigners and the Scottish Conservatives, who have campaigned against new wind developments, must hope that the Government sticks to its guns this time

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

PS – 32:

Some up to date stats & extrapolation thereof:

The figures below are based on the bulleted points of Ofgem, Renewable UK

PS – 33:

PS – 34:

PS – 35:

A Legal Caveat To Councils, Officers & Councillors:

Onshore wind farms – locals to have final say

News and Insights> Legal Insight> Onshore wind farms – locals to have final say

18 June 2015

PS – 36:

HANSARD: Debate of Wind Turbine Subsidies re Onshore Turbines.
It would seem clear that ALL onshore Turbines that are not granted planning applications by 18-Jun-2015 will find themselves without subsidy! This will almost definitely bring a halt to onshore turbine development as wind turbines are an inefficient, unreliable, environmentally costly failure in economic terms for producing electricity. Particulary those ‘passed off’ a so called ‘Community Projects’.

22 Jun 2015 : Column 617
Onshore Wind Subsidies
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on ending new subsidies for onshore wind.
The Government are committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon emissions and to continuing to make progress towards the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets. The renewable electricity programme aims to deliver at least 30% of the UK’s electricity demand from renewables by 2020. We are on course to achieve that objective. Renewables already make up almost 20% of our electricity generation and there is a strong pipeline to deliver the rest.
As we decarbonise, it is imperative that we manage the costs to consumers. Although renewable energy costs have been coming down, subsidies still form part of people’s energy bills, and as the share of renewables in the mix grows, the impact gets proportionately larger. One of the Government’s priorities is to bring about the transition to low-carbon generation as cost-effectively and securely as possible.
The levy control framework, covering the period up to 2020-21, is one of the tools to help to achieve that. It limits the impact of support for low-carbon electricity on consumer bills. We have a responsibility to manage support schemes efficiently within the levy control framework to ensure that we maintain public support for the action we are taking to bring down carbon emissions and to combat climate change.
Government support is designed to help technologies to stand on their own two feet, not to encourage a permanent reliance on subsidies. We must continue to take tough judgments about what new projects get subsidies. Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is an important part of our energy mix.
In 2014, onshore wind made up around 5% of electricity generation, supported by around £800 million of subsidies. At the end of April 2015, there were 490 operational onshore wind farms in the UK, comprising 4,751 turbines in total. Those wind farms have an installed capacity of 8.3 GW—enough to power the equivalent of over 4.5 million homes.
The electricity market reform delivery plan projects that we require between 11 and 13 GW of electricity to be provided by onshore wind by 2020 to meet our 2020 renewable electricity generation objective, while remaining within the limits of what is affordable. We now have enough onshore wind in the pipeline, including projects that have planning permission, to meet that requirement comfortably.
Without action, we are very likely to deploy beyond that range. We could end up with more onshore wind projects than we can afford, which would lead to either higher bills for consumers, or other renewable technologies, such as offshore wind, losing out on support. We need to continue investing in less mature technologies so that they realise their promise, just as onshore wind has done. It is therefore appropriate to curtail further subsidised deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore developers with those of bill payers.
22 Jun 2015 : Column 618
This Government were elected with a commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to change the law so that local people have the final say on onshore wind applications. Colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and, additionally, my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), have led the way in calling for this. Six weeks into this Government, we are acting on that commitment. Alongside proposals outlined within the new energy Bill to devolve decision making for new onshore wind farms out of Whitehall, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has set out further considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development in England so that local people have the final say on onshore wind farm applications.
I set out to Parliament on 18 June proposals to end new subsidies for onshore wind, specifically in relation to the renewables obligation, which will be closed to new onshore wind from 1 April 2016—a year earlier than planned. My Department’s analysis indicates that, after taking account of an early closure, onshore wind deployment under the RO will be in the region of 11.6 GW. With that capacity, and the capacity of onshore wind projects that have received support through the new contracts for difference, we expect about 12.3 GW of onshore wind to be operating in the UK by 2020, supported by the levy control framework, which will provide about 10% of electricity generation. That puts us above the middle of the deployment range set out in the EMR delivery plan, which provides our best estimates of what we will need to meet the planned contribution from renewable electricity for our 2020 targets.
I have proposed a grace period that will continue to give access to support under the RO to projects that, as of 18 June 2015, had planning consent, a grid connection and acceptance and evidence of land rights for the sites on which their projects will be built. We estimate that about 7.1 GW of the onshore wind capacity that has been proposed across the UK will not be eligible for the grace period and is therefore unlikely to go ahead as a result of the announcement on 18 June. That equates to about 250 projects, totalling about 2,500 turbines, that are unlikely to be built.
Therefore, by closing the RO to onshore wind early, we are ensuring that we meet our renewable electricity objectives, while managing the impact on consumer bills and ensuring that other renewables technologies continue to develop and reduce their costs. Consumer bills will not rise because of this change. Indeed, the onshore wind projects that are unlikely to go ahead could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. I believe that we have drawn the line in the right place.
In advance of this announcement, I and other Ministers and officials discussed the proposals with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We want to hear the further views of the devolved Administrations, as well as of industry and other stakeholders. This is just the beginning of the process, and we will continue to consult them as we move towards implementation.
The changes to the renewables obligation do not affect remote island wind proposals, which would not have been in a position to receive RO subsidy even under the
22 Jun 2015 : Column 619
previous timelines. I will say more about how future CfD projects will be treated in due course. However, I am conscious that 68% of the onshore wind pipeline relates to projects in Scotland. I will continue to consult colleagues in the Scottish Government. Indeed, I am meeting the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, on Wednesday. Because we are implementing these changes through primary legislation, they will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including by Members representing Scottish constituencies.
On contracts for difference, we have the tools available to implement our manifesto commitments on onshore wind and will set out how we will do so when we announce our plans for further CfD allocations. I will shortly be considering options for future support for community onshore wind projects that might represent one or two turbines through the feed-in tariff, as part of the review that my Department is conducting this year. I do not wish to stand in the way of local communities coming together to generate low-carbon electricity in a manner that is acceptable to and supported by them, including through small-scale wind capacity. However, that action must be affordable as well as acceptable.
Clean energy does not begin and end with onshore wind. Onshore wind is an important part of our current and future low-carbon energy mix, but we are reaching the limits of what is affordable and what the public are prepared to accept. We are committed to meeting our decarbonisation objectives. The changes that I have outlined to Parliament will not change that. I look forward to having meaningful discussions with industry, other stakeholders and colleagues in the House and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on how we will move forward.
3.43 pm
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement today at 2.22 pm.
It is only four days since I heard the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme, explaining her Government’s policy changes to onshore wind. That was followed by a written statement later that morning, along with a written statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the same subject. Today, she has been forced to come to the House because of the confusion and concern that she has caused. There is concern about the Government’s commitment to our renewable targets and to supporting value for money. There is confusion as to how her policy will apply in practice, and confusion across the renewables sector, where certainty to encourage investment is paramount.
I made clear to the onshore wind sector before the general election that, although I did not support a cap, a clear pathway to being subsidy-free was an outcome I wanted, so why do I have doubts about the Secretary of State’s announcements? We know, despite the fact that something like 69% of the public support onshore wind—it is the most popular of the renewable energy-generating supply technologies—[Interruption.] It is true. We know that the Secretary of State wants to appease many of her Back Benchers, who seem to hate onshore wind, although one of them is making money out of a solar farm. The election promise of a cap on onshore
22 Jun 2015 : Column 620
wind was music to their ears, although they were probably not aware that nearly 1,000 projects had planning permission. It is not clear to me and many others whether the sum of all the Secretary of State’s rhetoric really adds up.
The Secretary of State has proposed a grace period for projects that, as of last week when the written statement was made, had in place planning consent, access to the grid and land rights. Can she confirm that, according to her statement today, that means something like 75% of onshore wind projects with consent will go ahead? The changes to the rules will have to be done through primary legislation, and it could be at least six months between last week’s statement and Royal Assent.
Can I ask the Secretary of State whether, as part of her consultation, she is open to projects that have planning consent, a grid access offer and all land rights sorted before Royal Assent, being able to continue with the RO arrangement to 2017? In last week’s press release, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said that up to 5.2 GW of onshore wind power could still qualify, but other estimates are much lower.
In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to 11.6 GW, putting us in the mid-range of fulfilling our 2020 targets for renewable energy. Does that include the 5.2 GW figure? If 5.2 GW is an overestimate, that presumably makes meeting our target less likely. Given that we found out last week that we have already missed our interim 2020 EU renewable targets, that is extremely concerning. What discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about how many local or neighbourhood plans are required to identify areas suitable for wind energy? What additional costs may be incurred by councils from having to pre-empt planning applications to avoid a company challenging a decision? Out of interest and in the interests of a logical argument, why do these changes to planning policy not apply to all energy generation?
UK-wide energy policy has enabled all of us to share the risks and rewards of developing new and old forms of energy. While Scotland makes up just over 10% of UK households, over 30% of operational onshore wind projects are located in Scotland because of the amount of wind and the contribution of UK-wide bill payers, so it is understandable that Scotland will be worried about the impact on jobs and investment there. What will the Secretary of State do to give confidence to colleagues in the devolved institutions that there will be a genuine process of consultation?
Despite the Prime Minister’s warm words on tackling climate change in this most important year of global negotiations, this Parliament has hardly begun, but the cheapest form of renewable energy is already under attack and other renewable investors are worried that they will be next. I want our country to go forwards, not backwards. This debate is not about hot air; it is about jobs, manufacturing and investment opportunities at risk across the sector. In her answers today, the Secretary of State needs to convince us that she understands what is at stake.
Amber Rudd: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. May I first take the opportunity to remind her that this policy was well set out before she heard me on the “Today” programme? It was in the Queen’s Speech, in the manifesto and the Prime Minister had referred to
22 Jun 2015 : Column 621
the fact that a Conservative Government would take this action. I have in no way been forced to come here. I chose to come here to make a statement after a number of colleagues wanted the opportunity to have their voice heard in support of what is happening. I am delighted to give them the opportunity to do so.
The right hon. Lady chose to question the Conservative party’s commitment to addressing our climate change obligations. Fortunately, she gave me the opportunity to talk about that just 10 days or so ago, when one of the first Opposition-day debates of the Parliament was about climate change. I was able to tell her and the House about the Government’s commitment to meeting the targets and the commitment of the Government and the Prime Minister to getting a deal in Paris this year. We are committed to ensuring that we deliver on our decarbonisation targets but, just as importantly, we are committed to getting a global deal. We do not want to do this alone. We need to provide leadership in the EU and internationally to ensure that our effort is truly leveraged so that we can get that result at the end of the year.
It is disappointing that the right hon. Lady chooses to throw confusion where none exists. I think I was very clear in my statement about the gigawatts involved and the range that we were targeting, but I repeat for her that we hoped to have 10% of electricity generation from wind by 2020, and we are reaching that target early. That is a key reason for ending the subsidy for onshore wind now. We wanted to fall in the middle of the range, and in fact it looks likely that we will be slightly towards the upper end. Having achieved that, it is right that we do not put further pressure on people’s bills. Unlike her and the Labour party, we believe that we can do this in a cost-effective way. We are absolutely committed to supporting renewables, but we want to do it by the most low-cost pathway we can.
In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question about regulation, and particularly planning permission for different sources of energy, it is right that different sources have different types of regulation and fall under different planning regimes. Part of what we are trying to do is to encourage new energy sources, in order to meet our targets and lead to cost reductions. That is why we have different set-ups for different sources—to get the best outcome for both our targets and bill payers.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me about Scotland. I have no doubt that I will be answering questions from Scottish National party Members, and I look forward to taking them and addressing them. I have had many conversations with the devolved Administrations, and I look forward to taking further questions from them.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and encourage her to ignore the hot air coming from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the Opposition on this subject?
I thank my right hon. Friend for all she is doing to prevent Lincolnshire from being carpeted with wind turbines, which nobody in my constituency wants. Will her Department be prepared to publish on its website a list of all the projects that her announcement will affect, so that people in Lincolnshire and across the country
22 Jun 2015 : Column 622
who do not want to see the countryside carpeted with turbines know whether individual projects are going ahead?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his question. I know that he has felt, representing his community, that there has been too much deployment in his area. I recognise the support that he has provided in helping us to develop our policy.
Each developer will need to contact the Department for us to give a complete answer, and we will work with developers to ensure that it is clear which projects are within the provisions and which are not. At some stage —my hon. and learned Friend will have to give me a little time—that will be published on the website.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for early sight of it.
The Secretary of State said that, six weeks into this Government’s time in office, they were acting on this policy, and of course they are, but that does not make it right. She said that we were reaching the limits of what is affordable. We agree—we have reached the limits of what is affordable in the strike price and subsidy for nuclear. She said that we have reached the limits of what the public are prepared to accept. I think the public have already reached the limit on the failure to decarbonise and tackle climate change.
This decision is simply wrong, and the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) was instructive. The Government are prepared to publish all the projects that are pulled; I hope the Secretary of State will also publish all the jobs that are lost and the investment forgone because of the decision. [Interruption.] I hear a lot of chuntering. I think we are getting to the truth now—Government Members simply do not like renewables. They would rather see the costs of nuclear decommissioning passed on to future generations.
We are concerned mainly about the damage that the decision will do. The announcement places at risk a huge investment pipeline conceived in good faith by developers under the rules previously in place. Is the Secretary of State aware that the decision has a disproportionate impact on Scotland, and that it puts investment at risk? She appears to be aware that around 70% of the onshore wind projects in the current planning system are in Scotland. On that basis, is she aware of what Niall Stuart, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, has said? He said:
“Cutting support for onshore wind would be bad for jobs, bad for investment and would only hinder Scotland and the UK’s efforts to meet binding climate change targets.”
Is the Secretary of State not concerned at all that, currently, £3 billion-worth of onshore wind projects in the pipeline in Scotland are at risk with so sudden a closing of the renewables obligation, that that will do incredible damage, and that it will put at risk investor confidence not simply in offshore wind, but in the wider UK energy sector?
I agree with the Secretary of State that the subsidy cost of renewables must decrease, so that both renewables and climate targets are achieved at the lowest cost and so that consumers are protected, but is she not concerned about the danger of a headlong rush to scrap subsidies
22 Jun 2015 : Column 623
for onshore wind, the cheapest large-scale renewable technology? Has she ignored comments from the industry, not least from Keith Anderson, the chief ScottishPower Renewables? He said:
“Onshore wind is clearly still the most cost effective large scale way of deploying renewable technology in the UK. Economically, you would therefore question, why in God’s name would you want to bring that to a premature halt?”
Mr Speaker: Order. I feel confident that the hon. Gentleman is in his last sentence, and much nearer the end of it than the beginning.
Stewart Hosie: I am indeed, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State said last week that up to 5.2 GW of onshore wind capacity would be eligible for a grace period. We found out later that that figure was only 2.9 GW. Today, she said that 7.1% would no longer be eligible for subsidy. Why did she not come clean last week with the proper figures?
Amber Rudd: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe he has failed to accept any of the points I have made about the Government’s commitment to addressing climate change, our commitment to keeping the bills down and our commitment to delivering a variety of renewable energy sources. It is not just about onshore wind.
The hon. Gentleman also failed to acknowledge that, in some environments, there is too much pressure on communities in respect of onshore wind. I gently quote to him Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism. In 2007, he said:
“Wind farms have…a very heavy environmental footprint”
and
“also…release…substantial quantities of methane from peat landscapes…many other forms of renewable energy are the future—not unconstrained wind farms”.
I agree with him on that. We must recognise that, sometimes, when Members of Parliament choose to fight for their community, they take a different view from that of the national party. I am here representing the views of Members of Parliament as well as the national party. We believe that our policy addresses communities and keeps bills down.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that, although this is a welcome measure, other things will be needed to control bills and tackle fuel poverty? Is it not interesting that only the Conservative party in the House cares about the consumer and wants to get the bills down?
Amber Rudd: My right hon. Friend is characteristically on the money. Addressing that is absolutely our aim. We are trying to reduce emissions and give a variety of renewable energy, and to ensure that individuals who look at their bills when they get home see that they continue to come down.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): How much investment and how many jobs will be lost to the economy of the south-west of England as a result of the Secretary of State’s decision?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 624
Amber Rudd: The investment in renewable energy over the past six years has been £7 billion a year. We are committed to ensuring that the UK is the leading country in developing renewable energy. We have been particularly successful in offshore wind—we have more offshore wind than the rest of the world put together and hope to become a serious exporter of it. Renewable energy is important for jobs and important for building on our commitments.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and it is great to hear that we are on course to meet 30% of our electricity generation from renewables. She is right to divert the resources into less mature technologies, but can she reassure my constituents that that will not mean that we see a further expansion in very large-scale field solar across south Devon? Perhaps we will see more support for community energy schemes, and I hope that she will take me up on an offer to visit Totnes to see how those work in action.
Amber Rudd: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend and her constituents sound very similar to mine. We support the desire to make sure that we address the issue of climate change: the problem is that we do not want large-scale solar. In fact, large-scale solar has already been taken out of the renewables obligation, but we are trying to support solar so that we have as much as possible through community energy, on people’s houses and on other buildings. There is a great opportunity there.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): The IMF recently reported that Britain subsidises its fossil fuel industry to the tune of more than £1,000 per household, whereas onshore wind is just £10 a household. If the Secretary of State is serious about affordability and climate change, why is she not tackling fossil fuel subsidies, instead of slashing wind—one of the most popular and affordable of the energy sources?
Amber Rudd: I urge the hon. Lady to take a look at that report. I also saw those statements and found them so extraordinary that I asked for a copy of the IMF report. I would be happy to have a discussion with her about it. It is not a direct subsidy in the way that we understand it, although it is an important point. It is right to reduce fossil fuel, especially in its dirtiest form, but the real danger is health and environmental impact, and that is why we need to get rid of the subsidies.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): At the planning stage, a photomontage never really gives an accurate picture of the visual impact of turbines. Will the Secretary of State consider making it compulsory for applicants to fly a blimp in order better to show the real height of any proposed turbine?
Amber Rudd: That is a novel suggestion to me: I am not familiar with the workings of blimps. I look forward to further advice on the issue.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Last Wednesday, tens of thousands of campaigners came to London to ask us to do more on climate change. What do we tell them now about the Government’s priorities when they cut subsidies for renewables and increase them for fracking?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 625
Amber Rudd: I also met constituents and leaders of the march in my Department. I think we should tell them the truth, which is that the Government continue to be the greenest Government ever. We will deliver on our climate change targets, and we are committed to getting a deal in Paris. I urge the hon. Gentleman to stick to the truth.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Now that my right hon. Friend is abolishing subsidies on the least uneconomic form of renewables, may we now assume that she proposes to make corresponding reductions in subsidies for offshore wind, which impose a two or three times greater burden on the cost of living, especially for poor households?
Amber Rudd: I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but we will not reduce those. Now that we have a market-led system through the CfD, we are able to push for a reduction in prices—I know he will approve—and in the CfD auction last year that was very effective in getting the price down.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): May I suggest to the Secretary of State that it would be really helpful if she could publish as much information as possible on the risk analysis she has made of the decision to phase out the subsidy early? Some fear that as we are already behind on the interim targets for the 2020 renewables targets, and given the jeopardy that might put on our climate change obligations, we need to see how well the proposal has been tested, given the risk that some of the projects might fail and undercut it. There might also be a transfer to more expensive renewals should any projects fail. It would help my Committee and others if as much information as possible could be published, so that it can be properly examined.
Amber Rudd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I look forward to getting to know him better. I am sure I will have the opportunity to do so at that Committee.
We do not agree that we have not met our targets. I understand that it was reported as such and I will take an early opportunity to write to him to set that out. I take to heart his advice to make sure we publish as much as possible, above all to win everybody’s confidence that what I am saying is absolutely achievable.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, which I assure her will be widely welcomed across north Wales. Does she agree that onshore wind power has for too long been the low-hanging fruit of renewable energy and has therefore been grossly over-subsidised? Does she agree that her statement today opens the way for advancing more innovative forms of renewable technology, such as, for example, tidal lagoons?
Amber Rudd: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support. I agree that this should give us the opportunity to diversify into other forms of renewable energy—that is one of the key reasons for doing this. We do not want to continue to spend too much money on onshore wind, while we have to harbour our resources, look after the bill payer and make sure we have the greatest opportunity possible to support other forms of renewable energy.
22 Jun 2015 : Column 626
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP): The strike price agreed for nuclear power is £92.50 per MWh at Hinkley Point, which is more expensive than the £82.50 per MWh for onshore renewables. Onshore renewables do not leave future generations with the cost of decommissioning nuclear facilities and waste. Why are the UK Government proceeding with such an irrational decision?
Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to make two points in response. First, our energy needs to be a mix. We cannot purely have renewable energy; we need the base-load stability of having nuclear or some oil and gas to make sure we can deliver regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. That is still an important part of our mix. Secondly, the decommissioning issue he raises is included in the price.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con): May I join hon. Members from across the House in welcoming the Secretary of State’s statement, which will certainly be popular in my south coast constituency? Does she welcome the £9.5 billion investment in offshore wind since 2010, showing that that area of the sector still has lots of room to grow?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Offshore wind has continued to deploy very successfully and prices are coming down. We are delighted that the UK is such a leader in this area and has the real prospect of exporting to other countries as a leader in renewable offshore energy.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): By ending support a year earlier than the right hon. Lady’s Department promised only eight months ago, the Government are sending yet another message to investors that the UK is not a stable regulatory regime in this area. Does she accept the calculations that show onshore wind is not only the cheapest form of new low carbon energy, but that for every pound of development cost, 98 pence is spent creating new jobs in the UK—jobs that were projected to double to 37,000 by 2023 had that support continued?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman fails to incorporate the fact that all that support costs money. We cannot ignore the fact that, obviously, people want subsidies if they are on the receiving end of subsidies, but we have to ensure that we get the good measure of it. He is wrong to say that this Government said this and that Government said that. The fact is that we said, in our manifesto, that if we had a Conservative majority we would deliver this. The industry was not surprised by the outcome here: we committed to ending new subsidies for onshore wind and that is exactly the promise we have kept.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned our hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), my parliamentary neighbour. He and I have worked both individually and together to ensure the best interests of our respective constituents in relation to unsightly and unwelcome wind farms. Will she ensure, in discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, that there is imposed on future wind farms a minimum distance between the wind farm or the turbine, and human habitation—from dwellings?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 627
Amber Rudd: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has been an active campaigner on this issue. As he will see, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is present, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken his comments to heart.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): May I return the Secretary of State to the issue of job losses? Would she like to put on the record how many of the 19,000 people who are employed in the onshore industries will lose their jobs as a result of what she is proposing?
Amber Rudd: The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that the United Kingdom is one of the leaders in renewable energy. We continue to invest and to support a variety of renewable energy sources, and they will continue to provide jobs. It is up to the Government to ensure that we spend the money wisely to maximise the delivery of renewable energy, and, of course, the delivery of new jobs as well.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con): This news will be welcomed throughout North West Hampshire, not least because the Secretary of State has said—twice, I think—that the final say will be given to local communities. Can she reassure those worried communities that that means that they cannot now be overruled by the Planning Inspectorate?
Amber Rudd: Yes, I can.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): Investor confidence is key. On the day that this announcement was made, I was in north Wales for the opening of Gwynt y Môr, the second biggest wind farm in the world. All that the investors could see was a Government who were not committed to wind and renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State tell us, for the benefit of the onshore wind industry—including companies such as West Coast Energy, which is in my constituency—whether there will be a new round of contracts for difference, and, if so, whether onshore wind will feature in any part of it?
Amber Rudd: I said in my statement that, in respect of contracts for difference, we would be implementing the terms of our manifesto.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con): As it is local communities that will have to deal with the visual impact of wind farms, should they not have the final say on this and other visually intrusive forms of renewable energy, such as large solar farms?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the key purposes of this arrangement is to involve local communities so that they feel that they have a right to say how their environment is being affected.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab): Has the Secretary of State carried out an economic impact assessment to establish how the small business community and the supply chain will be affected by this abrupt and confused change in Government policy?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 628
Amber Rudd: One element of small business that will probably be pleased with the outcome is the tourist industry. Many Members campaigned against the expansion of wind farms on the basis that they affect tourism, which is important to many small businesses.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): As the Secretary of State will know, since 2010 our country has increased renewable energy production by 300%, or a factor of three, and has increased it by more than any other OECD country. However, we must also make progress with other forms of decarbonisation. Is the Secretary of State still committed to the advancement of Hinkley Point C, which will produce more carbon-free electricity than all the wind farms that are currently being deployed?
Amber Rudd: The answer is yes. We need new nuclear energy in order to provide stability. We need to expand our renewables while at the same time having stable alternative sources of energy, and we are committed to Hinkley Point.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op): Can the Secretary of State tell us how cutting subsidies for onshore wind energy is providing leadership in the EU on the decarbonisation of our economy, as she claimed in her statement?
Amber Rudd: Providing leadership in the EU—and, indeed, internationally—means meeting our targets, demonstrating that we can meet them in the most cost-effective way, and liaising with other countries in order to show them how we are doing that. The point of the announcement is that we will still be meeting our targets.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Obviously I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for it, but does she recognise that the way in which onshore wind subsidies and developers have gone about their business has destroyed people’s faith in renewable energy as a whole? Indeed, in communities such as Winwick, Kelmarsh, Watford and Crick, which are in my constituency, one struggles to find people who support any type of renewable energy, given the way in which it has been handled by onshore wind developers.
Will the Secretary of State please tell us how many of the wind farms that are in the pipeline will be connected to the grid? That could provide relief for a host of communities that might be affected by onshore development in the future.
Amber Rudd: May I, again, pay tribute and homage to my hon. Friend, who campaigned so hard and led on this issue? I know his constituents will be delighted with this outcome, although I am disappointed to hear that the impact of wind farms has made them negative about renewables in general. I hope we can win them back by our policies that will increasingly involve them. I urge individual Members who want to know what the impact is on developments in their constituency to write to me and I will try to get that information.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): The Secretary of State said that the Government’s priority was
“to bring about the transition to low-carbon generation as cost-effectively…as possible.”
Does she not recognise that onshore wind is the most cost-effective renewable energy production form?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 629
Amber Rudd: I would make two points on that. I ask him to recognise that as part of our target to have affordable renewable energy we aim to have 10% coming from wind by 2020, and we are on schedule to deliver that. We have to harbour our resources. There would be no point in saying, “It has come down in price. Let’s put all the money over there.” That would be the wrong thing to do. We have to deliver a mix of renewable energy. Offshore wind is beginning to come down in price, we have plans for carbon capture and storage, and new initiatives are coming out the whole time. This is an exciting, changing area and we need to harbour our resources to make sure we can support the right outcomes.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): I just want to tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents will be delighted. I am thinking of those in the north whose villages have been blighted by the Cotton wind farm—they cannot sleep and cannot sell their houses. In the south of my constituency, we have large solar farms coming at us left, right and centre. She will have made a lot of people very happy, so we thank her.
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab): Which would cause more environmental damage to the Cheshire countryside: a wind turbine or a fracking rig?
Amber Rudd: I am happy to say that a single wind turbine will still be allowed, if a community wants it. We are very keen to support community energy. As for shale exploration, we are at an early stage and we will have to wait to see how the community responds.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Constituents on the north of the Isle of Axholme, who will shortly be surrounded by 100 turbines, will be very happy with this announcement. I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but I urge her to go further on individual turbine applications. Many landowners in my constituency put in one application and get approval, and then put in another and another, so it is death by 1,000 cuts.
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I will look out for that eventuality.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab): The established wind farm on Scoutmoor, adjacent to my constituency, has a lifetime of only 25 years. What is the Secretary of State’s long-term plan for renewable energy when existing wind farms have to be decommissioned?
Amber Rudd: The extraordinary thing about renewable energy is that it is such a fast-moving field. Nobody knows which will be the dominant renewable energy, able to supply cost-effectively, in 20 to 25 years’ time—no, less, in 10 or 15 years’ time. Perhaps we will have developed storage—perhaps carbon capture and storage will be coming on line. There are so many unknowns in this area, so I urge the hon. Lady to keep an open mind about different sources of renewable energy, just as this Department does.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State for a very clear statement and for her responses on communities and tourism. My constituency contains a
22 Jun 2015 : Column 630
mountain range known as Mynydd y Gwair, forming a backdrop to the first area of outstanding natural beauty. Planning permission for one of Wales’s largest wind farms has been granted by Swansea’s Labour city council, against the wishes of a clear majority of local residents and farmers. Does she agree that that cannot be right and that remedying such absurd decisions by allowing communities to decide these sorts of things is essential?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend’s experience seems to validate the approach that we are taking, whereby local communities will have much more involvement and choice in those decisions.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP): Notwithstanding anything the Secretary of State has said this afternoon, the pipeline of projects in Scotland is now at risk, as are the jobs of 5,400 people employed in the sector. Will she look again at the impact these proposals will have on Scotland and the wider UK economy, and think again?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Lady must bear it in mind that this is a manifesto commitment. The UK has made the commitment—[Interruption.] I appreciate that she would like a different arrangement, but the arrangement that we have put in place will impact on subsidies throughout the UK. I am happy to listen to my Scottish counterparts on how different arrangements might be put in place within the changes that I have set out.
Mr Speaker: Order. Mr McDonald, for an aspiring statesman, frenetic gesticulation is a tad unseemly.
John Howell (Henley) (Con): I welcome the statement. As my right hon. Friend knows, I had a role in the development of neighbourhood plans at the very beginning. If local communities decide not to pursue wind turbines, will she reassure me that she will give precedence to those neighbourhood plans over anything else in the planning system?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I know that he was the great man who developed the neighbourhood plan. He is absolutely right that the neighbourhood plans will be the central tome on this, and they will allow communities to have the authority that they need on the planning decisions that would be impacted in this situation.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State explain how she reconciles giving local people the right of veto over wind turbines, but denies them exactly the same right over shale gas fracking or a nuclear power station next door?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this right being given to communities was not in place when wind farms were originally introduced. We now have enough wind farms, and that right has been put in place. The same is the case for other sources of energy that do not need it now. It is right that we have a different approach for a different type of energy that is at a different level of maturity.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): May I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this great decision? I pay homage to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), whose fight
22 Jun 2015 : Column 631
to get rid of these wind farms has been exemplary. Have there been any thoughts on decommissioning these wind farms over the next 15 years? Some have been up for 10 years now, which is probably longer than many nuclear power stations.
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. It is in part of the proposals. We are aware of, and involved in, the decommissioning plans. No one quite knows when the decommissioning will take place, but we will keep a careful eye on it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): Given the Prime Minister’s respect agenda, may I ask what cognisance, if any, the Minister took of the impact of her decision on Scotland, particularly on my constituency of Argyll and Bute? Is she aware of, and does she care about, the damage that this decision will have on the fragile rural economies of Scotland and the inevitable job losses that will follow?
Amber Rudd: I have had several discussions and meetings with Fergus Ewing, and I will continue to do so. Jobs in the UK are incredibly important. It is Britain that is open for business. We will continue to ensure that renewable investment flows.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con): May I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement? I thank, too, the previous Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who fought an incredible rearguard action, calling in such applications that would have blighted the view of Southwell Minster for generations to come. If communities are to have their say, to keep it simple, would the Secretary of State encourage and support Rushcliffe Borough Council, which wants to declare itself a wind turbine-free council and protect the vale of Belvoir for ever?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion. Councils will have the final say. If that is how they put it, that is up to them.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Is the Secretary of State not a little bit concerned about the impact on investor confidence that this decision might have not just with regard to onshore wind but across the renewables sector? Given that onshore wind and its supply chain accounts for £1.7 billion of gross value added, how does she anticipate filling that gap in investment?
Amber Rudd: Investors will have seen the manifesto and will have heard the words of the Prime Minister last year when he said that, under a Conservative Government, there will be no onshore wind subsidies. They will have known that our target was 11 GW to 13 GW by 2020, and they are likely to have known that wind was deploying faster and more effectively than people had thought, partly because it was on the receiving end of those subsidies. Continuing to get investment in renewables and ensuring that Britain is open for business and remains at the front of delivering renewable energy will continue under this Government.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): May I take the rare step of agreeing with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? She said that Back Benchers would be pleased with this statement, and I
22 Jun 2015 : Column 632
assure her that I am absolutely delighted with it, but most importantly, so will be the vast majority of my constituents and those across mid-Wales and further afield. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the amount of money that scrapping the renewables obligation will save this country?
Amber Rudd: I am delighted to make my hon. Friend and his constituents happy. Closing the renewables obligation one year early is likely to save hundreds of millions of pounds.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): The Secretary of State has not said whether she has been apprised of any particular implications in the context of Northern Ireland, not least in the setting there of a single electricity market for the island. She has promised consultation and says that she wants consultation with the devolved Administrations, industry and stakeholders, but given her certitude, how might that consultation have any influence on her position?
Amber Rudd: I have had meetings and conversations with my opposite number in Northern Ireland. I will continue to do so and I respect the views of those involved, which differ from ours on what we are trying to implement. I have been working with them to see whether it is possible for Northern Ireland to implement and fund the subsidy.
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that the cost of an application can be vast, including seeking approval from national air traffic control systems. When such applications meet ferocious local community opposition, is there any way in which she can assist applicants to withdraw the application? They often press on with the application to try to recover the cost of gaining air traffic control approval as well as other environmental assessments.
Amber Rudd: I do not think that there would be a role for Government in that. Having heard the announcement today, however, developers might take a different view.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP): Given the consultations and discussions with the Scottish Energy Minister that the Secretary of State has outlined, what have the Scottish Government been advised will be the impact of the proposals on Scotland’s target of generating the equivalent of 100% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020?
Amber Rudd: I am happy to say that this change to the subsidy regime will not impact on the UK target. I have had no further discussion with my Scottish counterpart on the Scottish Government’s target.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Large numbers of my constituents in Montgomeryshire will welcome today’s statement with huge relief. Mid-Wales has been saved from desecration. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that onshore wind subsidies will not apply to any proposed wind farm that does not currently have planning permission?
Amber Rudd: As set out in my statement, the onshore wind subsidy grace period is available only to wind farms and wind farm applications that have planning consent, a grid connection and land rights.
22 Jun 2015 : Column 633
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab): I, too, had several constituents come to see me for the climate change lobby last week and the Secretary of State’s statement will leave them at a loss. Will she respond to the CBI’s comment that
“cutting the Renewables Obligation scheme early sends a worrying signal about the stability of the UK’s energy”
market?
Amber Rudd: I would say to the CBI, which I will be meeting and with which I am sure I will discuss this issue among other things, that this is a stable environment for renewable investment, as we have set out the ranges and targets we would like to achieve and we are meeting them. This Government are the first to have set out a levy control framework so that investors can see exactly how much money we are committing. It is partly because we as a Government are determined to look after money so carefully that we are making this change to ensure that we stay well within the levy control framework.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker: Order. If I am to accommodate remaining colleagues in the exchanges on the statement, brevity is now of the essence.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): A former Secretary of State, who went on to become Leader of the Opposition, once said that to object to onshore wind farms was akin to antisocial behaviour. Thank goodness we now have a Secretary of State who listens to constituents in rural areas like mine. Inevitably, councils will be challenged at appeal by highly paid barristers. What assistance will the Department give to small councils, so that they can fully understand the new powers that they have been granted?
Amber Rudd: I say to my hon. Friend, who has done so much to campaign against wind farms in his constituency, that the statement is very clear. If his councils want any further clarification, they should write to me and I will make sure they get a clear response.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Last week, in his encyclical on climate change, the Pope said,
“continuity is essential…policies related to climate change…cannot be altered with every change of government.”
With him, I would like to ask the Secretary of State this question: what would induce anyone at this stage to hold on to power, only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it is urgent and necessary to do so?
Amber Rudd: I urge the hon. Lady, when she has the chance to talk further with Pope, to let him know that we will meet our commitments, and today’s announcement is part of our plan to make sure that we do so. There is no change to this Government’s, this Department’s and this Prime Minister’s commitment to addressing dangerous climate change.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): I welcome today’s statement, as will many residents of my constituency, which has borne more than its fair share of the brunt of the wind turbine industry. Will the Secretary of State
22 Jun 2015 : Column 634
consider a “two strikes and you’re out” policy for developers who keep coming back again and again and tweaking their applications, costing local councils hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees and causing prolonged distress for local residents?
Amber Rudd: I think my hon. Friend, who makes a good point, will find that under the new regime as announced today and last week, the community have the final say, and councils will be in a much stronger position to make that clear to any developers that approach them.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): Is the Minister aware that another of the “best of both worlds” offers to the Scottish electorate was the onshore subsidies? Given the effect of the proposals on investment in Scotland, that is a challenge, as pulling investment was not part of her party’s manifesto. Does the Minister agree with me that this announcement is the equivalent of another broken promise to the Scottish electorate?
Amber Rudd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Having Britain open for business is incredibly important. Scotland has a lot of wind farms and has received a lot of investment. I am sure that with this Government in charge, investment will continue to flow to Scotland in all sorts of ways.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): My constituents will be delighted that we now have a Conservative Government, as under a coalition Government we would never have had this statement or this excellent Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. I have it clear in my mind, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Borough Council of Wellingborough turns down a planning application for a wind farm, its decision cannot be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?
Amber Rudd: Yes, I can confirm that.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): Labour Members are rightly concerned about job losses and job insecurity, and that is not restricted to onshore. Given that the doubling of carbon tax by this Government on 1 April is likely to be the final nail in the coffin of the coal mining industry—almost 1,000 jobs at Hatfield—does the Minister recognise the need for a long-term plan to identify a diverse energy mix in the interests of the nation?
Amber Rudd: I share the hon. Gentleman’s view on the need for a diverse energy mix. We want to support renewables to make sure that we meet our renewable targets and encourage diverse forms of renewable energy, but we also need certain other types of energy to ensure we have the base-load available at all times of the day.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): The Scout Moor wind farm, to which the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred, dominates the skyline for thousands of my constituents. An application to extend it even further has been submitted, but not determined. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the extension will attract subsidy?
________________________________________
22 Jun 2015 : Column 635
Amber Rudd: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to write to me about that example? I will make sure that he gets a reply.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): We worked very hard in Hull to bring Siemens to the city to develop the offshore renewables industry. Does the Minister understand how the current approach, and the previous approach in relation to solar, are not at all helpful to long-term investment in renewables?
Amber Rudd: I am slightly amazed that the hon. Lady chooses to approach the matter in that way. It is a great success of the previous Government that we now have the Siemens plant in Hull, and we support that, the employment it offers and the export potential that we hope will develop there. We are encouraged by the fact that there is more investment coming into offshore wind and we will continue to support it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): In the mix of renewable energy, tidal energy has huge potential, popular support, leisure sector spin-offs, innovative technology and export potential. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the direct and indirect potential for job growth from tidal energy will be hugely greater than any job losses from her announcement today?
Amber Rudd: I certainly agree that tidal and marine energy is an exciting part of a future energy mix. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are continuing to do our due diligence on various tidal projects.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP): I associate myself with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). The Secretary of State will be aware that the position of the Scottish Government is that technology such as tidal power and wave power, which were prevented from being properly developed by a former Conservative Government, are where the long-term future of our energy lies. Can she therefore confirm that the entire value of the subsidy that is going to be clawed back from wind farms will be reinvested in the accelerated development of these long-term permanent technologies, or are we simply seeing a repeat of what her party did to Scotland in the 1980s, when a flourishing and potentially world-leading renewables energy sector was deliberately sacrificed to get it out of the way of the nuclear power lobby?
Amber Rudd: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the proposal, which is that the onshore wind subsidy will not go ahead after March 2016. That is not money that is being clawed back; that is money that is additionally not being added to people’s bills. On another matter, I agree with him that we would like more success in the whole marine energy area, and it is
22 Jun 2015 : Column 636
partly because we want to make sure that we have sufficient support available for other technologies, such as marine and tidal wave, that we have to make this choice.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): In response to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the subsidy regime for large-scale solar farms was also going to be cut. What is there to stop an applicant for a large-scale solar farm parcelling up that application into four or five separate applications, thus qualifying as a small-scale unit?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is right that we have ended the large-scale solar farm issue in terms of applications for the renewables obligation, but I have concerns about exactly the possibility that he has raised, and I will address it in the feed-in tariff review that I will be conducting this summer.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): The Huddersfield Civic Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Natural England, National Trust, local artist Ashley Jackson and the Campaign to Protect Rural England have major concerns and are opposing a huge wind farm development high up on moorland in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that local people will have the final say on this major development?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for that list of supporters and I can indeed give him that confirmation.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): In south Wiltshire the primary concern is about large-scale solar farm applications. Can the Secretary of State outline the implications of today’s announcement for residents of Downton who came to see me about this recently?
Amber Rudd: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier. We will be looking again at how solar farms get access as part of the feed-in tariff review. They are no longer eligible to access under the renewable obligations.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con): I refer Members to my declaration of interests. I welcome the announcement. On Friday my constituent, Peter Stephens, asked whether the forthcoming international deliberations on climate change would have the effect of unpicking the changes that the Secretary of State set out today. Perhaps she could clarify that.
Amber Rudd: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend and his constituent that we remain committed to our targets under the Climate Change Act 2008. We remain committed to being the greenest Government ever and to making sure that we are the No. 1 place for renewable energy investment.

To view the source document CLICK HERE

PS – 37:

It is of note that there is yet another vehicle with its front end smashed in, an orange car, abandoned in the ditch near Hanley Farm shop!

I have not heard the extent of injury of those involved as yet but will add the detail if I find out!

Further facts have come to hand:
I am told that a car had broken down and was in Hanley public lay-by – a friend called from Lydney to help arrived and indicated intent to turn into Chepstow end of Lay-by and stopped facing oncoming traffic within a few seconds a car drove into the back of his car and shortly after that the orange car drove into the back of the two static cars!

The 3 car crash happened just before 17:00hrs., Police attended and all 3 vehicles were removed by 20:30hrs., fortunately, I am told, with no consequential injuries.

Photos to follow.

There have been 2 fatalities and various very serious injuries within view of Hanley Hill in two fatal accidents so far this year and a total of 5 fatalities within sight of Hanley Hill in recent years, plus of course numerous other accidents on this particularly dangerous stretch of road with its multiple junctions and the particularly dangerous Hanley layby which itself has multiple junctions and much increased traffic due to commercialisation as a multiple occupancy office venue, a farm shop and a single dwelling converted to multiple occupancy!

It is legitimate, since the primary cause of accidents according to The MoT/DVLA, is distraction – just imagine how we can expect the fatality and serious injury rate is likely to escalate as traffic levels increase with the 5,000 new houses already with planning approval granted from Lydney to Chepstow if the gross iresponsibility of granting and installing a wind turbine 337 feet above the River Severn on Hanley Hill is granted next to the A48 – the most dangerous road in Europe in terms of fatalities per mile travelled.

There was also an accident nearby earlier in the week – sadly as yet I have no further details.

The cost to the public purse of these accidents likely to be caused by the distraction of a wind turbine pale into insignificance relative to the subsidies payable on a wind turbine or any potential theoretical benefits and thus I would contend that such a scheme/scam would only be undertaken by those with an utter disregard for the area and the lives of others.

PS – 38:

I gather the applicants have been very actively using their ‘farm stall’ in Chepstow as a marketing venue to solicit support for their proposed industrialisation of Severndale Farm with potential customers being asked to sign standard petition letters – regardless of their location or involvement with Hanley Hill and Stroat and based upon no clear understanding of the implications or the huge subsidies and dangers nor the inefficiency of Wind Turbines and their damaging environmental costs.

However Julia Joseph, a professional planning consultant has been asking some interesting questions and making further astute and pertinent comments to the Planning Authorities on our behalf!

FROM: Julie Joseph [mailto:julie.joseph@jcpc-ltd.co.uk]
SENT: 08 June 2015 12:01
TO: Stephen Colegate
CC: Tony Pope
SUBJECT: Planning Application Wind Turbine Severndale Farm Tidenham
Chepstow P0365/15/FUL

Dear Mr Colegate

I have been appointed by several local residents to represent them in
relation to the above planning application about which they have strong
objections. It would be helpful if I could understand the proposed
timescale of the application . I understand it appears to be scheduled
for committee in July but at present there are number of key consultees
who to date have not yet responded. It also appears that a number of the
reports including the bird surveys and the screening opinion were
carried out some time ago and as such may well be out of date. The bird
survey in particular was carried out 3 years ago and as such will be
fundamentally flawed and not an appropriate basis for a decision to be
made. I also understand that Historic England have requested more
detailed analysis is carried out.

I have checked your website and to date the comments from your
ecologist, landscape team and Environmental Health officer have not been
provided. (when I clicked on your Sustainability Team Response this came
up as a blank page) These are key in the decision making process and it
would be extremely helpful to have a copy of these for analysis .

I am aware of the recent appeal decision by the same applicant however
would like to point out that this should not set a precedent for other
applications which should be determined on their individual merits.
However I also appreciate you will to a certain extent be guided by the
Inspectors comments.

My understanding of the application is that the Resilience model is
offering community benefits but this is not done through a planning
obligation because this would not meet the required tests for
obligations. I would refer you to a recent decision Planning appeal ref
APP/U3935/V/14/2216792 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATION BY SWINDON COMMERCIAL SERVICES LTD: LAND AT SCIENCE MUSEUM,
WROUGHTON, SWINDON SN4 9LT APPLICATION REF: S/13/0809 which was subject
to a call in by the Secretary of State. Whilst the appeal for solar
panels was approved, the Secretary of State agreed with the inspector
that the proposed financial community benefits in the Undertaking fell
outside the scope of Section 106(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 and that they fail the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended. The Secretary
of State therefore gave no weight to the Undertaking in determining this
planning application. On this basis the community benefits of the
proposed scheme can not be controlled or enforced and carry very limited
weight. As such there is no guarantee that such a scheme will be brought
forward by the applicants as opposed to an alternative energy company
and as such the application should be considered purely on its merits
and not as a community model.

With regard to the economic benefits locally, again these appear to be
largely over stated and the local authority can have no control over the
potential suppliers of the turbines. It should be noted that in many
situations the turbines and motors are imported from Europe. As such we
believe little weight can be given to the economic benefits of such a
scheme.

With regard to the visual impact on the closest residential properties,
the applicants have failed to take into account the fact that there is
an extent approval for 3 live work units at Wibdon Farm, Stroat . The
majority of windows will have significant views of the development and
the report needs to assess this impact accordingly.

Given the above I would be grateful if you could advise me of timings
for the application to be heard by Planning Committee and when you
anticipate further information and your ecologists and landscape
officers comments to be available.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

JULIE JOSEPH BA (HONS) MRTPI

DIRECTOR

JCPC LTD

SPECIALISTS IN RURAL PLANNING

TEL 01989 770258

MOB 07920 770735

FROM: Stephen Colegate [mailto:Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk]
SENT: 15 June 2015 11:30
TO: ‘Julie Joseph’
SUBJECT: P0365/15/FUL

Dear Ms Joseph

RE: P0365/15/FUL

Thank you for your representation to the above application which is
hereby acknowledged and will be recorded appropriately.

Regards

Stephen Colegate

Senior Planning Officer

Forest of Dean District Council

Tel: 01594 812375

Email: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk

Subject: RE: P0365/15/FUL
Date: 2015-07-01 09:35
From: “Julie Joseph” <julie.joseph@jcpc-ltd.co.uk>
To: “‘Stephen Colegate'” <Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk>
Copy: <Tony.Pope@fdean.gov.uk>,

Thank you for acknowledging my email. It would be helpful if you could
respond to some of the points raised in particular whether any further
up to date reports are being submitted and when it is your intention to
take the matter to the planning committee.

I would also like to draw your attention to the recent ministerial
statement issued by DCLG ON 18 June 2015 which becomes planning policy
and thus a material consideration . This states quite clearly that :

“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.”

Given the high level of objection on this proposal and the comments of
the Parish Council it appears very evident that the proposal does not
satisfy the planning impacts identified by local communities and as such
does not have the community backing. As such the proposal is clearly
contrary to the recently published ministerial statement which in effect
is planning policy and the application should either be withdrawn or
refused.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

JULIE JOSEPH BA (HONS) MRTPI

DIRECTOR

JCPC LTD

SPECIALISTS IN RURAL PLANNING

TEL 01989 770258

MOB 07920 770735

PS – 39:

I note a new grossly inefficient wind turbine has been erected dependent on public subsidy and not just polluting the view amenity of the Severn Estuary but also undeniably environmentally damaging both to wildlife in its operation and to the planet in its construction.

This new damaging industrial instalation is to the left of Oldbury Power Station on the South Gloucestershire side of the river located on high ground near Rockhampton alongside the Thronbury > Rockampton > Falfield road just as you leave Rockhampton – it was installed on 25-Jun-2015 and is clearly polluting the rural view from miles around!

PS – 40:

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04370.pdf

PS – 41:

It is worthy of note that this confirms the statement to Parliament by The Minister Concerned (Amber Rudd), in which she additionaly stated that no further planning application not granted on or before 18-Jun-2015 would receive any Government subsidies.

PS – 42:

A cautionary tale for Conservative District Councillor Maria Edwars & her partners Resilience of Woolaston!

You will note the details of the Planning Officer were vbery similar in the case of the Severndale application to industrialise as those supported by the appeal

Devon wind turbine appeal dismissed by inspector

7 July 2015 by Susie Sell , Be the First to Comment

Plans to develop a 50-metre wind turbine in Devon have been dismissed by a planning inspector who ruled that the harm to the landscape and setting of heritage assets substantially outweighed the benefits of the proposals.

Plans to develop a 50-metre wind turbine in Devon have been dismissed by a planning inspector who ruled that the harm to the landscape and setting of heritage assets substantially outweighed the benefits of the proposals.

PS – 43:

I note from the web site of Resilience, partners in the application for this turbine with District Councillor Maria Edwards the following link to a statement by their lawyers, Mssrs. Burges Salmon of Bristol, regarding their far from successful industrialisation by Resilience of Anthony Cooke’s farm Great Dunkilns:

Resilient Energy Great Dunkilns (REGD) is a joint venture between The Resilience Centre of Woolaston and Mr Anthony Cooke of Great Dunkilns Farm, St Briavels, created to install and operate a 500kW wind turbine at Mr Cooke’s farm.

The ‘community scale’ wind turbine will be capable of producing up to 1,200,000kWh per year, which is the equivalent of 300 residential dwellings or 10% of the electrical demand of St Briavels parish. It will generate electricity for use both on site at the farm and for export to the local grid, qualifying for payments under the government’s Feed in Tariff scheme for wind projects too.

to view the full statement CLICK HERE

It will be noted that far from concentrating on renewable energy Burges Salmon have a division working to promote Nuclear Energy also, thus clearly prostituted to commercial expediency rather than principle; I understand also that Resilience have little actual interest in renewable energy as I gather they have notably opposed the proven technology of solar panels yet promote the largely failed technology of wind turbines with their weather dependency, high cost, inefficiency and short lifespan (averaging 12>15 years at present!)!

To extrapolate Burgess Salmon’a and Resilience’s claims: Clearly on optimum output the turbine, as it produces a mere 10% of the power required for St. Briavels would require 9 more to produce sufficient for the village – however at Tidenham parish Council meeting the applicants informed those present that the St. Briavels turbine was only 20% efficient thus for supply of power for the village WHEN THE WIND CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT the village would seem to require 50 turbines to be effective!

When one considers that in 2012 Resilience was seeking ‘crowd funding’ with just one turbine for this scam to the tune of £1.4M – it would seem that power generation for St. Biavels, without inflation, would cost in the region of £70,000,000 plus of course the annual subsidy Resilience informed the parish amounted to in the region of £150,000 per turbine or £7,500,000 – little wonder the Government has announced it intends to bring an end to this ‘scheme’ in terms of both foisting the monstrosities on the public and enriching the applicants via the taxes of others!

Little wonder that the public in the ‘community’, in the case of the Tidenham application by the Conservative District Councillor Maria Edwards, have presented such resounding and reasoned opposition and that the ‘community’ opponents to this self serving and opportunistic application are in support of the recommendations of the Planning Officer designate and would vigerously oppose Resilience should they choose to seek to apeal a rejection of their application – though it is appreciated that such an apeal by Resilience would seemingly be being undertaken on a profit motivated basis, whether they were likely to win the case or not, as they are likely to be able to bill for their effort even when they fail!

PS – 44:

The timing of this article is excellent as it highlights the very real danger on the Stroat section of the A48; thus supporting our claim that industrialising this section further, with a very overbearing and distracting Giant Wind Turbine would be an act of dangerous folly that would likely lead to additional very costly deaths and accidents.

Fatalities and costs that are in no way compensated for those involved or our community by the opportunist planning application of Conservative District Councillor Maria Edwards and her commercial partners – seeking personal profit at the expense of the community and tax payers.

PS – 45:

Below is a copy of a circular to the ‘community’ from FoDDC Planning Department soliciting further objections in support of the ‘Community’, the Parish Council of the ‘Community and the appointed Officers of FoDDC on behalf of the ‘Community’ – all of whom have opposed the opportunistic application to further industrialise Severndale Farm by the owners including the applicant Councillor Maria Edwards of FoDDC Planning Committee!

FoD to Occupiers 15-Jul-2015

Dear Sir/Madam

Town and Country Planning Act,1990 (As Amended)
Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow
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.

I refer to my previous letter informing you of the planning application. I am now in receipt of additional information. Any comments submitted that make representations for or against the application will be taken into account when the Council reaches its decision as will any previous representations made.

You can look at the additional information on the Council’s Website at http://www.fdean.gov.uk . Simply click on ‘planning’ then ‘View planning applications’’ and then the Public Access link. Click on the simple search screen and add the reference P0365/15/FUL you can then see a summary of the application details. If you wish to view plans and documents submitted with the application, click on the Documents tab. If you want to view any comments please click on the relevant tabs on the search screen.

Details may also be inspected on a computer at the Council Offices, High Street, Coleford during normal office hours (Monday – Thursday 9.00 a.m. – 4.45 p.m and Fridays 9.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) Alternatively, as a copy has been sent to the Parish Council, you might like to contact the Clerk to see if arrangements can be made to view the plans locally.

You can make comments on any application in one of three ways:-
1. Through the website by clicking on ‘View Planning Applications’, then Public Access, enter the Planning reference number in the search field. Click on comments and complete the Log In process as instructed on the screen. In order to make a comment you must register and log into the system. This is the Council’s preferred method of communication and also gives you the opportunity to track progress with the application and view the Council’s decision.
2. By sending an e-mail to planning@fdean.gov.uk
3. By sending a letter to the Planning Office.
Any comments should be made in writing quoting the above reference number by
29/07/15

Please note that only planning matters relating to the application can be considered by the Council when making their decision. These could include highway safety, national and local planning policies such as those included in the Council’s Core Strategy and design and amenity issues (privacy, overshadowing, noise etc). Matters that cannot be taken into account include loss of view, reduction in value, or comments on personalities or private rights of way. Please refrain from making personal references in respect of third parties or comments which may be defamatory or breach data protection legislation. The Council retains the right to redact any such content from your representation.

In view of the amount of correspondence that we receive as a result of representations made for and against planning applications, it is not normal practice to enter into correspondence concerning any specific questions or queries you may have.

The Council has also introduced public speaking at its Planning Committee Meetings. Details of the operation of public speaking are available from the Council’s web site. Click on ‘planning’ on the home page and a guide is available for downloading on the right hand side of the page. If you make any representation you will be notified in writing if it is to be determined by Committee.

Finally, I must advise you that under the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, 1985, your comments will be available for anyone to read, including the applicant(s). In addition any correspondence will be displayed on the Council’s website and in the event of an appeal all representations received will also be relayed to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant in accordance with appeal regulations.

Yours faithfully,
Business Administration Apprentice

PS – 46:

On the strength of the request for further submissions as shown in PS-45 above I have submitted an additional detailed and reasoned objection to the opportunistic planning application made by Councillor Maria Edwards:

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)
At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Dear Sirs,

my comment to the Comments section, re Application PO365/15/FUL, having been truncated I request my opposition to this application as submitted below, is accepted directly, and will feature in the documents section.

Please note section:
IN ADDITION re Applicant’s Late Submissions

I thank you,
Greg_L-W.

Herewith my objection to the application:
AS A HOME OWNER, RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER
In the Parish of Tidenham
AT:
Home Cottage,
Stroat,
Tidenham,
The Forest of Dean,
Gloucestershire,
NP16 7LR
01594 – 526 337

21-Jul-2015

FODDC,
COUNCIL OFFICES,
HIGH STREET,
COLEFORD,
GL16 8HG

PLANNING Department: planning@fdean.gov.uk

CASE OFFICER STEPHEN COLEGATE: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk
COPY:
MARK HARPER MP: fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com
PARISH COUNCILLORS clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk
Re.: Planning Application PO365/15/FUL
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT of INITIAL WIND TURBINE
Severndale Farm, Stroat, Tidenham, NP16 7LL

Illustration:

• TOTAL 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 + mount

Dear Sirs,

please be advised of my extensively researched and implacable objection to the industrialisation of this Rural Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Fuller reasons and many details and links to accurate and proven facts opposing the installation may be found at:

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

where many detailed factual arguments are raised, together with the views and opinions of many well informed individuals together with views and opinions of many local individuals.

It would clearly be deleterious of anyone involved in the decision making in this application not to study the details enumerated therein.

Minded of the constraints of time permit me to put the time required in perspective – a responsible finding of facts from the source quoted may take as much as a day out of YOUR life however by the proud boast of the applicant this monstrous carbuncle in our midst will be present and effecting many 1,000s of lives over the next 25 years and it is highly unlikely that the monstrous concrete block on which the 87m. high tower with its 158 foot span blades will stand will ever be removed!

I appreciate the Gadarene rush to profit from the subsidies, required to enable the pretence that wind turbines are cost effective, however like the Gadarene there is every probability that this will lead to a leap off the cliff for those effected!
I object to this application on the grounds that there is no proven case for installing these monstrous intrusions and any pretence that they may provide a ‘community’ benefit of any consequence is dwarfed by the many disadvantages to the ‘community’ in particular and to society as a whole, and thus appears to be little more than a sop, or to put it more clearly a bribe!

A measure of the dishonesty of this application, which strengthens my resolve to oppose it is:

01. The headline figure of the height of the industrial structure is 60m. it is only when one drills down in the small print that it becomes apparent it is not a mere 60m. but will tower over the Severn Estuary in splendid un camouflaged isolation (until of course this precedent may be granted, permitting seried ranks of them) by 337 Feet!

02. It is claimed dishonestly, by the applicant, that there has been public consultation – there has been absolutely no public consultation, it would seem to be that the applicant seeks to mislead the planners by alluding to a sales presentation made by themselves, to an invited audience some 3 years ago! After which the applicants withdrew their application, no doubt in the realisation they had failed to convince!

O3. It would seem that the applicants seek to further mislead by claiming that an environmental study has been presented when no such adequate current environmental study has been made as:
A. The study has not considered the deleterious effects of their proposed industrial action to the reed beds between their proposed installation and the river, which are the gathering ground for migratory birds, which gather to feed, and thus fatten to provide the necessary energy, prior to their long migration south to warmer climes for the winter – birds which WILL be slaughtered in consequential numbers as the turbine blades smash them from the sky from the rotation side – the report pays no conscience to the differences of impact at different seasons.
B. The study has made no allowance for the distance of travel of noise, light flicker or safety lighting, particularly on the rising ground of the Forest approaches behind it – where many homes and farms and their livestock WILL be effected. It should be noted that the low frequency hum from the turbine, which they admit will be between 35 & 45 DB on a substantial radius of ground & homes below, it will be likewise travel considerably further on a level with the source!
Sound tends to travel further in a set pressure (altitude) density of air, particularly low frequency, long wave pattern sound, thus can cause considerably more damage to a wider radius stretching for several miles –
eg the low frequency communication of elephants which can be detected over 20 miles away!
C. I have been unable to trace a single solitary risk assessment of the damage done to micro organisms and their predatory food chain in soil, yet it is known that the continuous low frequency vibration radiates in the soil, causing a falloff in both micro-organisms and the worms and the like that feed on them, including the larvae of the many insects on which the migratory birds are utterly dependent. The loss of such life and the vibration leads to compression of the soil and a form of soil cancer.
D. I appreciate that the RSPB has made no objection nor any serious consideration however I would suggest that without implementation of an FoI report it would be wise to discount their input, or failure to input, as it is widely believed the Wind Turbine promoters are amongst their substantial donors!
E. There would seem to be absolutely no consideration given to the impact on the many raptors in the area and even more significantly to the many owls that patrol this territory at night, with no hope of seeing the rotating blades until they are struck and killed – leading to a damaging increase in both mice and rats!
F. Astonishingly the so called environmental report fails to even mention the Environmental Agency’s flood warning maps that show Severndale Farm WILL potentially be effected!

04. I also object to these plans being put forward at this time, which so redolently smacks of ‘A good time to bury bad news’!
The planning application was validated on 17-Apr-2015, after Parliament had been prorogued – thus from then forward the peoples of this community were without meaningfull representation and all in the political diaspora were involved in the flux of election.
We had no MP representing us until 08-May-2015 and beyond during which the new Parliament was coming to existence as a Government.
We had no meaningfull Councillors as they were seeking election or re-election and even now have not been accurately listed on the web site of FoDDC. In fact I believe they have not been sworn in yet, let alone selected for the various committees – particularly planning!
We are as yet unrepresented by Parish Councillors who are due to be sworn in on 20-May-2015 and the first occasion on which they can consider the matter before the, to be selec ted, planning committee is the 27-May-2015!.This is clearly a shoddy and unsatisfactory manner in which to pretend to a democratic process.I incline to believe that the application was made at this time deliberately to suit the applicant and thus I believe the Council has little option but to act with integrity and extend the period by at least the 37 days that have been lost from the 17-Apr-2015 until the 27-May-2015.
Fortunately with her last two clear days the outgoing councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick acted decisively and with integrity and at my request ‘called in the plans’.

05. I am also minded to oppose this application as, although within electoral law, the candidacy of Mrs. Maria Edwards for a council seat is of some moral turpitude as although she was standing as a Conservative Councillor she seems to have overlooked the gathering opprobrium of her own party for the siting of wind turbines on land and the stated intention of providing nil public funding for all applications that were made and not granted prior to the election. I incline to the understanding that Mrs. Edwards failed totally to make it clear to the electorate that were she elected it would prove potentially fortuitously profitable for her as the wife and thus partner in the application for the wind turbine at Severndale Farm – had she told the truth to the electorate I believe she would not have stood any chance of being elected and unseating a candidate with the community’s interests at heart!
I believe Mrs. Edwards’ position to be morally repugnant and her status as being out of keeping with the very principles of democracy regardless of the fact she may declare her interests at a later stage it does appear she obtained her position by deception.

06. I appreciate that in return for the massive subsidies enjoyed by installers of this failed concept of power generation hereto fore there is a limp and implausible attempt to claim a ‘community benefit’ when quite clearly there is no meaningfull benefit gained that even begins to compensate for the damage such an industrial installation in so clearly a rural AoONB and loss of visual amenity for so many 1,000s of people, minded this edifice will be visible from Gloucester and much of South Gloucestershire and of course much of the FoD, being some 337feet high when Gloucester Cathedral is a mere 229 feet high!The pretence of a community benefit is palpably little more than an effort at justification by the applicants. much beyond the very personal member of the community and his own bank account.To justify this statement may I point out the public accounts of one of the applicants. who also has a similar interest in the wind turbine at St.Briavels which values that interest of around 50% as being £500,000 – perhaps besides free/subsidised electricity for Severndale Farm the applicants could make clear the relevance to the community of the small sop they offer relative to the £! Million value of their subsidised installation with a mere 20% efficacy and thus were it 100% effective the value would doubtless be in excess of £5 Million!I regret that a pretence at a ‘Community Benefit’ seems little more than an insignificant bribe relative to the huge benefit for the applicants developing this industrial installation and the damage done to this AoONB not to mention the loss of amenity, potential health risks, damage from noise, flicker and safety lighting not to mention the visual damage resultant from this installation – bear in mind that The Forestry Commission advise me that the largest genus of tree that grows in the FoD is the Douglas Fir which in our climate grows to a height of just over 115 feet or one third of the height of this 337 foot wind turbine with its 158 foot blades!
I do not include the value of property as it would seem that the loss of property value for possibly 100 people is of no planning significance when measured against the gain of one or two individuals! – it may not be a planning issue but to any individual with one wit of morality it is a very clear issue!

07. A particular reason I am opposed to this application is both personal and public in that as a user, on a regular basis, of the A48 which besides being designated as a Roman road is recognised as the most dangerous road in Europe based, I understand, on death rate per mile in terms of vehicle miles.
Minded that a principal cause of accidents is ‘distraction’ there can be no more convincing an argument against this industrial installation, being both close to the road and clearly inappropriate in such an open rural setting as it towers over the river by 337 feet and is a moving object dominant in line with such beautiful views – a half seen and even more distracting object at night with its alarm security lighting for the very many low flying light aircraft and the many helicopter flights in its immediate proximity – flights which are frequently below the height of this moving edifice. An even more dangerous object and distracting installation in the dense sea mist that frequently rolls up The Severn Estuary.

08. One should also be minded that in consideration of the Roman ruins in the immediate area it is worthy of particular note that in ajoining fields there is the platform of what is believed to be a Roman temple, also of a Roman villa there is also I understand a Roman Mansio (a Mansio being the stopping point for Roman troops distanced by the marching regime of Roman Centurions on the move) this particular Mansio was the point at which troops gathered to await the right tide when crossing the Severn south or mustering to dry out and get in good order after crossing from South Gloucestershire.
It is likely that there are other features as yet undiscovered.
It is also worthy of note that Hanley Hill is known to be the Moot and as such was the meeting point for residents of Tidenham and thus has both medieval and pre medieval significance.

09. It is also worthy of note that there was at one time an electricity pylon sited on Hanley Hill which was removed as it was considered unsightly and the cabling was diverted, as were other pylons in the community area.

10. Please also be advised of the letter of objection to a similarly sited, though better camophlaged, application locally, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which contains many relevant points significant to this current application, which can be read at:

Click to access P1396_CPRE_Objections.pdf

An application which was granted on appeal as it lacked the strength of opposition this current site has from the community and the clear support of Government policy which now pertains.

11. This installation is far too close to the river, thus on the open historic flood plain and sticking out like a sore thumb and visible for miles around, this huge industrial structure, which will be over 150 feet taller than St. Mary’s Church in Lydney and 3 times the height of Nelson’s Column in London, with its related noise and visual impact is far too close to residential properties and will effect far more properties than were it is situated, like most other such structures, as being in a valley many more properties are effected on a level with the structure and its visibility will be for miles around being on so prominent and open a site.

12. I also object to this and other similar applications on purely ethical grounds as there is something particularly distastefull and morally bankrupt about the funding of these ‘white elephants’ as they are part funded by taxing the poor, through their unavoidable electricity bills, and then handing the cash to landowners and the wealthy – I find this to be utterly reprehensible.

13. I am further opposed to these installations, particularly in such an inappropriate position when it is now well proven that wind turbines are not only an ecologically unsound method of generating electricity but greedy in two natural resources in short supply, namely the excess use of copper, which is an increasingly diminishing strategic resource and rare earth extracts available from only China where it is increasingly extracted, utilising this scarce resource in an irresponsible manner in the manufacture of the turbines.

14. These applications should further be rejected as it is increasingly apparent that they are so inefficient that the Government finds itself in the ludicrous position of subsidising owners with taxes levied even on the poor to fund subsidies to pay owners to take their turbines off line – turbines which those very same tax payers were taxed to fund the construction of.

15. I further reject the idea of constructing this wind turbine in the light of the many 100s of truck movements that will be necessitated on the already overcrowded and dangerous A48, which clearly to judge by the numerous potholes Gloucester highways cannot afford to properly repair leaving the tax payer with unsound and unsafe roads and increased wear and tear, not to mention direct damage, to vehicles – indubitably a fairer and more intelligent use of subsidies than these follies as applied for.

16. I am additionally opposed to this industrial installation in the light of the inevitable need for a service road with either a 110 or 150 tonne load capacity to allow for access by heavy lift crane facilities – a service road that will require an unsightly bell mouth junction on the A48 in the proximity of Hanley Farm shop and the property of Wibdon Farm some 60 meters in extent!

17. In support of the rejection of this application I also believe that the probability that this application may prove a precedent if it is irresponsibly accepted for the erection of many more similar industrial installations despoiling the rural banks of the River Severn and its estuary and their visual amenity for its people and its visitors.

18. I am also opposed to this application on the very real danger to jobs in the area, many of which are dependent on tourism and day visitors to the area all of whom will find their enjoyment of this AoONB with its many wonderful viewpoints debased should this and similar installations be approved, this application alone will be visible from many of the classic view points in the FoD and almost all such viewpoints in South Gloucestershire – we have a duty of care for future generations to ensure they can enjoy the unbefouled FoD we have all enjoyed.

19. I believe that it is unprincipled to believe there is any sound motivation to grant this application funded in part by unwilling tax payers who can ill afford the subsidies to enrich a few selfish individuals. The concept of smaller investors being able to participate is debatable in that that may bring no local benefits as the investment will be open via the internet to the world at large as is the applicants fatuous petition orchestrated on the internet and accessible around the world, in the realisation that petitions are prone to abuse I understand local residents decided it would be unethical and counter productive to raise a petition, just as they have it would seem extended their encouragement to comment to local residents only.

20. It is important to note, in deciding to reject this application, the claimed green aspects of such wind turbines – firstly their justification is grounded in the widely discredited IPCC report of Al Gore & Rajendra K. Paschauri where many of the claimed supporters have requested removal of their names and the signators to exposes of the theory far outweigh the supporters in their denunciation of the IPCC Report with the leak of East Anglia dUniversity documentation encompassing some 20,000 eMails that proved beyond doubt that much of the detail in the IPCC report was downright dishonest at worst and largely unsound being based on selective use of data!
Do also note that Rajendra Paschauri with his close partisan associations with Tatta Industries has recently been ousted from his job and Al Gore is now soundly discredited and the report itself has been accepted in Court to be insufficiently accurate to teach as a science in schools in Britain.

21. Penultimately in considering this application it is important to accept the fact that any concept of benefit to the green carbon footprint is far outweigjhed by the enormouse level of carbon output in the production of the cement alone let alone the carbon footprint of transportation of the required other ingredients of the concrete block that will act as the mount, let alone the carbon footprint of the manufacture, fabrication and construction of the enormous industrial structure.
On optimum output it will take at least 10 years to ‘repay’ the carbon cost of construction and as even the applicant’s claimed figure projects a 35% of optimum output, which can be considered optimistic as their other wind turbine at St. Briavels has an output of around 20% – thus reducing profitability to allow a mere £8,000 for so called ‘community benefit’ which was originally projected at £20,000 where £8,000 to £20,000 is likely to be the cost in lost value for any single property in its damage zone in terms of noise and loss of visual amenity and constant flicker day and night whether from sunlight or safety lighting!

22. Finally let us consider in my opposition to this application the obvious fact that if the applicant had a genuione concern for the environment, as his recent award would show in 2014 one wonders why he did not advise the competition organisers that he was on the verge of despoiling the natural beauty of the area and installing a dangerous and overbearing industrial installation 337 feet above the River Severn ajoining the already overcrowded A48 adding to the likelihood of fatalities for people and birds alike.

Were there a genuine interest in alternative energy rather than enrichment via subsidies, surely the applicant would have clad his many relatively new barns with solar panels, which would have been considerably less visually damaging to the area at large, would pose no additional danger to road users and wildlife and which have a proven track record of being cost effective without public funding from taxation!

With regard to my opposition to this application as a resident in the immediate locality of this proposed industrial installation please be assured that together with the 22 reasons for my opposition it would be relatively easy to identify a further 78 reasons giving 100 sound reasons why on scientific grounds, amenity grounds, danger grounds and wildlife grounds this application is not only unsound but morally unsupportable, further as you can see from the web site:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat
appropriate links to supportive documentations for such a selected 100 reasons to oppose the installation can readily be provided.

It is for these many and varied reasons that I oppose the application and would ask that as responsible planning authority that the applicant would seem to have a paucity of sound and proven benefits to offer to justify the application beyond narrow personal interests without ‘community benefits’ or benefits for society at large that would in any way counteract the harm done were this application to be approved, be that now or at appeal – an appeal the applicant would be likely to lose were they minded to persue a rejection, in the light of the change of policy of Her Majesty’s newly elected Government with its undeniable and clear majority – a policy change attested to both by the Minister concerned Michael Fallon prior to the election and by the party manifesto.

Thus I call upon all the relevant authorities to responsibly represent and uphold my opposition to this application.

IN ADDITION re Applicant’s Late Submissions

I appreciate the fact that the application did not come before the FoDDC Planning Committee on due date as a result of a late submission of data from the agents of the applicant FoDDC Councillor Mrs. Maria Edwards of the Planning Committee.

The data supplied would not seem to give cause to alter one word of the Officer’s Report and recommendation to refuse the application – further if this material was to be considered it could well have been provided long before this date, however irrelevant it would seem to be:
eg. A lengthy diatribe regarding horses which presents data regarding ‘bridleways’ when there are absolutely zero bridleways in the parish of Tidenham and no addressing of the damage to the visual amenity to footpaths of which there are 65 kilometers in the parish!

There is also tacit acceptance made by the agents that horses may well be ‘spooked’ by the turbine, but will in the fullness of time become used to this monstrous edifice with its constant and irregular motion! Perhaps they can provide a script to the nearby equestrian centre to accommodate the possibility that during that period of adjustment of their existing horses or at a later date additional horses, if a child may be thrown from a ‘spooked’ horse and killed and they are required to explain the event to distraught parents!

I also note having been the direct agents of delay in presenting the matter to the FoDDC Planning Committee, by their late supplication and submission of data, which requires due diligence from the FoDDC, those same agents are now seeking to bring pressure for an early hearing!

This seems based upon the fact that the Government may lower the ‘feed in tariffs’. As a weapon to seek to seemingly bribe the FoDDC they are claiming their thinly veiled, if entirely legal bribes, in the form of claims of community benefit payment have not only rocketed in size, all be it the total amount they claim though they do not contractually undertake would be unlikely to cover the cost of a single multiple fatality accident, in the next 20 years, on the adjoining A48 where the distraction of their industrial and opportunistic installation is likely to be the cause, on more than one occasion, during the probable 10 to 15 years life expectancy of their project (12 to 15 years being the current actual life expectancy of such turbines based on actual installations elsewhere to date!).

Not only is the FoDDC and the community expected to tolerate the bribes and bullying but now the application would seem to be attempting to blackmail the community – the very community whose overwhelming number of actual letters from actual members of the community as opposing the application, as opposed to the many standard forms garnered via ‘social media’ and soliciting signatures from uninvolved parties with apparently little understanding of the inefficiency of wind turbines as power generations and the massive subsidies required from the tax payers at the cost of more valuable and important demands on the public purse than subsidies enriching the wealthy – such as the NHS, Policing, education and defence!
The community whose local Parish Council resoundingly rejected the application, the community whose legally appointed representative Officer recommended strongly and in detail to refuse the application!

Where is the support of any consequence or validity in the community and in keeping with announced government policy that such applications MUST have local support!

These are just some of the reasons why I oppose this industrialisation of this rural area and though apparent blackmail is not I presume a planning matter neither I understand is any claim of cash handouts or apparent bribes to any in the community be that immediate or within a 5km. perimiter, which is as morally repugnant to me as direct payments to members of the planning committee to buy a result.

For these reasons and others I reserve the right to act jointly or separately with others to seek a Public Enquiry should this application progress in any form, and would willingly assist others facing the same threats in the region.
.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins
eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com
Phone: 01594 – 528 337

Opposing A Wind Turbine:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

PS – 47:

I have also made the more specific objection re the application, as follows:

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)
At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

PLEASE RECORD THIS MY OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION PO356/15/FUL
In the light of the identified further submission on behalf of the applicant Councillor Maria Edwards

Hi,

Perhaps this letter from the agents of the applicant FoDDC Counciller Mrs. Moira Edwards, item 168 on the schedule of documents presented on the FoDDC planning web site, relevant to the opportunistic and clearly unpopular industrialisation of Severndale Farm, should perhaps have been more appositely titled:

Severndale Community Wind Up – P0365/15/FUL

I appreciate that this thinly veiled, morally questionable, apparent bribe is within the law, although it is, under law, neither to be considered a ‘Planning Issue’ nor is it contractually valid or enforceable by law!

However compounding this insult to the intelligence of all, the situation would now seem to have escalated to a situation that it would not be unreasonable to call blackmail.

It was after all late submission of data that led to the deferment of the application, which was scheduled to be heard by FoDDC Planning Committee on the 14-Jul-2015 and would have been decided on then, had not this submission arrived in skeleton form on Friday afternoon previous, together with a 27 page attempt at rebuttal of the Officer’s report to the committee!

The continued allusion to this being a ‘community’ project is little more than an attempt at aesopian linguistics with a view to exploiting Neural Lingusistic Programming (NLP), it has all the validity of the pretence that aparteid in South Africa was for the benefit of the indigenous peoples!

The continued use of the style ‘a Community project’, ‘a Community benefit’ or the like is an opportunistic, dishonest and misleading pretence, as the ‘Community’ locally has soundly rejected the scheme individually in reasoned correspondence also via its Parish Council and via its Officer’s report, just as the National Community, by the pronouncements of the recently elected majority Government, have rejected the concept as laid out in the Conservative manifesto, for which the majority of voters voted in the recent election.

I appreciate that the applicant Councillor Edwards was voted into office as a Conservative to ostensibly uphold that manifesto yet it is she who seeks to exploit the subsidies that used to pertain for this proven ineffectual, inefficient and unpleasant source of power.

Personally I am of the opinion that Councillor Edwards’ position is untenable and she should consider her resignation to avoid further embarrassment to The Conservative Party, our MP, our District Council, our Parish and our ‘community’, none of whom does she seem to represent in this matter, nor in principle!

Herewith submission 168 on FoDDC Planning web site from Councillor Edwards’ agents at ‘The Resilience Centre Ltd.’:

Mr Peter Williams
Group Manager Planning & Housing
Forest of Dean District Council
Council Offices
High Street
Coleford
GLOS
GL16 8HG
Your Ref: P0365/15/FUL
15th July 2015

Dear Mr Williams,

Severndale Community Wind – P0365/15/FUL

With regard to the above planning application we would like to clarify and formalise our committment regarding the proposed Community Ownership structure and can confirm that the project will be brought forwards as a Community Benefit Society, if planning consent is obtained. Furthermore the project would commit a total fund of £500,000 of Community Benefit directly to the local area over the first 20 years of o peration of the project, to be distributed by a locally self appointed panel of stakeholders plus any additional surplus from the operation of the Society, estimated to be an additional £600,000 over the first 20 years of operation, a total of up to £1,100,000 in direct community bene fits. However, the ability to meet these commitments is time critical as in the recent budgetary announcement the Chancellor instructed the Energy Minister to c omplete a mid season term budegtary review of Feed in Tariffs, currently underway and exp ected to deliver a revised degression ahead of the current Feed in Tariff degression date of 30th September. As such the project is only able to commit to these benefits if planning is approved before 31st August 2015. After this date the project would have to re view the reduced income from the project due to Feed In Tariff degression and reduce the Com munity Benefits accordingly. We therefore request your help in achieving an earlier Planning Commitee date than the one currently proposed for 8th September in order to protect these Community Benefits.

Andrew Clarke
Director
The Resilience Centre Ltd
.
Judging from the overwhellming response of opposition, by original letters, from informed and concerned members of the community, from the Parish council, the FoDDC designated Officer’s report and from Government policy; I do believe that should the application ever be heard there are no moral nor public commercial reason why the project should be granted.

However should there be any attempt to continue bullying this application into being or effort to overturn a decision in favour of the community’s objection to this application, a full public enquiry should be held, with the applicant being responsible for placing a bond to cover any and all costs likely to be incurred by such an enquiry, particularly in the light of her failure to uphold the policies for which she was ostensibly elected and in the light of the fact that her position as the applicant was never announced in her election material or to the electorate at large.

Let it be noted that I endorse the tone and recommendation of the Officer’s Report and wholeheartedly object to the application PO365/15/FUL and similar applications on well documented planning and factual grounds.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins
eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com
Phone: 01594 – 528 337

Opposing A Wind Turbine:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

PS – 48:

At a meeting held in the Community by members of the Community on Monday 20-Jul-2015 it was appreciated that as Councillor Maria Edwards’ application was likely to be turned down it was likely that she, through her agents and partners Andrew & Sue Clarke who are ‘Resilience’ an appeal was likely. It was also probable, should the application be, for some vexatious reason, be approved then a Public Enquiry or Full Judicial Review would be called for by the Community.

It was therefore agreed by those present that there was a growing need to formalise the opposition to this prospective threat to our Community and the area at large. To this end it was agreed to call the ‘Group’ opposing the Giant Wind Turbines applied for on HGanley Hill, opposite Hanley Farm Shop between the A48 & the river, towering 337 feet above The Severn on Councillor Maria Edwards and her husband Lyndon Edwards’ farm Severndale Farm.

The name chosen was:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group

PS – 49:

It has become apparent, as a result of an enquiry, responded to by Councillor Helen Molyneux, that it would seem that FoDDC have acquiesced to the apparent implied blackmail on behalf of Councillor Maria Edwards of FoDDC Planning Committee made by her agent Andrew Clarke as shown in PS-47 above, as the planned date of 08-Sep-2015 for consideration of the application as scheduled has been brought forward to 11-Aug-2015.

The other reasonable assumption, if one does not consider the apparent blackmail has been effective, could be that FoDDC find their position to be acutely embarrassing in that the applicant is a councillor on the planning committee who was recently elected yet failed to advise the electorate that she would be making a planning application contra her party’s election manifesto, an application in her own right which has proved very strongly opposed by the ‘Community’ she perports to represent!

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

PS – 50:

Letter from
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
to members of the community

Dear Resident,
Severndale Farm Wind Turbine – Planning Update
As you may be aware, the Forest of Dean District Council Planning Committee is now meeting to make a decision on this application on 11th August. The application was scheduled for the earlier Planning Committee meeting in July, but was withdrawn at the last minute following a very late and lengthy additional submission from the applicants.
You may already have received a letter from the Council dated 15th July (see attached), which sets out how you can make further comments before the Planning Committee meets in just over two weeks.
These comments need to be made quoting PO/365/15/FUL by 29th July 2015. So we have less than one week. The applicants requested that the meeting was brought forward hence the need for urgent action.
The purpose of this letter is to bring this matter to your attention again, as you have previously submitted Objections to the application. Like you, we are a Group of concerned local residents who are firmly opposed to the Application and wish to ensure that the Council’s Planning Committee are fully aware of the local community’s very real concerns and reservations.
The good news is that the Council’s Planning Officers are recommending the Application be refused. However, the final decision rests with the Committee members voting on a majority basis on the 11th August 2015 and nothing can be taken for granted.
It is therefore vitally important that as many residents as possible submit additional objecting comments, as set out in the attached letter, to ensure that the Committee members are fully aware that the Application does NOT have the backing of the local community. Under the latest Planning Guidelines issued by the UK Government in June 2015, this is a key consideration that the Committee must take into account.
We would therefore urge each member of your household to submit additional comments clearly stating again your objections. Please ask similar thinking neighbours to do the same especially if they have not previously commented. These can be sent as before via the FDDC website ’Planning Applications’ or by e-mail or post and need to include your name and address to demonstrate that you are indeed members of the “local community”.
These do not need to be long submissions, but the larger the number of individual objections submitted, which should be in your own words, the more powerful the message will be that the local community are opposed to this application. Almost 100 local people submitted objections earlier in the year and we would like to see this number increased so that the message is very clear to the members of the Planning Committee –
“The local community does not want this wind turbine”

Thank you for your support.

For and on behalf of the Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group.

PS – 52:

24-Jul-2015

My thanks to Guido Fawkes for the heads up on this item:

Having read through the speech Amber Rudd made at today’s Aviva climate change conference it is hard not to be impressed by the sound common sense expressed by her as the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

She starts off by paying due lip service to the we-really-ought-to-do-something-about-climate-change brigade:

“We are committed to taking action on climate change and we are clear that our long-term economic plan goes hand in hand with a long-term plan for climate action. Climate action is about security, plain and simple – economic security. If we don’t act, it will become increasingly hard to maintain our prosperity, protect our people and conserve our countryside.”

Then she correctly identifies what is really driving the climate change activists:

“It cannot be left to one part of the political spectrum to dictate the solution and some of the loudest voices have approached climate action from a left wing perspective. So I can understand the suspicion of those who see climate action as some sort of cover for anti-growth, anti-capitalist, proto-socialism.”

And finishes with a very sound quote from Maggie Thatcher:

“But in her 2002 book ‘Statecraft’, Margaret Thatcher was also sensible enough to ask the question “can global warming be checked at an acceptable price?”

If there really is a genuine threat from global warming the solution can and has to be, as Rudd correctly says, practical. The bottom line is we have to make sure that climate change action is pro-growth, pro-business, using free enterprise and competition to drive down the costs of climate action. That is still an “if”… 

It must be remembered that there is a very large body of highly qualified scientific opinion that the anthropogenic element of climate change and global warming is all but insignificant and there is cogent debate and a clear case to show that the entire change of climate and global shifts in temperature are nothing more than cyclical, as we have been able to identify some 29 major ice age periods in our planet’s history and subsequent global warming that pre date mankind.

Clearly Gaia is a stronger force than mankind could ever hope to be!

In reality the jury is very much out on the issue of the anthropogenic content of climate change and it seems that a new warmist theory has to be invented on a regular basis to account for the global temperature fluctuations that keep outdating their latest theory!

May I commend you read Amber Rudd’s speech in detail – just CLICK HERE

PS – 53:

25-Jul-2015

Here is an item of correspondence, written in the light of PS-51 above, and circulated widely amongst the ‘Community’, members of ‘The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine’, our MP, our Councillors and the public at large, both locally and beyond:

Hi,

You will be pleased to note the steady updating on the web site:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/

particulary in the section regarding the parish of Tidenham’s District Councillor on the FoDDC Planning Committee Maria Edwards’ opportunistic planning application:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/

I appreciate the site is now packed with facts and views, documents and information – so far running to over 47,000 words with many dozens of links!

I appreciate that few will wish to read all this, but it is essential that we leave no details out and provide clear facts upon which people can make their judgement – we must NOT fall into the trap of providing inaccurate information nor distorting thwe truth inorder to preserve our rural area with all that it offers, we will not sink to the levels of distortiopn, bribery, blackmail that the applicant’s team would seem to be using to put themselves in a profitable situation at the expenswe of the tax payers and in breech of current Government policy as clearly stated in their manifesto, voted into being and presented in Parliament.

IF there is an appeal to the Planning Committee decision it is essential that it can be shown that our opposition has been ethical and honest – thus showing just how corrupt and dishonest the application was. You will note the amount of completely identical letters obtained in support have been, with signatures of very dubious worth, based on clearly misleading information. There is no way in which wind turbines can be descrtibed as environmentally sound and it is clear that the applicant is merely acting out of personal greed dependent on subsidies and inflated value of feed in tarriffs, hence the clear panic shown in their wordy and relatively pointless attempt to discredit the Officer’s report and then the thinly veiled blackmail threatening withdrawal of benefit if the hearing was not carried out to cash in on the current inflated tarriffs!

I do wonder if the applicant has read the DECC’s letter or the Government statement or even the debate in the House of Commons or even the manifesto of her own party or even perhaps whether her agents have hidden the facts, so as to continue charging fees, inspite of the facts!
PS – 51:

DECC – Onshore wind Letter 01
REDACTED NAME
& ADDRESS
Department of Energy & Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2AW

http://www.gov.uk

Our ref: TO2015/07548/JA

24 July 2015
Dear REDACTED NAME,
Thank you for your follow-up email of 6 July to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), about onshore wind subsidies. I have been asked to reply.
On 18 June, the Secretary of State announced to Parliament the end of new subsidies for onshore wind provided by the Renewables Obligation (RO) scheme and changes to planning laws so that local people will have the final say on onshore windfarm applications. While onshore wind power plays an important role in Britain’s energy industry, the Government believes there are now enough projects in development to help us meet our renewable electricity commitments. We plan to deliver these changes through an Energy Bill, which was presented into the House of Lords on 9 July.
The Secretary of State has proposed a grace period which would continue to give access to support under the RO to those projects which, as of 18 June, already had planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance, and evidence of land rights for the site on which their project will be built. These proposals are intended to deliver on the Conservative election manifesto commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind in a fair and balanced way. The Secretary of State’s statements may be viewed on the Parliament website.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/June%202015/18%20June/2-DECC-Wind.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150622/debtext/150622-0001.htm#1506227000002
In making this announcement, the Government has recognised that onshore wind has made a valuable contribution to the UK energy mix in recent years but has now reached the point where there is enough capacity in the pipeline for the UK to meet its 2020 renewable electricity commitments. The grace period arrangements the Government have proposed are intended to protect investor confidence in the wider renewables sector and balance the interests of onshore wind developers with consumers, who pay the cost of onshore wind support through their energy bill.

In her statement to Parliament on 18 June, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said that she now wants to hear views from the industry and other stakeholders before framing the terms of the legislation to deliver the Manifesto Commitment. Further to this, on 7 July we announced further information on the proposed grace periods and the engagement process, which can be viewed online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewables-obligation-ro-grace-period-for-new-onshore-wind
In particular, we are interested in hearing from developers with projects that are currently in the planning system, but which have not yet secured planning consent, and to receive information and evidence relating to:
o the stage that such projects have reached in the planning process, anticipated final planning decision dates, and expenditure incurred on projects as at the date of the Secretary of State’s announcement;
o project timetables and anticipated dates for securing a grid connection offer and acceptance; and
o the prospects of such projects being in a position to accredit under the RO by 31 March 2017 and expected final investment decision dates.
Information on future stakeholder engagement events across the UK will be published on this page shortly. We will consider carefully the level of investment that developers are likely to bring forward under the proposals announced by the Secretary of State on 18 June.
I hope that this is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
DECC Correspondence Unit
DO PLEASE NOTE:
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): My constituents will be delighted that we now have a Conservative Government, as under a coalition Government we would never have had this statement or this excellent Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. I have it clear in my mind, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Borough Council of Wellingborough turns down a planning application for a wind farm, its decision cannot be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?
Amber Rudd: Yes, I can confirm that.
Source Government web site from debate in Parliament as per Hansard 22 Jun 2015 : Column 633
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewables-obligation-ro-grace-period-for-new-onshore-wind

In the light of the facts: Do bear in mind that you can make further representation to the Council, up until the 29-Jul-2015, and I would like to encourage you to write to let them know exactly why you oppose this inappropriate industrial development of Hanley Hill, so close to the very dangerous A48 that it is likely to exacerbate that danger, and visible, spoiling the visual amenity, over a very special area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the Severn estuary – you might also wish to help by encouraging other members of the community to speak out and tell the truth about this odious application and just how environmentally damaging, inefficient and unreliable these giant wind turbines are.

If you need any further information do read the web site or by all means call me for a chat about it.

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

You are encouraged to circulate a similar letter in your own words if you are a member of the ‘Community’ or have an interest in the environment and the ‘Community’ and seek to help to oppose this opportunistic application.
Thanks.

PS – 54:

30-Jul-2015

Exposing the environmental damage caused by wind turbines – and this is only highlighting one of the many environmentally damaging costs of wind turbines – consider the huge production of pollutants particularly CO2 in the production of the vaste amount of cement required for a single mounting block for one of these inefficient pretences at a solution to anthropogenic global warming, which even the warmists can not show exists in any consequential measure!

In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

By SIMON PARRY in China and ED DOUGLAS in Scotland

Created: 19:32, 26 January 2011

View comments

This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines… and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem

 

The lake of toxic waste at Baotou, China, which as been dumped by the rare earth processing plants in the background

On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.

Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.

‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’

Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.

Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.

The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.

Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.

 

This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.

Wind power’s uncertainties don’t end with intermittency. There is huge controversy about how much energy a wind farm will produce (Pictured above, wind turbines in Dun Law, Scotland)

Rusting pipelines meander for miles from factories processing rare earths in Baotou out to the man-made lake where, mixed with water, the foul-smelling radioactive waste from this industrial process is pumped day after day. No signposts and no paved roads lead here, and as we approach security guards shoo us away and tail us. When we finally break through the cordon and climb sand dunes to reach its brim, an apocalyptic sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump, made bigger by every wind turbine we build.

The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.

For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.

Retired farmer Su Bairen, 69, who led us to the lake, says it was initially a novelty – a multi-coloured pond set in farmland as early rare earth factories run by the state-owned Baogang group of companies began work in the Sixties.

‘At first it was just a hole in the ground,’ he says. ‘When it dried in the winter and summer, it turned into a black crust and children would play on it. Then one or two of them fell through and drowned in the sludge below. Since then, children have stayed away.’

 

As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.

‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’

People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.

Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found.

Since then, maybe because of pressure from the companies operating around the lake, which pump out waste 24 hours a day, the results of ongoing radiation and toxicity tests carried out on the lake have been kept secret and officials have refused to publicly acknowledge health risks to nearby villages.

There are 17 ‘rare earth metals’ – the name doesn’t mean they are necessarily in short supply; it refers to the fact that the metals occur in scattered deposits of minerals, rather than concentrated ores. Rare earth metals usually occur together, and, once mined, have to be separated.

Villagers Su Bairen, 69, and Yan Man Jia Hong, 74, stand on the edge of the six-mile-wide toxic lake in Baotou, China that has devastated their farmland and ruined the health of the people in their community

 

Neodymium is commonly used as part of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) which, thanks to its tetragonal crystal structure, is used to make the most powerful magnets in the world. Electric motors and generators rely on the basic principles of electromagnetism, and the stronger the magnets they use, the more efficient they can be. It’s been used in small quantities in common technologies for quite a long time – hi-fi speakers, hard drives and lasers, for example. But only with the rise of alternative energy solutions has neodymium really come to prominence, for use in hybrid cars and wind turbines. A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material.

In the pollution-blighted city of Baotou, most people wear face masks everywhere they go.

‘You have to wear one otherwise the dust gets into your lungs and poisons you,’ our taxi driver tells us, pulling over so we can buy white cloth masks from a roadside hawker.

Posing as buyers, we visit Baotou Xijun Rare Earth Co Ltd. A large billboard in front of the factory shows an idyllic image of fields of sheep grazing in green fields with wind turbines in the background.

In a smartly appointed boardroom, Vice General Manager Cheng Qing tells us proudly that his company is the fourth biggest producer of rare earth metals in China, processing 30,000 tons a year. He leads us down to a complex of primitive workshops where workers with no protective clothing except for cotton gloves and face masks ladle molten rare earth from furnaces with temperatures of 1,000°C.

The result is 1.5kg bricks of neodymium, packed into blue barrels weighing 250kg each. Its price has more than doubled in the past year – it now costs around £80 per kilogram. So a 1.5kg block would be worth £120 – or more than a fortnight’s wages for the workers handling them. The waste from this highly toxic process ends up being pumped into the lake looming over Dalahai.

The state-owned Baogang Group, which operates most of the factories in Baotou, claims it invests tens of millions of pounds a year in environmental protection and processes the waste before it is discharged.

According to Du Youlu of Baogang’s safety and environmental protection department, seven million tons of waste a year was discharged into the lake, which is already 100ft high and growing by three feet each year.

In what appeared an attempt to shift responsibility onto China’s national leaders and their close control of the rare earths industry, he added: ‘The tailing is a national resource and China will ultimately decide what will be done with the lake.’

 

Jamie Choi, an expert on toxics for Greenpeace China, says villagers living near the lake face horrendous health risks from the carcinogenic and radioactive waste.

‘There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment. Ores are being extracted by pumping acid into the ground, and then they are processed using more acid and chemicals.

Inside the Baotou Xijun Rare Earth refinery in Baotou, where neodymium, essential in new wind turbine magnets, is processed

Finally they are dumped into tailing lakes that are often very poorly constructed and maintained. And throughout this process, large amounts of highly toxic acids, heavy metals and other chemicals are emitted into the air that people breathe, and leak into surface and ground water. Villagers rely on this for irrigation of their crops and for drinking water. Whenever we purchase products that contain rare earth metals, we are unknowingly taking part in massive environmental degradation and the destruction of communities.’

The fact that the wind-turbine industry relies on neodymium, which even in legal factories has a catastrophic environmental impact, is an irony Ms Choi acknowledges.

‘It is a real dilemma for environmentalists who want to see the growth of the industry,’ she says. ‘But we have the responsibility to recognise the environmental destruction that is being caused while making these wind turbines.’

It’s a long way from the grim conditions in Baotou to the raw beauty of the Monadhliath mountains in Scotland. But the environmental damage wind turbines cause will be felt here, too. These hills are the latest battleground in a war being fought all over Britain – and particularly in Scotland – between wind-farm developers and those opposed to them.

Cameron McNeish, a hill walker and TV presenter who lives in the Monadhliath, campaigned for almost a decade against the Dunmaglass wind farm before the Scottish government gave the go-ahead in December. Soon, 33 turbines will be erected on the hills north of the upper Findhorn valley.

McNeish is passionate about this landscape: ‘It’s vast and wild and isolated,’ he says. Huge empty spaces, however, are also perfect for wind turbines and unlike the nearby Cairngorms there are no landscape designations to protect this area. When the Labour government put in place the policy framework and subsidies to boost renewable energy, the Monadhliath became a mouth-watering opportunity.

People have been trying to make real money from Scottish estates like Jack Hayward’s Dunmaglass. Hayward, a Bermuda-based property developer and former chairman of Wolverhampton Wanderers, struck a deal with renewable energy company RES which, campaigners believe, will earn the estate an estimated £9 million over the next 25 years.

Each of the turbines at Dunmaglass will require servicing, which means a network of new and improved roads 20 miles long being built across the hills. They also need 1,500 tons of concrete foundations to keep them upright in a strong wind, which will scar the area.

Dunmaglass is just one among scores of wind farms in Scotland with planning permission. Scores more are still in the planning system. There are currently 3,153 turbines in the UK overall, with a maximum capacity of 5,203 megawatts.

Around half of them are in Scotland. First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish government have said they want to get 80 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from renewables by 2020, which means more turbines spread across the country’s hills and moors.

Many environmental pressure groups share Salmond’s view. Friends of the Earth opposes the Arctic being ruined by oil extraction, but when it comes to damaging Scotland’s wilderness with concrete and hundreds of miles of roads, they say wind energy is worth it as the impact of climate change has to be faced.

‘No way of generating energy is 100 per cent clean and problem-free,’ says Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at Friends of the Earth.

‘Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don’t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.’

But Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, a small but feisty campaign group dedicated to protecting Scotland’s wild lands, also points out that leaving aside the damage to the landscape, nobody is really sure how much carbon is being released by the renewable energy construction boom. Peat moors lock up huge amounts of carbon, which gets released when it’s drained to put up a turbine.

Environmental considerations aside, as the percentage of electricity generated by wind increases, renewable energy is coming under a lot more scrutiny now for one simple reason – money. We pay extra for wind power – around twice as much – because it can’t compete with other forms of electricity generation. Under the Renewable Obligation (RO), suppliers have to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable generators and can hand that cost on to consumers. If they don’t, they pay a fine instead.

One unit cell of Nd2Fe14b, the alloy used in neodymium magnets. The structure of the atoms gives the alloy its magnetic strength, due to a phenomenon known as magnetocrystalline anisotropy

There’s a simple beauty about RO for the government. Even though it’s defined as a tax, it doesn’t come out of pay packets but is stuck on our electricity bills. That has made funding wind farms a lot easier for the government than more cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

‘If you want a grant for an energy conservation project on your house,’ says Helen McDade, ‘the money comes from taxes. But investment for turbines comes from energy companies.’

Already, RO adds £1.4 billion to our bills each year to provide a pot of money to pay power companies for their ‘green’ electricity. By 2020, the figure will have risen to somewhere between £5 billion and £10 billion.

When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown added another decade to these price guarantees, extending the RO scheme to 2037, guaranteeing the subsidy for more than a quarter of a century.

It’s not surprising there’s been an avalanche of wind-farm applications in the Highlands. Wind speeds are stronger, land is cheaper and the government loves you.

‘You go to a landowner,’ McDade says, ‘and offer him what is peanuts to an energy company yet keeps him happily on his estate so they can put up a wind farm, which in turn raises ordinary people’s electricity bills. There’s a social issue here that doesn’t get discussed.’

By 2020, environmental regulation will be adding 31 per cent to our bills. That’s £160 green tax out of an average annual bill of £512. As costs rise, more people will be driven into fuel poverty. When he was secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband decreed that these increases should be offset by improvements in energy efficiencies.

It’s a view shared by his successor Chris Huhne, who says inflation due to RO will be effectively one per cent. Britain’s low-income families, facing hikes in petrol and food costs, will hope he’s right.

Individual households aren’t the only ones shouldering the costs. Industry faces an even bigger burden. By 2020, environmental charges will add 33 per cent to industry’s energy costs.

Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, says that, ‘Industry is getting the worst of both worlds. Around 80 per cent of the contracts for the new Thanet offshore wind farm (off the coast of Kent) went abroad, but the expensive electricity will be paid for here.’

Our current obsession with wind power, according to John Constable of energy think-tank the Renewable Energy Foundation, stems from the decision of the European Union on how to tackle climate change. Instead of just setting targets for reducing emissions, the EU told governments that by 2020, 15 per cent of all the energy we use must come from renewable sources.

Because of how we heat our houses and run our cars with gas and petrol, 30 per cent of electricity needs to come from renewables. And in the absence of other technologies, that means wind turbines. But there’s a structural flaw in the plan, which this winter has brutally exposed.

Study a graph of electricity consumption and it appears amazingly predictable, even down to reduced demand on public holidays. The graph for wind energy output, however, is far less predictable.

Take the figures for December, when we all shivered through sub-zero temperatures and wholesale electricity prices surged. Peak demand for the UK on 20 December was just over 60,000 megawatts. Maximum capacity for wind turbines throughout the UK is 5,891 megawatts, almost ten per cent of that peak demand figure.

Yet on December 20, because winds were light or non-existent, wind energy contributed a paltry 140 megawatts. Despite billions of pounds in investment and subsidies, Britain’s wind-turbine fleet was producing a feeble 2.43 per cent of its own capacity – and little more than 0.2 per cent of the nation’s electricity in the coldest month since records began.

The problems with the intermittency of wind energy are well known. A new network of cables linking ten countries around the North Sea is being suggested to smooth supply and take advantage of 140 gigawatts of offshore wind power. No one knows for sure how much this network will cost, although a figure of £25 billion has been mooted.

The government has also realised that when wind nears its target of 30 per cent, power companies will need more back-up to fill the gap when the wind doesn’t blow. Britain’s total capacity will need to rise from 76 gigawatts up to 120 gigawatts. That overcapacity will need another £50 billion and drive down prices when the wind’s blowing. Power companies are anxious about getting a decent price. Once again, consumers will pay.

Wind power’s uncertainties don’t end with intermittency. There is huge controversy about how much energy a wind farm will produce. Many developers claim their installations will achieve 30 per cent of their maximum output over the course of a year. More sober energy analysts suggest 26 per cent. But even that figure is starting to look generous. In December, the average figure was less than 21 per cent. In the year between October 2009 and September 2010, the average was 23.6 per cent, still nowhere near industry claims.

Then there’s the thorny question of how many homes new installations can power. According to wind farm developers like Scottish and Southern Electricity, a house uses 3.3MWh in a year. Lobby group RenewablesUK – formerly the British Wind Energy Association – gives a figure of 4.7MWh. In the Highlands electricity usage is even higher.

Last year, a report from the Royal Academy of Engineering warned that transforming our energy supply to produce a low-carbon economy would require the biggest investment and social change seen in peacetime. And yet Professor Sue Ion, who led the report, warned, ‘We are nowhere near having a plan.’

So, against the backdrop of environmental catastrophe in China and these less than attractive calculations, could the billions being thrown at wind farms be better spent? Undoubtedly, says John Constable.

‘The government is betting the farm on the throw of a die. What’s happening now is simply reckless.’

NUCLEAR, COAL, SOLAR, HYDRO, WIND: HOW THE ENERGY OPTIONS STACK UP

 

Enlarge  

The British energy market is a hugely complicated and ever-changing landscape. We rely on a number of different sources for our energy – some more efficient than others, some more polluting than others.

Here, you can see how much energy each type contributes, how much they are predicted to contribute in 2020, how much carbon dioxide they generate and how efficient they are.

Renewable energy sources receive varying subsidies – which are added to our energy bills – as a result of the government’s Renewables Obligation, whereas ‘traditional’ sources do not.

Critically, government cost figures do not include subsidies, whereas our measure shows precisely how much money a power station receives for each megawatt-hour (MWh) it produces, which includes the price paid for the energy by the supplier and any applicable subsidy. This is an instant measure of an energy supply’s cost-efficiency; the lower the figure, the less that energy costs to produce.

Note: figures relate to UK energy production. Approximately seven per cent of our electricity comes from imports or other sources

PS – 55:

08-Aug-2015

A letter from The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine

Dear Planning Committee Members,

I am writing to you in advance of the forthcoming 11 August committee, as a representative of the local affected community who are opposed to Severndale wind turbine and who will have just a 3 minute opportunity to address you on the day.

This application has created significant concerns and impact on those who live within the communities of Tidenham and Stroat. Your planning officer has dealt admirably with the volume and complexity of the application. It has led to extensive energy and time commitments by many individuals, entering into detailed correspondence with the planning authority, putting forward their concerns and queries. Not all of this correspondence has made it onto the planning portal associated with the application. Hence the need to bring this summary to your attention, in advance of the meeting.

Set out below is a summary of the principle concerns the affected community has and the reasons why we believe the committee should support your officer’s recommendation for a refusal of the application:

Our objections and the reasons why the planning committee should refuse the application are based on the following:

• There has been a lack of affected local community involvement and open discussion regarding this application;
• The applicant’s agent has used data in contravention of data protection laws as documented by the Information Commission Office Decision for case RFA0584190 of 21 July 2015. This is in relation to parts of their application and as such information from the alleged public exhibition meeting at which comments from the community were sort, should be disregarded;
• Following the House of Commons written statement of 18th of June, there is a clear lack of “affected local community” support for this scheme. The written statement is clear that such support should provide the final say so on such applications. Please note the word “affected local community” in the written statement. In the event of a refusal, the applicant is likely to appeal the decision. We feel the written reasons for any refusal should be robust and specifically contain reference to the lack of community support;
• The elected Tidenham Parish Council, representing the immediate area continues to object to the application;
• The elected Parish Council of Oldbury on Severn objects to the application on the basis it will materially affect the landscape value, historic environment and amenity of public rights of way on both sides of the estuary and the application does not provide a comprehensive cumulative picture of the effect turbines are having on the Severn Estuary as a whole;
• Analysis has been submitted that clearly highlights on a parish map that public respondees within Tidenham Parish itself are against the application. This ignores any online canvassing, or the use of pre-populated letters, parties with conflicted interests to the applicant and just highlights those who have expressed their own personal and researched views. It provides a clear indication of an overwhelming majority of people within the parish that do not support this application;
• The height and prominent location of the moving turbine , at 87m to tip located on top of a 22m hill above estuary level, will be a significant intrusive impact on the landscape, character and general visual amenity. It will be detrimental to the vista of the Severn estuary flood plains;
• The Ramblers Association object as the proposal would result in a loss of visual amenity from public rights of way. They have concerns this will affect tourists, as well as local walkers and talk of visible and negative effects as a direct result of the turbine from both sides of the Severn Vale;
• The Council’s own conservation advisor continues to highlight that the proposed development will fail to preserve the settings of the listed buildings at Philpots Court and Tippets Barn. He also highlights the harm that will be caused to non-designated heritage assets at the Former Vicarage and village school at Tidenham. All in contravention to section 66 of the planning (listed building and conservation areas) act 1990 and the National planning policy framework Section 12;
• Historic England continue to comment that the turbine will cause harm to the significance of the Roman Villa at Boughspring. Commenting there needs to be clear and convincing justification that the public benefits outweigh that harm (in accordance with NPPF 132);
• Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology have raised concerns regarding adverse impact on settings of similar designated heritage assets;
• We have significant concerns regarding the last minute submissions and then the process of a local authorities biodiversity officer seemingly being able to swiftly accept the ecology effects as satisfactory via a simple walkover survey on 1st of July. This contradicts with previous concerns that both bird and bat surveys are outdated, having been undertaken 4 years ago in 2011. Whilst clear recommendations for planning conditions are recommended, the apparent ability for an officer to rely on data more than 4 years old is questionable in terms of both appropriate practice and open governance. Especially given that Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust highlight internationally protected species being present at the site in 2011. The officer’s approach is in stark contrast to the RSPB’s written letter of objection submitted to the planning authority dated 26 May 2015 (which is not shown on the Planning portal);
• The council’s sustainability team leader continues to advise the council that the application will result in significant adverse landscape impact, does not meet the local authorities guidance and fails to meet the requirements of chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework;
• As a local community we have significant road safety concerns with regard to the accident black spot that is the A48. This relates to both the short and long term affects and has been over simplified by the single statutory consultation. In recent weeks the Forrester newspaper has reported on the need to reduce the local casualty rates on the A48 and in particular to its southern sections. Also within the last few weeks we are aware of 3 vehicles being in the hedgerow/accidents very close to the layby near the site. We are also tragically all too aware of at least one fatality and serious injury within very close proximity in the last 12 months. These accidents, and the foreseeable risks of a distracting turbine and vehicle movements in the area, are completely overlooked by Gloucestershire Highways, who have commented on just construction traffic. The local authority cannot ignore these published concerns for improving the road safety, or the foreseeable risk of a distracting 87 metre moving turbine in close proximity to a recognised accident black spot. A single distraction on a 60mph high-speed single carriageway (where speed limits are frequently ignored by motorcyclists and cars) will directly lead to further accidents and fatalities; and
• Queries have been raised on the accuracy of figures in relation to the community fund payments. Recent submissions by the applicant are endeavouring to persuade the council that significant monetary payments will outweigh the negative impact of the turbine on the affected community. It is questionable as to whether the figures submitted are commercially deliverable. It is also clear the council has no ability to control any such agreements, either via attaching planning conditions or being party to such agreements. As such this cannot be relied on. The officer has clearly recommended that this material should not be a consideration in determining the application.

It is on this basis that the harm identified in respect of the landscape, heritage assets and lack of support from the affected community significantly outweigh the benefits of the application and planning consent should be refused.

Finally, we are surprised that the decision to arrange for the application to be heard in August was feasible, given we were told previously by council officials this would be presented at September’s committee to allow full consultation and appropriate reviews. The need to withdraw the application from the July committee was as a direct result of late submissions by the applicant. We have concerns that this change of date to the August committee raises questions of transparency. And whether there may have been undue influence due to the applicant’s disclosable pecuniary interest and that the non-material planning matters as contained in the applicants letter of 15 July on community benefit (In which the applicant details commercial funding risks associated with a September committee decision) have been weighted in favour of the applicant. This information, in line with other published planning appeal decisions, falls outside the scope of Section 106(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and fails the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended. It should therefore not be a material consideration to the planning process or decision.

Please ensure this correspondence is taken on board fully in making your decision next week.

Yours sincerely

Robert Hillman BSc (Hons) MRICS
For and on behalf of The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine
Comprising of:
ADLAM, Jackie & Peter
AVERY-BROWN, Liz & Bill
BOLLEN, David
BOLT, Lisa
BROOKES, Tracey & Andy
BROWN, Louella & David
CROSS, Nigel and Samantha
FORD, Claire & Roger
GOATMAN, Fiona & Robert
HILLMAN, Robert & Alison
HOLLIES, Lindsay & Mark
LANCE-WATKINS, Lee & Greg
MAYO, Molly & Keith
NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue
REES, James & Clare
SMITH, Pam & David
WRIGHT, Sue and Peter

PS – 56:

11-Aug-2015

PRESS RELEASE, subsequent to Planning Committee meeting of 11-Aug-2915.

On behalf of:
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine

PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday 11-Aug-2015

We are extremely disapointed that the Forest of Dean District Council has ignored both the wishes of the local community in Tidenham and new Conservative Government Policy Guidance and has granted planning permission for the erection of a 300ft+ high wind turbine at Severndale Farm,. Given that the applicant. Mrs. Maria Edwards, is the newly elected Conservative member of the Forest of Dean District Council Planning Committee for Tidenham Ward, concerned local residents will be taking legal advice on the handling of this application by the District Council.

This was issued together with a copy of the letter in the PS-54 above.

PS – 57:

16-Aug-2015

G.L-W. letter to Mark Harper MP requesting his attendance at The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group meeting in Stroat:

From: Greg Lance-Watkins [mailto:greg_l-w@btconnect.com]
Sent: 17 August 2015 03:11
To: MARK HARPER MP; Mark Harper MP for The Forest of Dean
Cc: ‘Greg Lance-Watkins’; admin@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk; clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk
Subject: re Government Policy & Local Responsibility re: P0365/15/FUL

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)
At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

re Government Policy & Local Responsibility re: P0365/15/FUL

Hi,

You will be aware that not only have I written to you in detail regarding Government policy regarding wind turbines but also regarding the issues surrounding the particular application for a wind turbine, standing 337 feet above the Severn Estuary on Hanley Hill in Stroat, as a dangerous moving distraction alongside the A48, which is Europe’s most dangerous major road in terms of fatalities per mile travelled!

You will be aware that I have had several conversations with your office manager Ben Stone, and others in your constituency office, in which I have expressed deep concern at the lack of integrity of members of the Conservative representation on the Forest of Dean Districty Council, eg that they were recently elected on a Conservative Manifesto, to which none demured, yet they have failed to advise the electorate of their personal interests, that were counter that manifesto, during the electoral period – thus their actions bringing the Conservative Party and the Council into disrepute are clear.

I appreciate that you will do all you can to avoid becoming embroilled in a matter of such contention, however I am also aware that as a Government Whip it is your duty to seek to bring about Government stated policy, particularly in respect of both the Party Manifesto and clearly declared Government Policy, as presented by Ministers and spokesmen for the Cabinet, both in the House of Commons and elsewhere in public and on public media.

You will also be well aware that I have not only managed a web presence on the matter, now running to some 55,000 words of facts and views generally pertaining to Wind Turbines and largely directly apposite to the application for a Turbine at Severndale Farm. The web site can be found at:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat
where you will also find copies of many of my letters and also those of others pertinent to this planning application, which is clearly seen by many as a direct and flagrant disregard for the intent and spirit of official Conservative Government stated policy and Manifesto commitments.

You will also be aware that I have been in close liason with:
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
which includes members of the immediate community
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 sparsley 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 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 solicited by the applicants, either as potential beneficiaries in the scheme , tenants or employees!

It is for this reason we call upon you to act, as our constituency MP, in defence of your Government’s stated policy that decisions of this ilk should be made by the community – a policy that has clearly been ignored by your party within the FoDDC and particularly the planning committee who perversely and vexatiously acted against the direct advice of the Planning Officer in a manner which seems all too readily to appear a corruption of due process.

On Monday you will receive a copy of a letter seeking to ‘call in this application’, sent on behalf of our ‘community’ to:
Greg Clarke – Secretary of State for Communities & Local Environment
In the light of his clear and unequivocal pronouncements and undertakings in the House of Commons with regard to local community decision making and other aspects of this application, as also presented by Amber Rudd in the house and elsewhere.

You will be aware that this action must be taken before the official Council publication of the results of the planning application, thus time is of the essence.

Additionally we have six weeks from the official publication by the FoDDC Planning Committee’s judgement to then consider and seek a Judicial Review of the process and the dubious actions of Councillors in the manner of their election, their subsequent behaviour and their perverse and vexatious decision which would seem in some aspects not only to be perverse but also contra Government policy and possibly even corrupt.

As this could lead to private individuals incurring costs in upholding your Government’s clearly stated policy we therefore request that you arrange an urgent meeting with representatives of:
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
At a venue in the immediate area of the site of the application, within the ‘community’, which being residents in this immediate area we can readily provide.

You are all too welcome to bring your Conservative Council leader with you but clearly his direct involvement in the appointment of candidates and more importantly the appointment of Cllr. Maria Edwards, whose position is morally untennable, particularly as a member of the planning committee with direct interests in numerous applications, which places his judgement in question, particularly as his Mother is presented as one of our 3 District Councillors in Tidenham; alongside the Labour turncoat Gethen Davies, who most clearly had little understanding of Conservative Manifesto commitments and stated policy, as evidenced by his lack of understanding of the issues, or of Wind Turbines in general, as evidenced by his comments recorded at the planning committee.

We will seek to accommodate your time requirements where possible and look forward to meeting with you in the community at your earliest convenience.
.

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

http://GregLanceWatkins.com
http://GregLanceWatkins.com/my-other-blogs-etc
http://GregLW.com
http://GL-W.com
http://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com

http://JustSayNOtoEU.com

http://Leave-The-EU.org.uk
http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com
http://ChristopherStory.org

Opposing A Wind Turbine:
http://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
TWITTER: @Greg_LW
Skype: gregl-w
FleXcit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfEo_TNllk4
FleXcit full text: http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
For detailed analysis of selected items in the news:
http://www.eureferendum.com
PLEASE NOTE:
I never post anonymously on the internet.
For details & declaration of accuracy please see:
ACCURACY & THE TRUTH …

PS – 58:

17-Aug-2015

Robert Hillman’s letter on behalf of The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group to Sec.State Greg Clark MP requesting the Council’s procedure be ‘Called In’

Here is a draft copy of the letter to the Secretary of State Greg Clarke MP copies of which were mailed to:
the local MP Mark Harper
the National Planning Casework Unit – npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Stephen Colegate Planning officer FODDC
& numerous other concerned individuals.

In the interest of transparency and as the letter is clearly no confidential I include it here:

From: Robert Hillman P&C
Sent: 16 August 2015 17:36
To: REDACTED
Subject: Private – Calling in Procedure request in relation to 87m wind turbine on edge of River Severn Estuary – planning application no. P0365/15/FUL Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation – Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow NP16
VERY URGENT
Dear Minister,

On Tuesday 11th August the Forest of Dean District Council Planning Committee resolved to grant consent to the above application (the Application).

The outcome is of national importance, as the Planning Committee verbal decision was made with a disregard and/or misunderstanding for full and proper consideration of your 18th June 2015 guidance in relation to impacts on the “local affected community”.

I write, as a representative of the local affected community, and to request the “Calling in” of the Application for your own determination. Accordingly, with respect, this matter requires your urgent attention, given that the written decision of the Forest of Dean District Council application is now imminently pending.

Background:

THIS SECTION CURRENTLY WITHELD PENDING RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER CONCERNED so as to be assured we are not in any way prejudicing our legal position in the long run.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email correspondence by return

Your sincerely

Robert Hillman
For and on behalf of The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine
Comprising of

Elizabeth-Avery & William Avery-Brown Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from turbine
David Bollen – High Hall Farm – within 750m of turbine
Tracey & Andy Brookes – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine
Louella & David Brown – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine
Nigel & Linda Elsby – Stroat House – within 1.5kms of the turbine
Claire & Roger Ford – The steps – approximately 500m form the turbine
Fiona & Robert Goatman – Beverstone Farm – approximately 1km from turbine
Robert & Alison Hillman Philpots Court Farm – within 700m of Turbine
Lindsay & Mark Hollies – Chapel House, Hanley Lane – within 1km of turbine
Lee & Greg Lance-Watkins – Home Cottage Stroat – within 1.5km of turbine
Molly & Keith Mayo – Wibdon Farm – within 650 to 700m from turbine
Pam & David Smith – Old Post Office within 900m of turbine
Sue and Peter Wright – Little Wibdon, Stroat, approx. 500 – 550meters from turbine
Lisa Bolt – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m of turbine
James & Clare Rees – Greystones within 775m of turbine
Andrew and Sue Nairne 4 Philpots Court – within 700m of turbine
Nigel and Samantha Cross 3 Philpots Court – within 700m of turbine
Pam Davidson – The Garstons – within 750m of turbine

PS – 59:

18-Aug-2015

Meeting of Planning of 11-Aug-2015 AUDIO Recording posted – LINK

The full audio of FoDDC Planning Committee of 11-Aug-2015, in the Council chambers meeting is now available for all to hear ta:
http://www.fdean.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=7081&tt=graphic&externalurl=meetings.fdean.gov.uk:80/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=245&MId=1361&Ver=4

this will take you directly to the site and then click on Play Audio which is below
>Contact Alison Tomlin<.

It is the first item on the agenda and the section pertinent to the Severndale Planning Application to industrialise the open space between the A48 and the River Severn commences at some 7 minutes into the recording.

I attended the meeting as did a number of members of The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group and supporters who oppose this dangerous instalation and the precedent it may well set for industrialisation of the open banks of the River Severn.

The meeting was a verys sad afair, when considering the integrity and intellect of local democracy and gave the impression that the whole process had been corrupted by the exploitation of the general level of utter incompetence and gullibility of the elected Councillors who spoke to the issue. It became clear they had little or no knowledge of the issues, had clearly read little on the subject, had paid scant, if any, notice of the salaried expertise of the FoDDC report and recommendation and had even less understanding of current law and Government policy.

That Tidenham District Councillor had so little comand of his brief and failed to recognise the staggeringly few advocates of the application who had made other than acquiescence to a standard letter and misleading social media comment was apparent but not considered as Gethyn Davies rummaged through the script he had prepared, unable to find the documents required!

Tidenham’s other District Councillor Maria Edwards recused herself from the proceedings being the applicant in this case and alsdo involved in at least 2 other planning issues!

You will hear from the recording that NONE of the Councillors on the committee brought to bear any planning issues and contented themselves with anecdotal opinions and unrelated views in a staggering display of ineptitude – clearly having accepted the presentation of Maria Edwards application and her agent and co partner’s disparaging remarks about the FoDDC’s Planning Report and recommendation, also her husband passed himself off as the applicant when presenting her case in a very biased manner seemingly claiming support for the project was widespread and informed when clearly that was not the case.

It was also a sad day for democracy when so many Councillors saw fit to totally overlook the clear majority view and opposition fromn Tidenham Parish Council and those who will be directly effected by thwe imposition of this industrial instalation. It was overlooked that support for the turbine from the immediate area was almost all in the form of solicited signatures on standard letters from tennants and employees of Maria Edwards and her husband, whilst the balance of the support was seemingly from an ill informed wider area using standard preprinted letters and signature to on line petitions – in the misguided belief that Wind Turbines are in some way ecologically sound and a viable alternative supply of power – which they most clearly are not.

Asd has been shown on this site not only are wind turbines of this ilk hugely environmentally damaging, not only to birds, bats and the like but in terms of long term soil damage and the eco system in general, also in the prodigious output of so called global warming gases, such as CO2, in their manufacture, a Carbon damage which takes some 10 to 15 years of output of these giant turbines, at optimum levels, to compensate for the damage done in manufacture and construction. The CO2 output of the concrete required for the plinth alone is quite staggering!

PS – 60:

19-Aug-2015
Article of 07-Jul-2015 showing Wind Turbines are more expensive and more pointless than you may have realised – JUST A COSTLY SCAM!

Firstly let us not forget that the ‘Climate Change Bill’ was forced through parliament based largely on populism and an attempt to buy votes by the Lib.Dims. who used their coalition position to effectively blackmail the Tories into acquiescing to policies no one would rationally adopt, in order to hang onto power! The Climate Change Bill has been recognised by many analysts as the most expensive Parliamentary Bill ever enacted and by a large body of informed scientists as inept, ineffectual and merely lip service to a politically correct fashion movement  – leading to a position where the rich and land owners are eble to become enriched at no consequential gain to society but at great cost to those least able to afford the subsidies required for their enrichment!

Yet another suposedly ‘Green’ policy which damages the planet and people in equal measure!

Study: Wind Farms Even More Expensive And Pointless Than You Thought

by James Delingpole7 Jul 2015

PS – 61:

19-Aug-2015

Turbine gets go-ahead

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

A WIND turbine – which supporters claim could plough at least £500,000 back into the community over the next 25 years – has been given the green light by Forest councillors.

Around 60 campaigners turned up at the Forest of Dean District Council offices, in Coleford, to support the application at Severndale Farm in Tidenham.

The application for Resilient Energy’s third community-scale wind turbine in the district was recommended for refusal by planning officers who claimed it would have ‘significant adverse impacts’ on the landscape.

The decision was given the go-ahead by 10 to three and one abstention.

The application has been controversial with some residents opposing the turbine and an online campaign particularly on the grounds of noise and visual intrusion.

The Forest council say while they are keen to support any initiatives that help the environment and are good for the community, each will be considered on its own merits and must comply with national and our local planning policy.

Janine Michael, from Dean Community Energy group, said: “We are pleased councillors recognise the community benefits this scheme will bring. This was a great example of democracy in action.”

The wind turbine is capable of generating an amount of energy which is the equivalent required for 275 homes. The energy generated is sold onto the national grid with any profits given back to the community.

Resilient Energy’s first wind turbine at Great Dunkilns Farm in St Briavels has been operating since January 2013, and has so far provided £25,000 to local causes. A second turbine at Alvington Court is expected to complete this autumn.

Director of the Resilience Centre, Andrew Clarke said: “The decision to give permission for the project is great news. We will now commence raising money from sale of shares in the project to the public. We expect the shares to return 7 per cent each year in interest to investors plus Enterprise Investment Tax relief from the UK Government which in effect pays you back for 30 per cent of the shares you buy via tax rebate. 

“We expect the money to be raised by end of 2015 and construction to start in spring 2016. Our Alvington Court turbine is set for completion next month.

“An independent community panel will decide how the money is distributed while any surplus monies will be decided by a board of directors.”

Applicants Green Energy were also given the nod for a commercial solar farm at Tump Farm, Sedbury on Friday by planning officer Mr Tony Pope.

Farmer Lyndon Edwards said he was pleased that councillors had backed the scheme and added that the turbine will be erected in the next 12 months.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

This article seems to be so riddled with inaccuracies, I believe it is worthy of fisking, to see if I can get to the truth. I believe it was written in good faith by the paper but without questioning any of the claims, in almost as naiive a manner as that seemingly adopted by the FoDDC planning committee councillors!

Let us see:

A WIND turbine – which supporters claim could plough at least £500,000 back into the community over the next 25 years – has been given the green light by Forest councillors.

Supporters have claimed that the 4% share of profits that will accrue to the community will be a sum between £500,000 and £1,000,000 – this is clearly imaginitive as that indicates, based upon the life expectancy of the installation and current figures show that to be between 10 and 12 years, the amount annually paid would be between £41,666 & £83,333 ( giving the benefit of the doubt of 12 year service!). That indicates an annual profit for the applicant of an unlikely £1,041,666 to £2,083,333.

The hypothetical/fantasy figures just do not measure with reality as the applicant’s agents resiliance have confirmed tyhat the sililar sized turbine in St. Briavels has only contributed £15,666 a year to date!

Minded that a single fatality on the A48, contributed to by this massive moving distraction and the increased traffic will give a cost to the community at large of over £250,000 on todays figures, let alone the inflationary costs in 10 years time or a multiple fatality and injuries of a single accident in the next 10 years!

Even accepting the fancifull figures of the applicant, there is no enforcable contract for these sums which amount in fact to a mere £20,000 a year which in a community, even accepting Tidenham Parish to be the effected community -which it is not -, is very small beer! It amounts to less than £5 per household per annum! Whilst the applicants expect to make figures between £1 & £2 Million a year!

Around 60 campaigners turned up at the Forest of Dean District Council offices, in Coleford, to support the application at Severndale Farm in Tidenham.

Interestingly there is no mention of the fact that few of them seemed to be homeowners with a long term commitment to the community, nor is there mention of the obvious fact that their presence was organised by the applicant and many were from other areas, few if any were members ! Neither was there any mention of the numerous independent members of the community who had attended who were present! A strange concept of balanced reporting.

The application for Resilient Energy’s third community-scale wind turbine in the district was recommended for refusal by planning officers who claimed it would have ‘significant adverse impacts’ on the landscape.

This is a very simplistic dismisal of the Planning Officer’s detailed and comprehensive report which ran to some 20 pages of accurate data, as opposed to the selective sales pitch of the applicants claims!

The decision was given the go-ahead by 10 to three and one abstention.

A sad reflection on the standard of decisionmaking and even possible corruption of the due process within the FoDDC planning committee!

The application has been controversial with some residents opposing the turbine and an online campaign particularly on the grounds of noise and visual intrusion.

That the overwhelming percentage of independent members of the community were opposed to the application and wrote reasoned and detailed letters of objection is an undeniable fact, albeit overlooked. Support for the application seems to have been almost exclusively garnered from the internet and with standard proforma letters, solicited by the professional company working with the applicant, Councillor Maria Edwards. Many of the supporting letters, from within the area, seem to have been from tennants and employees of the Edwards family!

It would be of help if the press would direct interested parties to the online campaign based upon noise and visual aspects as I for one am unaware of such a campaign and am unable to locate it even with Google!

The Forest council say while they are keen to support any initiatives that help the environment and are good for the community, each will be considered on its own merits and must comply with national and our local planning policy.

Understanding of what is and what is not environmentally beneficial would seem to be beyond the understanding of FoDDC planning committee!

Janine Michael, from Dean Community Energy group, said: “We are pleased councillors recognise the community benefits this scheme will bring. This was a great example of democracy in action.”

Dean Community Energy Group would seem to be a largely moribund organisation supporting a web site which runs to 4 items of news, the last being from December 2013! The site has 4 pages, put together in a manner not disimilar to that used by The Resiliance Company in their commercial interest and no readily identifiable individual participants – I suspect it is a commercial spin off of the wind turbine scam in general!

The wind turbine is capable of generating an amount of energy which is the equivalent required for 275 homes. The energy generated is sold onto the national grid with any profits given back to the community.

This is tortolagous twaddle!
Firstly wind turbines are so grossly inefficient they can not be relied upon to produce one iota of power when required! Even on the applicants fantasy figures based upon 24/7 optimum power generation – which NEVER occurs – this means Tidenham requires some 20 such turbines for domestic requirements alone!

As for giving ANY PROFITS to the community this is a dishonest misrepresentation as even the applicants are only talking of a small percentage of the profit! It would also seem, from data in the public domain, that the applicant Councillor Maria Edward’s agents Resilience, in one or other of their corporate guises, extract a basic fee of between 9 & 10% in perpituity from the gross income, together no doubt with direct fees based upon costs and profits thereon – then of course any disbursements by way of income to any investors be they Resilience its owners or international corporate investors.

Thus the net bribe to the effective community, which has NOT been clearly defined, is ever diminishing being a very small percentage of the residual profit in prescribed areas!

Resilient Energy’s first wind turbine at Great Dunkilns Farm in St Briavels has been operating since January 2013, and has so far provided £25,000 to local causes. A second turbine at Alvington Court is expected to complete this autumn.

Firstly it is reassuring to note that resiliance are prepared to show that their turbine at Great Dunkilns Farm is something of a failure and that St. Briavels would require dozens of turbines to supply even their domestic needs!
As for the Alvington Court turbine, which was widely rejected by the community and denied construction by FoDDC and was only shoe horned in by use of a Planning Apeal – even then it seems something of a disaster as it has failed to raise the funds required to erect it, even with subsidies! Shareholder applications were insufficient and a loan of £600,000 had to be obtained – so I presume that will be, together with the interest, set against the so called communitty benefit as a cost to their percentage!

Director of the Resilience Centre, Andrew Clarke said: “The decision to give permission for the project is great news. We will now commence raising money from sale of shares in the project to the public. We expect the shares to return 7 per cent each year in interest to investors plus Enterprise Investment Tax relief from the UK Government which in effect pays you back for 30 per cent of the shares you buy via tax rebate. 

I do appreciate the decision is great news for the applicants, who will now be eligible for huge subsidies from the tax payer for their near totally useless and clearly unpopular industrialisation of this area for the community. It is however deeply unfortunate for the public at large both in terms of the amount of tax payers money that will now be wasted but also for the ecological damage particularly environmentally in terms of both amenity and Carbon footprint!

I would also urge individuals to treat the investment terms presented with some care as they may well be a matter for high tax payers and less rosy for others – as you will appreciate the applicant and their agents are not financial advisors and not bound by the ethical codes of the FSA!

“We expect the money to be raised by end of 2015 and construction to start in spring 2016. Our Alvington Court turbine is set for completion next month.

Expectation is one thing but reality is another – let us face it the St. Briavels turbine is proving far from a success with less than 1/3rd. efficacy, or so the owners were forced to admit by Tidenham Parish Council who took their duties rather more seriously than FoDDC who failed to question any of the basic unsubstantiated claims of the applicant and their agents!

Likewise we have already ascertained Resiliance failed to raise the money for the Aylvington installation and have had to resort to massive borrowing!

“An independent community panel will decide how the money is distributed while any surplus monies will be decided by a board of directors.”

Independent would seem to a hugely subjective viewpoint of little meaning or significance, as is the  nebulous infference of ‘surplus profit’ surplus to what and surplus of what claims that may be made? This is clearly a meaningless claim!

Applicants Green Energy were also given the nod for a commercial solar farm at Tump Farm, Sedbury on Friday by planning officer Mr Tony Pope.

There is at least rather more honesty in claiming solar panels are ‘green’ than there is in the dishonest pretence that a wind turbine standing 337 feet above the River Severn is in some consequential way beneficial to the ‘community’!

Farmer Lyndon Edwards said he was pleased that councillors had backed the scheme and added that the turbine will be erected in the next 12 months.

It is clear that as a businessman Lyndon Edwards with his Farm Shop, rented Office complex, numerous rented properties is prone to, in farming terms, count his chickens before they are hatched in that the ‘community’ he has seen fit to exploit has already called upon Greg Clarke, the Minister concerned, to call in the plans and the local MP Mark Harper to take strenuous steps to meet with the ‘effected community’ group and investigate possible corruption of due process and that the ‘effected community’ group are investigating the details of Judicial Review of the process utilised, to obtain committee consent and the possibilities of corruption of due process – I feel that the process is far from over and the likelihood of completion of this industrial installation is far from being a certainty, let alone within a year!

PS – 62:

04-Sep-2015
(PS-62: Media Coverage of 26-Aug-2015 & Comment Thereon)

You can enlarge these pictures by double Clicking on them

It is arguably true that communications in favour of this wind turbine being added to the Wind Farm associated with ‘Rersilliance’ was 2 to one in favour – however that included correspondence in the form of standard letters garnered by professional means and over the internet – including numbers accrued from Survey Monkey which garners responses around the world being an internet campaign.

As the planning report drawn up under the expertise of the designated planning officer Stephen Colegate stated the important factor was the ‘community effected’ and as the Government has made most clear such plans MUST address the concerns of the effected community and meet with their approval.

This wind turbine utterly failed to meet with the approval of the effected community, whether that is the community considered as those contacted by FoDDC Planning Department, those within a 1.5Km radius, those within a 3Km radius or even the ridiculous claim that those within a 5Km radius which includes the whole of Chepstow, St. Arvans and Tintern (none of whom are a part of the community which is remotely effected.

Even the FoDDC Planning Committee member from the parish clearly stated that ‘ … he lived in Tutshill and was no effected he wouldn’t even be able to see it’! The local representatives of the ‘effected community’ are Tidenham Parish Council and they overwhellmingly rejected the application on sound planning grounds.

It is noteworthy that as made clear by the planning officer Mr. Williams a deal was struck between the applicants and the Council to pretend that the effected community was that within a 5Km radius! Whether this was influenced by undue lobbying is a matter of speculation but it is clear thwet Resilliance and the applicant FoDDC Councillor Maria Edwards, who is newly appointed on the planning committee, have been all too willing to use techniques of persuasion that can be interpreted as bribery and blackmail, all be it they may be considered legal they are clearly unethical!

It is also worthy of note that the designated Planning Officer for this application strongly recommended against the granting of this application on various sound planning grounds, yet he was totally ignored by members of the planning committee. One should also be minded that as you will note from the recording of the Planning Meeting scant regard was given to facts and even less to planning considerations by the committee in reaching their decision.

I would contend that the entire proceedings of the meeting and much of the detail in its gathering and presentation of facts has been Ulta Vires and the decision of the FoDDC was most clearly suspect, I and others in attendance at the meeting were left with the clear impression that the meeting was corrupted and was most clearly not a professional, just and reasonable consideration of the facts – a fundamental tennet of British Law and thus democracy is that ‘Justice must be seen to be done’ – as an example of that the granting of this application is most clearly a disgrace, in my opinion.

That the applicant, Councillor Maria Edwards, recused herself from the committee meeting as having an interest in this application and two other applications is not in dispute, however her position as a member of the committee has put her in a position of embarrassment to her Party and her duty of care for those she claims to represent as a District Councillor for the very parish she opposes and the Conservative Party manifesto on which she was elected!

It was clearly considered an embarrassment by her as her spokesman at the meeting making the presentation in favour of the application was her husband who presented himself as ‘The Applicant’ which he was not!

It was also worthy of note that the some 100 individuals who were initially contacvted by the Council – all within 1.5Kms. of the site and considered to be the ‘effected community’ as defined in the Ministerial Statement of 18-Jun-2015 some 20 are tennants or employees of the applicant, District Councillor Maria Edwardsm and/or her husband.

It is also worthy of note that on a very clear column graph, whether one takes 1.5Kms, 3Kms or 5Kms the overwhellming majority of letters, including prewritten stereotype letters, the majority is very clearly and by a large percentage opposed to the application.

I will endeavour to obtain electronic versions of these graphs to place on this web site for your judgement – the details have been lodged with FoDDC and with Mark Harper MP.

One might also be minded to not, as shown in the recordings, that in the 11 other applications becore the committee on the 11-Aug-2015 the members of the committee, by and large, confined themselves to planning considerations giving mind to none of the flowery flights of fantasy and opinion prevelent in this application, and further, without exception, they took the advice of their own appointed professional officer as to whether it was appropriate to pass the application or not.

Personally I consider the handling of the application for a Wind Turbine on Hanley Hill in Stroat to have been corrupted and the decision made to have been unsound and possibly even corrupt and most clearly not in the spirit of democracy and nor has justice been seen to be done, therefore I would hope that the Minister has the wisdom to Call In The Application and set aside the granting of the suspect permission.

Clearly ‘Calling In’ would be in the best interests of all concerned as it would bring a halt to the matter and would avoid the inevitable embarrassment both on a political level and on a personal level that is likely when the truth is exposed by a Judicial Review, which is probable should the Minister fail to Call In The Application and overturn the granting of permission.

SEE:

PS – 63:

05-Sep-2015
(PS-63: Report of meeting with Mark Harper MP)

Molly Mayo’s letter is an excellent reflection of the meeting and with Keith’s leap of faith that raised over £600 for Velindre Cancer care, on the high wire slide at the National Diving Center >http://www.ndac.co.uk/thewire.htm&lt;, I am astonished her hands were steady enough to mail out the report, but there is one quick clarification for you to note:
Originally our next planning meeting was to be next Thursday, as in the last paragraph, but as a couple of people could not attend it was changed to Friday as in the penultimate paragraph!

I have accordingly altered the text of the original report sent out.

I hope members of the effected community can attend next Friday.

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-application-for-stroat

TWITTER: @Greg_LW
Skype: gregl-w
FleXcit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfEo_TNllk4
FleXcit full text: http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
For detailed analysis of selected items in the news:
http://www.eureferendum.com
PLEASE NOTE:
I never post anonymously on the internet.
For details & declaration of accuracy please see:
ACCURACY & THE TRUTH …
From: molly mayo [mailto:molly.mayo@REDACTED]
Sent: 05 September 2015 15:17
To: REDACTED
Subject: WT Mark Harper meeting

Dear All,

Following Greg’s and everyone’s emails, five of us secured a meeting with Mark Harper MP today. Our objective going in was to try and get him to write to Greg Clark, Minister of State at DCLG to support our request for the Planning Application to be “called in”.

We had a good meeting of an hour and a half with him and his Agent/Office Manager, which is considerably longer than his normal surgery allocation of 15 mins per constituent. He had clearly read and reviewed all the papers and was well informed on the matter. His opening comments were that his normal position on planning matters, was not to get involved directly and he would only consider taking the matter up with the Minister if there had been some failure in the process itself.

Despite listening carefully to our well rehearsed arguments about the shortcomings as we saw them, namely an overwhelming majority of the “local community” being opposed, lack of discussion on pure planning matters and focusing on dubious community benefits, overriding the views of the Parish Council and the Planning Officer etc, etc; he concluded that he was “not persuaded to write to the Minister” on our behalf to support the calling-in.

Clearly very disappointing, but not wholly unexpected, as planning matters and decisions are devolved to the local councillors and he has to assume that they have read and digested all the information and come to a consensus view.

However, he did agree with our arguments on the lack of clarity on the definition of what the “local community ” should actually comprise and agreed that he would write to the Minister to suggest that further guidance was provided to Councillors. He also agreed to write to the FODD Council to clarify what weighting they had placed on non-planning matters such as the alleged community benefits.

So whilst we have not succeeded in our primary goal, we have made some progress on clarifying future policy guidelines.

The matter now rests with the Secretary of State to receive the advice on next steps from the Planning Inspectorate to call in or not, and then to make a final decision. Mark Harper has promised to send us copies of his letters, which we assume will be sent out on Monday.

As soon as these are received we will circulate these to you all. We must then await the Minister’s formal decision – timing of which remains uncertain.

In view of this we are proposing a Next Steps Meeting for next Friday 11th September at 19.30 at Wibdon Farm. This will allow us to debate next steps including the pros and cons of a Judicial Review. We did mention this specifically to Mark Harper after he had given us his decision, i.e. we will not be easily deflected from pursuing the matter to the highest level if that is the consensus view of our Group.

So can you all make every effort to attend NEXT FRIDAY. This will be a key meeting and we want to map out a clear strategy, so that we can move urgently if the Minster does not decide in our favour and refuses a calling-in.

Regards
Greg, Peter, James, Lisa and Molly

PS – 64:

07-Sep-2015
(PS-64: Mark Harper MP > GL-W + SecState Greg Clark MP)

Mark Harper MP letter 07-Sep-2015n re: Meeting with representatives of ‘The Effected Community’ who oppose the imposition of a giant Wind Turbine in Stroat.

Mark Harper MP letter of 07-Sep-2015 to Sec.State Greg Clark mentioning a very few of the concers of ‘The Effected Community’ who oppose the imposition of a giant Wind Turbine in Stroat.

SEE:

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

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

PS – 67:

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

PS – 68:

22-Sep-2015
(PS-68: GL-W > Molly Mayo re Inappropriate Wind Turbine
+ Precedent set 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

PS – 69:

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 struch 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

PS – 70:

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

PS – 73:

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)

At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

01-Oct-2015

Hi,

I must say I have no choice but to consider the decision of The Secretary of State, Greg Clark MP, to be little short of perverse and inconsistent in failing to call in the plans for Severndale Wind Turbine, particularly in the light of his other decisions, as there is absolutely no doubt that the application convincingly failed to address the objections of ‘the effected community’, his own criteria in other situations as clearly shown in the article below, from the publication PlanningResource 01-Oct-2015, as shown below.

Minded of the facts relative to the Severndale application and various decisions made by The Sec.State there would seem to be little logic or consistency in his decision making process and I fail to see how Justice has been seen to be done, nor any sign of a level playing field!

I believe this leaves good opportunity for the righting of this gross injustice at a Judicial Review.

Two more wind developments rejected over new community backing rule

1 October 2015 by Greg Pitcher

Wind power schemes in Yorkshire and Cumbria have become the latest to be rejected by communities secretary Greg Clark after he ruled that they failed to comply with new rules requiring wind applications to have community backing.

Wind power: two more schemes blocked

Clark turned down an appeal against Kirklees Council’s decision to refuse permission for two turbines on a green belt site near Wakefield.

A decision letter 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 of 18 June 2015. The secretary of state gives significant weight to this non-compliance.”

He also refused an appeal against South Lakeland District Council’s rejection of an application for a single turbine near the village of Gleaston.

A decision letter said Clark was “not satisfied that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities in their correspondence to the inspector … have been addressed. These include harm to the landscape, visual amenity and the setting of heritage assets.”

The communities secretary acted in line with planning inspector advice in both instances.

Clark’s June written ministerial statement (WMS) said that where a wind power scheme was already in the planning system, and no suitable sites were identified in the relevant development plan, a scheme could only be approved if planning authorities were “satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by local communities and therefore has their backing”.

Clark last month turned down a four-turbine scheme near Peterborough and a 10-turbine project in Lincolnshire, both times citing non-compliance with the WMS.

In the light of the above consider:

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 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 as was perversely claimed!

Draw your own conclusions!

.

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

PS – 74:

23-Sep > 07-Oct-2015
(PS 74: Correspondence between Dai Oakley & Stephen Colegate re FoDDC Local Plan for Wind Power Generation)

I have REDACTED this correspondence pending a response from FoDDC which I hope will undertake to make this correspondence available to all concerned on their own public portal and request that, for the sake of justice being seen to be done, request it is published on this site also.

I also would ask the Council for details of ALL other eMails, correspondence, phone communications and meetings that have taken place between any officer, staff or Councillor with the applicant or her agents on this matter – ALL such material should be in the public domain to preclude undue influence being brought on any individual to obtain approval of any application.

That the Council is and has been prepared to bring undue pressure on individuals to suppress facts is now a matter of proven fact. It is also likely to be a powerful plank in any subsequent legal action to ensure that the wishes and interests of the ‘effected community’ are upheld, and the guidelines of the Government are followed wherein it is stated that for any application for such wind turbines, being single or as part of a wind farm or as in this case being a part of a series of applications which will create a wind farm effect in the upper Severn Estuary, it MUST be compliant with the Council’s designated Local Plan establishing any suitable place for installing these monstrous edifices.

If the ethics and integrity of the FoDDC are to be seen to be present then I believe the Council has absolutely no option but to now publish ALL communications between the Council or its agents and the applicant and her agents.

I also believe that an apology is due to Mr. Oakley for the Council’s unethical attempt to bully and threaten him in order to suppress the facts regarding this application.

I am happy to confirm, in my own name, that I believe the Council has acted unethically in this matter and that due process would seem to have been corrupted, the Council would thus seem to have acted ‘ultra vires’ in passing this application and for these reasons I call on the Council to withdraw permission for this application to avoid the risk of huge costs that could ensue as a result of their failure to acquit their duty and public office.

Continue reading →