End of inquiry into windfarm at Three Moors
FINAL submissions were heard on Tuesday for a major wind turbine development on the edge of Exmoor which protestors claim could ruin the face of the countryside.
The nine-turbine development, proposed for the Three Moors site near Knowstone, was rejected in October 2008, but was appealed by Airtricity Developments (UK) Ltd.
-
The turbines, which would be lit up at night, at the request of the Ministry of Defence, will measure up to 105metres, if approved.
The second application, submitted by Coronation Power Ltd, is for four 100-metre wind turbines at Bickham Moor, near Tiverton.
Planning inspector Philip Major first heard submissions from Knowstone resident, Richard Delf, one of the Two Moors anti-windfarm campaigners, who pleaded for the appeals to be rejected.
He said: "The turbines are far too close to the boundary of the national park.
"Exmoor is a national treasure and the epitome of a peaceful, tranquil, unchanged and timeless landscape — it must not be industralised."
Mr Delf alleged the plans were haphazard and far too close to neighbouring land.
He also argued the scheme was attempting to squeeze just two fewer turbines than the original proposal, on a vastly reduced plot of land.
Bob Perry, another campaigner, was concerned with the noise impact on residents, labelling measuring methods as "shambolic".
David Cocks QC, representing the Rural Exmoor Alliance, which comprises the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), the Exmoor Society and the Two Moors Campaign, claimed the development was an "imminent catastrophe."
He told the inquiry there was an unusual number of uncertainties in the case.
He asked: "How much noise will the turbines make? How much are we saving on emissions? The answers are no more than educated guess work."
He said the tiny impact the two farms would make on global warming was not a ground for refusal, but the inaccuracy of the developers "wildly exaggerated" claims were.
He also disputed the developer's carbon dioxide emission claims. He said professionals who had given noise evidence would not deviate from a common line.
Mr Cocks also alleged research conducted on the impact on the tourism industry was riddled with "assertion, gossip and hearsay."
Ailsa Wilson QC, counsel for Airtricity, stressed the need for such schemes to help Government reach its target of having 20% of energy provided by renewable sources, by 2010.
William Morris QC, for Coronation Power, also argued the two developments could "by no stretch of the imagination be called close to the moor."
He said national and international policy were clear on the importance of "seeking to introduce a low carbon economy."
A final decision on the applications will be made in the new year.
18 Comments
View all
by William, Borders
Tuesday, December 01 2009, 1:40PM
“D'bn.
Sorry, mate, big words and science are what it's all about.
If you want little words and no science', then I suggest you stick to reading wind industry press releases.”
by --, D'bn
Thursday, November 26 2009, 9:35PM
“Actually. Maybe we should take the pylons down. Interesting social experiment...”
by --, D'bn
Thursday, November 26 2009, 9:34PM
“Guys, face it. Either we cull the population of the UK or we have wind farms. Shall we take down electricity pylons as well?
Honestly, the amount of hot air you lot create trying to justify 'saving the landscape' and talking about Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure and trying to talk everyone else out of it by using silly science mixed with long words is in itself probably contributing more to global warming than your trips abroad (nicely justified by your unwillingness to accept the 'anthromorphic' * TM Bob aspect to 'catastrophic climate change *TM Nick).
Face it. It aint gonna change. There are gonna be more and more wind farms. And every time one goes up it makes me smile.”
by Nick, Hilltown
Wednesday, November 25 2009, 8:36PM
“Des, Richard, et al.
Please note that the government is now proposing to weaken all planning protection with regard to >50MW wind power stations.
The unelected, unaccountable IPC super-quango is being advised to ignore existing planning protections afforded to landscape, archaeological sites and listed buildings:
"2.7.19 The time-limited, non-permanent nature of wind farms is likely to be an important consideration for the IPC when assessing impacts such as landscape and visual effects and potential effects on the settings of historic assets."
(Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure [EN-3]).
This is out to consultation - lobby your MP now!
Or, if this government is returned to power, live to see protected landscapes, monuments and communities damaged by even more uncontrolled wind development.
'Time limited', as this paper acknowledges is 25 years plus 'repowering' for 25 more years by simple re-application with a presumption in favour of approval.
I have yet to hear of a repowering application for a first generation wind power station being refused.”
by Three sheets to the wind, The Channel
Wednesday, November 25 2009, 8:30PM
“Whilst all the "greenies" are pondering about windfarms.
There are 3 large nuclear power stations' worth of energy flowing up and down the Bristol Channel every day. That's providing of course that the Moon remains orbiting the Earth. Which it should do for about the next zillion years !”
by Sammy, At the party
Wednesday, November 25 2009, 7:10PM
“To Chloe, North Devon
I bet your a gas at a party”
by Chloe, North Devon
Wednesday, November 25 2009, 6:44PM
“Bret Osborne,
Please do your research - it is not a case of building a nuclear power station instead of wind turbines; wind turbines are supplementary to "firm" generators i.e. the choice is:
- a power station
OR
- a power station and some wind turbines
Wind turbines are not "instead of " other generators, they are as well as because of their untermittancy - please try doing some basic research
The ¿Tyndall Centre Technical Report 30, July 2005 Conclusion 5, Security of decarbonised electricity systems¿ refers to the back up plants needed for wind turbines: "We observed that wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the same as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant will still be required.
However, these conventional plants will be required to run either occasionally and/or at part load when shortages of supply are likely to occur due to a low total wind power output. Considering that conventional plants at full load are the most efficient and generate the lowest amount of CO2 emission (per electricity produced) such occasionally and/or part-loaded plants will be less utilised and/or produce more CO2 per electricity produced."”
by Des, Over looking the wind farm
Wednesday, November 25 2009, 5:42PM
“In reply to Richard, Ilfracombe,
Please would someone tell me what provisions are in place fro the organisations erecting these windfarms to dismantle them at the end of there ten year expected lifespan?
Let me explain in layman¿s terms what will happen.
After ten years the public will understand the benefits of wind turbines and the original ones will be taken down, refurbished, made larger and then re-erected to carry on doing its good work.”
by Bob, North Devon
Wednesday, November 25 2009, 5:29PM
“--, D'bn is quite obviously a believer in Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming and is absolutely against any notion that what happened with the corrupted computer codes at the Climatic Research Unit makes any difference to the AGW cause.
Well, the High Priest of AGW himself, George Monbiot, has issued an 'apology' that he hasn't been '..diligent enough...' in researching AGW and he has called for the resignation of Philip Jones who heads up CRU.
When someone so close to the heart of AGW Theory takes this course of action, the whole thing is in deep trouble.”
by Nick, Hilltown
Wednesday, November 25 2009, 5:27PM
“.., dbn.
Come on get it right: "global warming" isn't used any more.
The figures are not working (even after a 'UEA massage').
The correct phrase in Newspeak is "catastrophic climate change".”