NORTHUMBERLAND NEWS

DUDDO STONES UNDER THREAT AGAIN - SHORESWOOD APPEALED

The Duddo Stones have been described by Archaeologist Roger Miket as, “Undoubtedly the most complete and dramatically situated in Northumberland”. Stan Beckensall, the sage of Northumbrian rock art, describes the Stones as,“ One of the most attractive monuments in Britain, with a setting that looks towards the Cheviots and to Scotland, including the Eildon Hills.”

The Planning Inspector who advised the Secretary of State to reject the Toft Hill wind farm which also threatened the setting of the Stones, described it as “a serene and remarkable place”.

But once again we the setting of the Stones is being threatened by the wind industry.

TURBINE SIZE

The proposed Enercon E48 turbine is not a small farm-scale turbine designed to offset farm electricity use. This is a large industrial turbine with a blade-tip height of 74m (242 ft), almost as high as the Black Hill and Drone Hill wind farm turbines (78m) in the Lammermuir Hills which, even though they are 20 and 23 km away and are mostly obscured by landforms, are very visible from the Stones. The Shoreswood turbine is substantially bigger than the original wind farm turbines at Soutra/Dun Law on the A68 (63.5m).

HERITAGE EXPERTS ADVISED REFUSAL

The application was unanimously refused by the Central Planning Committee on Tuesday, 2 October. It had been recommended for refusal, having received a strongly adverse consultation response from the County Archaeologist, supported by English Heritage:

In my opinion the development would cause ‘substantial harm’ to the setting and significance of Duddo Stone Circle, a designated heritage asset in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I therefore recommend that in determining the application the LPA has regard to paragraphs 126-133 of the NPPF. These paragraphs clarify that ‘great weight’ should be given to the conservation of heritage assets (132), that ‘substantial harm’ to heritage assets should be wholly exceptional (132) and that in circumstances where a development will lead to substantial harm to or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless the substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits associated with the proposal (133).
(‘Final comment and advice’ from Asst. Co. Archaeologist [Ref: B36/1: 13590] to the Case Officer, 8 August, 2012).

Enercon E48 turbine. ©Balnamoon Renewables Ltd.

MISLEADING VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The visual impact assessment in the original application was misleading. It used photomontages which did not meet recognised SNH guidelines, had serious errors and downplayed visual impacts. Other impacts ignored For some reason the planning authority did not properly consider the visual impacts of the proposal on the World War II HFRD site and tourist viewing platform on Ewe Hill, which is listed in NCC's own Heritage Sites Register. NCC also ignored the impacts of the proposal on the Salutation Inn and Caravan Park, within 1 km of the turbine site. Both enjoy marvellous, unimpeded views south to the Cheviots. View from Ewe Hill to the Cheviots © Don Brownlow photography

OBJECT TO THIS DAMAGING SCHEME

Please take a few minutes to make your views known to the Planning Inspectorate. You can do this online: Case Ref. APP/P2935/A/13/2195630.

Scroll down the page and click on ‘Comment on this case’, then follow the instructions and comment as an ‘Interested party/person’.

All you need to do is express your support for the decision of the planning authority. The major reason for refusal has been set out above.

The deadline for comments is Monday, 20 May.

-------------------------

Planning Inspectorate - Case Ref. APP/P2935/A/13/2195630.
‘Duddo Stone Circle wind farm plans thrown out’, The Journal, 4 October, 2012.
‘Wind turbine near Berwick would damage setting of 4,000-year-old Duddo stone circle’, The Journal, 23 September, 2012.

ANOTHER FINE MESS - COUNCIL CONCEDES SECOND JUDICIAL REVIEW

‘Berwick farmers’ wind turbine bid scuppered yet again’

The Journal, 6 April, 2013

‘A Northumberland farming family’s bid to put a wind turbine on its land has been scuppered by a judicial review for a second time.

‘Father and son John and George Barber at Brackenside Farm near Berwick last year saw their planning approval for the engine quashed after Northumberland County Council admitted making errors in the handling of their application.

‘Their proposal was subsequently approved by the authority a second time, but now that second approval has been overturned too after the council again admitted making errors.

[...]’

Comment

With over £17,000 of our money paid out just in meeting the complainant’s legal expenses (no doubt the Council has also incurred sizeable additional costs in obtaining legal advice and in re-appraising this application), questions should be being asked by the councillors who are supposedly supervising the planning department.

Nobody seems to be asking why NCC planning officers are not following correct procedure in processing applications and why the management of the planning department has not acted to sort out the incompetence demonstrated in this case.

Had this saga taken place in the private sector one suspects that heads would have rolled by now.

NORTHUMBERLAND - WIND TURBINES (OVER 30M)

KEY: Yellow - Pre-application; Red - Planning Application; Green - Consented/Under construction; Blue - Operating; White - refused/withdrawn/derelict. Large markers with a black spot represent ‘Section 36’ applications (over 50MW nominal capacity). Dots represent smaller, so-called ‘farm-scale’ turbines (often as big as commercial turbines).

Turbines smaller than 30m (100 ft)are not recorded. Dozens of 15-30m turbines have been built or consented in Northumberland.

THE TRUTH ABOUT NORTHUMBERLAND’S CONTRIBUTION

The wind industry is always ready to make misleading, or even false, claims about the ‘need’ for their schemes as a contribution to Northumberland’s renewable generating capacity.

They use simplistic, outdated and, all too often, plain wrong figures to browbeat planners and bolster their demands for weaker planning controls and consents for ever more, and larger, turbine arrays.

Until recently NCC planning officers have also been guilty of repeating inaccurate and misleading claims in officer reports, advice to councillors and evidence to public inquiries.

GOVERNMENT FIGURES

We present some of the graphs from a new study by business analyst Bill Short. It uses official data, as of 13 March, 2013, published by the Government’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

The full paper, which has more of the comparative national figures, is available as a download (PDF file, 318 KB).

NORTHUMBERLAND RENEWABLES UPDATE - MARCH 2013

In viewing the following graphs it should be noted that Northumberland’s electricity consumption declined by 14% between 2005, the baseline year for the targets in previous planning documents, and 2010. This decline continued in 2011 and 2012.

Chart 1 At 40%, Northumberland is currently behind Durham but well ahead of the NE and GB in operational capacity. It is also ahead of the highest region (Eastern England), whose status depends on co-firing with biomass at a large coal-fired power station. The GB figure is distorted as it includes offshore and Scotland,Wales and NI.

Chart 2 This allows a more correct assessment of progress currently achieved. It makes a valid assumption that all projects currently under construction will be completed in 2013, well before 2020.          We now begin to see the truth of Northumberland’s relative position.

Chart 3 This now shows actual planning progress. It ignores developer progress (or lack of it) It provides an accurate like for like comparison with our neighbour, Durham. This demonstrates the likely future position WITHOUT ANY FURTHER PLANNING APPROVALS.

Chart 4 When we add in applications which are still to be decided the prospect for Northumberland looks desperate (over 60% of applications are approved according to NCC figures). Durham has clearly stated that they have already reached the capacity limits for wind development in most areas. The leaders of councils in Yorkshire and Cumbria are, with one voice, and supported by their MPs, protesting to government that they have had enough. Meanwhile, Northumberland says nothing. The supine attitude of planners compounds the problem: inviting more speculative wind development. Indeed, this is what wind developers tell us, describing NCC planners to us as “Very helpful” and explaining that this is one of the main factors in focusing their efforts in Northumberland and the Scottish Borders rather than other areas.

‘NEW WAR LOOMS AT ANCIENT BATTLEFIELD’

‘Fury at turbines plan near Flodden’

The Journal, 6 March, 2013

‘A FIGHT over the siting of wind turbines close to a historic Northumberland battlefield is to be revisited, 500 years on from the bloody conflict.

‘Last year a farmer living near the site where England and Scotland fought in 1513 sought to be allowed to site two engines on his land.

‘He was defeated amid overwhelming opposition from nearby residents and heritage champions alarmed at the prospect of turbines so close to the ancient battlefield.

‘But now the farmer has lodged an appeal meaning the wind row will be revived in this the 500th anniversary of the famous battle.

[...]’

Comment

This application saw an NCC planning officer agreeing to the use of photomontages which not only fail to meet standard professional guidelines (SNH, Visual Representation of Windfarms, 2006), but which deliberately downplay the visual impacts of the proposal.

There is disbelief amongst local people that the County Archaeologist could fail to object to this proposal which it is admitted will damage the setting of the listed battlefield.

Scottish Borders Council, who are the neighbouring planning authority and consultees in this application, would have rejected this proposal out of hand because it goes against their planning guidance which offers a 2km buffer from important heritage sites such as listed battlefields. This sorry scheme is less than 1km from the battlefield memorial. The memorial is not the battlefield site, which, in historical terms, probably encompasses the turbine site.

The applicant, the archaeologist and the NCC officer seem to disregard cumulative damage. Because there are static pylons in the vicinity - carrying high voltage transmission lines of national importance in the delivery of electricity supplies - it seems that they regard the addition yet more industrial objects which are purely for the financial benefit of an individual farmer, and utterly insignificant in terms of Northumberland’s already massive contribution to renewables targets, as quite acceptable.

SUPPORT THE REFUSAL OF THIS SCHEME

You can register your objection to this proposal, and your support for its refusal, online, on the Planning Inspectorate’s case page.
Scroll down to the ‘Comment on this case link’, and comment as an ‘Interested party/person’.

-------------------------

Appeal ref. APP/P2935/A/13/2193153
NCC Planning Ref. 11/03207/RENE.

FENROTHER APPEALED

Energiekontor, the German-owned speculative wind developer, has announced that it is appealing the refusal of planning permission for five 126.5m turbines at Fenrother.

The scheme was unanimously refused, following an officer’s recommendation, in January this year.

The appeal coincides with a report from the Department for Communities and Local Government, following consultation, which confirms the proposal to retain the saved structure plan policy S5 from the Northumberland County and National Park Joint Structure Plan First Alteration relating to the green belt at Morpeth.

The Department notes that, “Removing this policy before the council has adopted a local plan which defines green belt boundaries could put green belt land at risk from unwanted development. This is in line with the Coalition Agreement to safeguard green belt.”

-------------------------

Appeal Ref. APP/P2935/A/13/2194915.
NCC Planning Ref. 12/02500/RENEIA.
DCLG, Strategic environmental assessment about revoking the North East regional strategy: environmental report 7 November 2012. (Download here).
Local response group: Fight Fenrother Wind Farm.

RAYBURN SCHEME RESURRECTED

Just as communities in the Longhorsley-Wingates-Netherwitton area are facing disruption from the Wingates construction site (see below), RES have announced that they are back with a rejigged version of their Parkhead/Rayburn proposal. This time they are proposing to build five 125m turbines on the site to the west of Rayburn Lake.*

RES are proposing this scheme in partnership with BT who have had 2 previous failed applications in the Wingates area. The previous applications by RES and BT in the area contributed to the years of planning blight that have been experienced by local communities which face being ringed by turbine sites.

The previous application by RES was appealed for non-determination while NCC planners were still waiting for them to supply further information, before being withdrawn in May, 2011.

There is very real anger that these companies are back and propose putting local communities through the wringer yet again with many more months of stress and expense in the cause of another unnecessary turbine scheme in this attractive tourist landscape.

Room for expansion

The site area includes the site of BT’s rejected scheme at Wingates Moor, allowing plenty of room for subsequent extension(s) should they succeed in getting permission for this scheme.

-------------------------

* RES, ‘Scoping Request, 6 February, 2013’, PDF file download (4.6Mb).
Previous Rayburn Lake/Parkhead application: NCC Ref. 09/00154/RENEIA.
Previous Wingates Moor application: NCC Ref. 11/00158/RENEIA.
Local Response Group: Wingates NOT Wind Farms.

EAST WINGATES FARM TURBINE RESURRECTED

The Rayburn scheme is not the only failed project to be resurrected in this area. An application for an 33.5m turbine at East Wingates Farm which was thrown out nem con by councillors against a planning officer’s standard recommendation has now been re-submitted (13/02/2013).

NCC planners, describe this as a “micro turbine”. Other planning authorities class this size of turbine, which would be 1.5 times the height of the Angel of the North as ‘small-medium’.

Documents relating to the scheme may, eventually, be made available on the NCC planning pages (NCC Application Ref. 13/00430/RENE).

TRANWELL (MORPETH AIRFIELD) APPLICATION

Wind Ventures have lodged an application for four 126.5m turbines on the World War II Morpeth Airfield at Tranwell, just to the west of the town.

The scheme is just to the south of the ‘North Covert’ proposal by Italian developer Falck Renewables near Edington. This proposal is at the scoping stage. It could be for as many as 10 turbines of a similar size to those proposed at Tranwell.

THE PLANNING APPLICATION

You can comment on the planning application by using the ‘Comment’ button on the NCC planning page for Tranwell (you need to register to do this online).

See the Action for Rural Morpeth website for more information on the turbine threat in the Morpeth area and detailed grounds for opposing this application.

-------------------------

Tranwell application: NCC Planning Ref. 12/03731/RENE.
More information can be found on the AfRM website.
Local response group: The newly formed Tranwell Windfarm Action Group (TWAG) now has a website.
‘Council joins battle against turbines’, Morpeth Herald, 27 January, 2013.
‘Tranwell wind farm action group holds public meeting to draw up battle lines’, The Journal, 30 January, 2013.
‘Airfield windfarm campaign takes off as objections grow’, Morpeth Herald, 7 February, 2012.

FOLLIONS FOLLY - VERY LARGE ‘FARM TURBINE’ NEAR THROPTON

An application has been submitted for a 78m wind turbine at Follions Farm, near Thropton.

The site is not visually linked to the farmstead, it is in a highly visible open position, in an area of high landscape value with open views to the National Park.

Local people are particularly annoyed at the lack of consultation on this scheme. As Journal columnist and local resident Keith Hann put it: “So eager were they to avoid consultation or scrutiny that they slid their planning application in on the Friday before Christmas” (‘Subsidy parasites have my paradise firmly in their sights’, The Journal, 5 February, 2013*).

Real consultation

There was standing room only in Whittingham village hall on 15 February when over 100 local residents met to discuss the Follions turbine planning application and to hear the results of the postal ballot of all residents in the parish of Callaly.

The audience heard that there had been a strong response: over 84% voted against the proposed turbine, with 60% of ballot papers returned.

Comments

Comments on the proposal can be made on the online planning page, see below.

The case officer is Joe Nugent. Written objections can be made by email to Joe.Nugent@northumberland.gov.uk, making sure to quote planning reference 12/03857/RENE and giving your name and address, or by letter to:

Joe Nugent
Senior Planner
Northumberland County Council
County Hall
Morpeth
Northumberland
NE61 2EF

-------------------------

NCC Planning Ref. 12/03857/RENE
Response group: Fight Follions Wind Farm. See their Facebook page.
* See Keith Hann’s website.
‘Plans for wind turbine in beauty spot spark concern’, Northumberland Gazette, 7 February, 2013.

EAST DITCHBURN (HAGDON)

PNE Wind, one of several German-owned speculative wind development companies operating in the UK, is appealing the refusal of an 80m anemometer mast on a site at East Ditchburn (Hagdon), near Eglingham, where they are proposing to build an as yet unknown number of turbines in the 125m size range.

This proposal is very close to the Middlemoor/Wandylaw complex of twenty eight 125m turbines which is under construction. When completed the two schemes will, collectively, form the largest turbine park in England and will have a huge visual impact on Kyloe Hills and Heritage Coast landscapes.

PR Company Hired

We understand that PNE wind have now hired a PR company, Smithy House Associates, to try and counter huge local opposition this proposal.

It is expected that they will be holding meetings locally which will centre on the possible ‘community benefits’ associated with the project, funded, of course, from the huge subsidies paid from our electricity bills.

Community benefits form no part of the planning application and should not distract from planning issues.

-------------------------

Mast appeal APP/P2935/A/12/2188808.

FENROTHER THROWN OUT

The application for five 126.5m turbines at Fenrother by German-owned speculative developer Energiekontor was refused by the Central Planning Committee on 8 January.

There was prolonged applause in the crowded Council Chamber when the application was unanimously refused. It had been recommended for refusal in an unprecendentedly critical Officer’s Report.

Two forceful speeches were delivered in opposition to the scheme: by Dr James Lunn of the community response group Fight Fenrother Wind Farm and by Councillor Sanderson, the ward councillor.

Energiekontor’s representative, Mr Sam Dewar, then spoke, almost managing to equal his company’s performence in failing to turn up at the special planning meeting organised by councillors in Morpeth before Christmas, telling the Committee that, “I won’t take up much more of your time”, briefly mentioning a letter sent by his firm responding to the Officers Report and sitting down to a silent reception, having spoken for less than one of his allocated five minutes.

-------------------------

Local community response group: Fight Fenrother Wind Farm.

‘THE NORTHUMBRIAN’ SPEAKS OUT

© The Northumbrian

The December/January edition of The Northumbrian had an excellent article on the wind rush in Northumberland. The magazine’s coverage is prefaced by the following editorial: ‘Wind Farms: Why It’s Time To Alter Course ‘In the debate about wind farm development in Northumberland I have sat on the fence for too long. Once I had taken the decision to investigate the subject, my aim was to listen to the arguments for and against, then present readers with a balanced picture of this controversial issue. Now, after reading many reports and studies, and talking to people who have closely examined the impact that onshore wind turbines are having in this county, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that there is no justification for the continued approval of wind farms here in Northumberland or elsewhere. The evidence points to the fact that they DO enable developers and some landowners to make a lot of money at the expense of consumers, but they DO NOT contribute any significant reduction of CO2 emissions by reducing our dependence on fossil fuel-powered generators. If wind farm development is allowed to spread without restriction, it will be a growing blot on the landscape of a county which relies on tourism-related jobs. – Stewart Bonney.’

NATIONAL PARK CONCERNS

Two proposed wind developments close to the National Park have been refused by councillors and a third withdrawn after representations from the National Park authority.

An application for a 50m anemometer mast at Charity Hall, in an area of high landscape value in the Upper Coquet Valley only 3km from the National Park boundery, was rejected by councillors on Tuesday, 4 December, against the recommendation of a planning officer. The mast application was by Empirica Investments, a company which specialises in ‘turnkey’ projects for large commercial farm turbines.¹ They have lodged a number of applications in Northumberland and Durham for 67m (220 ft) Enercon turbines.

At the same planning meeting councillors threw out an application for a 33.5m turbine at East Wingates Farm, 4 km from the National Park boundary and close to the consented Wingates proposal for six 110m turbines, which are now being built. Again a planning officer had recommended approval.²

Recently, the National Park Authority had expressed concerns at the quality of the visual impact assessment carried out for the Wark Common turbine, a 71m turbine which Northumberland County Council had approved, following a planning officer’s recommendation, but which had its planning permission quashed after a judicial review at the High Court. The Council admitted that the application had been defective.

Responding to the re-application, the National Park stated that, “Without sufficient landscape and visual impact information, it is difficult for either the National Park Authority or the council to be fully confident that the proposed development is appropriate in landscape terms.” ³

NCC planners accepted these inadequate visualisations without demur and their original recommendation was based on that information, ignoring the many local representations on that point.

-------------------------

¹ NCC planning ref. 12/02898/FUL.
² NCC planning ref. 12/02017/FUL.
³ ‘Controversial Wark Common wind turbine plans withdrawn’, Berwick Advertiser, 6 December, 2012.

THE MODERN REIVERS

For centuries Northumberland was part of a lawless frontier where ‘reivers’ raided, robbed and killed, reducing much of the region to penury.

The county is under threat again. The reivers now wear suits and are armed with laptops and document cases rather than spears and broadswords. But their intent is the same - a quick killing with no regard for the land, communities or people’s livelihoods.

The Wind Industry’s Vision for Northumberland

A study by wind industry consultants Entec for Northumberland County Council which is supposed to ‘inform’ the Core Strategy and LDF laughably considers that Northumberland has the ‘technical capacity ’ for some 6,000 turbines! (According to the wind industry trade body there were 3868 turbines operating in the whole of the UK as of 1 August, 2012).

See the Northumberland Planning Page for information on the Core Strategy consultion.

‘“TRAGEDY OF THE LAMMERMUIRS” MUST BE AVOIDED’

Berwick Advertiser, 13 November 2012

‘Tighter planning controls need to be put in place to ensure Northumberland does not become a wind farm landscape like the neighbouring Lammermuirs in the Scottish Borders.

‘That is the view of Dr Geoffrey Purves, chairman of the Northumberland and Newcastle Society which campaigns on heritage issues.

‘He has written to town and parish councils calling for their support in influencing the new Local Development Framework currently being prepared by Northumberland County Council.

‘Dr Purves said: “The dangers facing the Northumberland landscape are starkly illustrated by a journey through the Lammermuir Hills in the Scottish Borders, which have now become an archetypal ‘wind farm landscape’.

‘“As a result, the Scottish Borders Council has had to institute much stricter guidelines for wind farm applications.

‘“Northumberland’s outstanding quality is the nature, remoteness and tranquillity of its countryside: it would be a real tragedy for our county if it came to resemble the Lammermuir Hills before the council adopted a more balanced approach than that proposed by the Core Issues document.”

‘The Core Issues document in effect proposes a continuation of the present policy that any application for wind energy is a welcome addition to the county’s contribution to renewable energy and will be accepted unless there is some very good reason not to.

‘The Northumberland and Newcastle Society is proposing an alternative approach which includes a call for fixed separation distances between houses and turbines, depending on their height.

‘Berwick MP Sir Alan Beith is among those who have supported the idea.

[...]’

Sir Alan Beith’s view.

“If all the wind turbines in Northumberland which currently have planning permission are built, the county will be making a major contribution to the country’s need for renewable energy sources.

“In an area with such spectacular views and landscapes, the planning authority needs to take great care over the further applications which are now coming forward.

“I welcome the Government’s review of the financing of wind farms, and the Secretary of State’s assurance that the local planning authority has the powers it needs to turn down inappropriately sited wind farm applications and to take account of the number of applications already approved. I am encouraging local residents who have concerns about wind farm developments to put their views to the Northumberland planning authority during its consultation on issues and options for the Core Strategy, which will begin towards the end of May 2012.”

Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Beith, MP (Berwick Lib-Dems Website, April 18, 2012).

The figures shown here have already risen since August, when this paper was prepared, with a further 27MW (9 x 126.5m turbines) consented at Maiden Hall, Widdrington, together with numbers of so-called farm turbines.

Applications for at least another 52 turbines are expected this winter with dozens more at the pre-application stage (see the map below).

The Northumberland and Newcastle Society works to protect valuable buildings and landscapes and to enhance the quality of life in both urban and rural areas.

Help the Society protect Northumberland - join now!

For more information, see the N&N Website.

THE OLD AND THE NEW

The first of 7 new 130m REpower turbines at Blyth Harbour stands in stark contrast to the derelict 42.5m turbine left from the old array.

New generation of giant turbines

General Electric has unveiled new onshore turbines with hub heights of at least 130 metres for low wind areas, the 2.75-103 model has a blade tip height of over 180m.

Gamesa, the Spanish turbine manufacturer, has a new onshore model with a blade tip height of 188m.

These models will join Vestas’ new 175m high V112 turbine, which is designed for low wind, onshore sites; 17 have already been built in Germany.

The Enercon E-126 is currently the largest onshore turbine, with a height of 198m (649.6 ft); it has been deployed at several sites in Germany and Belgium.

Blyth’s offshore giants

Narec is proposing to build up to 15 offshore turbines near Blyth that will be up to 195m in height, dwarfing the two existing 93m offshore turbines. Five of the new turbines will be only 5.6km offshore.

MAIDEN HALL SCHEME APPROVED

Members of the Central Planning Committee approved an application for nine 125m turbines at the Maiden Hall site, near Widdrington, on 6 November.

The application was consented by 7 votes to 3, with 1 abstention. It had been recommended for approval by planners, who ignored overwhelming local opposition to the proposal.

Officers gave a confused and highly questionable explanation for their acceptance of the cumulative impacts of the scheme with the previously consented turbines south west of Widdrington and the complex of turbines in the Blyth-Lynemouth area. Little consideration was given to the sequential cumulative impacts on important tourist routes. Cumulative impacts on important viewpoints to the west of the site were glossed over by officers who based their recommendation on the argument that from some viewpoints the scheme would be seen as a single entity with the 4 consented 125m turbines at Widdrington.

Objections to the scheme were undermined by a late letter of support from parties involved in the Blue Sky regeneration scheme in the site area. Only time will tell whether the turbine scheme will prove an obstacle to this project. The weight of evidence suggests that tourism and large wind power stations do not mix.

-------------------------

NCC planning ref. 12/00290/RENEIA.
‘Widdrington wind farm gets green light despite local objections’, The Journal, 7 November, 2012.

A ‘WIND FARM LANDSCAPE’?

German-owned speculative wind developer PNE Wind has joined the Spanish company Acciona in sniffing around the area between the Charltons and Eglingham. Twenty-eight 125m turbines are currently being built at Middlemoor and Wandylaw (marked below).

PNE Wind had a planning application for an 80m (262 ft) anemometer mast refused on 6 November, 2012 (NCC Ref. 12/02318/RENE). The site is on land owned by R. Robinson (Snipe House) Ltd. The height of the mast normally indicates the hub height of the prospective turbines, in this case giving a blade tip height of 125m (410 ft) or more.

Members of the planning committee voiced strong opposition to any further wnd development in this area which already faces the construction of the largest wind power station in England, on the edge of some of the most attractive heather moorland in Northumberland, close to the famous viewpoint at Ros Castle, owned by the National Trust.

EAST MONEYLAWS REFUSED

On 7 August, NCC’s Central Planning Committee unanimously refused the application for two 34.2m turbines at East Moneylaws Farm, close to the Flodden Battlefield.

Members were highly critical of the Officer’s report which had recommended approval of the scheme on the basis that the (very small) amount of renewable energy generated outweighed the damage caused to the registered battlefield which the officer (who has since left to work for Amec) claimed would not be “substantial”.

Yet again members were forced to make a decision on the basis of selective and inadequate photomontages which did not follow the guidelines for wind turbine visualisations which NCC itself recommends.

-------------------------

The officer’s report is available on the NCC Planning Committee website.
NCC planning page.

‘FARMER’S VICTORY IN TURBINE FIGHT WITH NORTH COUNCIL’

Brian Daniel, The Journal, 9 June, 2012

‘A North council could be forced to review the way it handles controversial wind turbine applications after losing a battle with an anti-wind farm campaigner.

‘Northumberland County Council has conceded defeat in its fight with landowner Andrew Joicey over its handling of three approved applications for single turbines in the Berwick area.

‘The applicants behind the schemes have had now their planning permissions revoked and their bids will have to be redetermined.

‘The council is having to pay Cornhill farmer Mr Joicey’s costs of more than £10,000.

‘Mr Joicey, who was part of the Save our Unspoilt Landscape group which previously unsuccessfully fought plans for turbines at Barmoor, last night said the outcome would mean the council would have to handle future applications differently on matters like noise and cumulative impact.

[...]’

-------------------------

See also:

‘High Court overturns planning consent for three Northumberland turbines’, Berwick Advertiser, 8 June, 2012.

THE TRUTH ABOUT TARGETS

The wind industry is always ready to use simplistic, outdated and, all too often, plain wrong, ‘evidence’ of unmet renewable energy targets to browbeat planners and bolster their demands for weaker planning controls and consents for ever more and larger turbine arrays.

It is more surprising that planning officers are guilty of the same exaggeration in officer reports, advice to councillors and evidence to public inquiries.

GOVERNMENT FIGURES

Bill Short is a business analyst who has made a study of Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) data on energy generation and renewables. The graphs from his latest technical analysis are presented here and his full paper is available as a download.⁽¹⁾

The graphs shown here use official data published by DECC, as of 1 March, 2012.

The above graph shows cumulative energy generation from all renewable energy types including biomass. Note the 30% target marker.

Northumberland has a high level of approved biomass (NB The 100MW Blyth and the 300MW Tyne biomass power stations have not yet been approved and are not included, but the approved 300MW Alcan power station which may, or may not, continue after Alcan ceases aluminium production is included, as per the DECC database).

Even without the inclusion of biomass, the comparison between Northumberland and other counties is stark:

While the total capacity of operational wind farms in Northumberland is not exceptional, if we include those that are currently under construction, it is clear that Northumberland exceeds all other English counties.

Most that are currently under construction (including Lynemouth and Green Rigg) are expected to be completed this year and a considerable number of consented sites (including Barmoor, Boundary Lane, Kiln Pit Hill, Middlemoor, Wandylaw, Wingates and Blyth Harbour repowering) will start construction during 2012.

TARGETS MET

While the 10% target for 2010 was not met, it is very clear that the “aim” for 2020 will be met in the very near future, well before that date. It is also clear that even without the extensive biomass build, a 30% target for Northumberland is almost certain to be exceeded by a considerable margin, and with ease.

It is therefore inexcusable that council officers should mislead Councillors with statements such as:

“8.6   Policy 39 of the Regional Spatial Strategy seeks to facilitate the generation of at least 10% of the Regions consumption of electricity from renewable resources by 2010 and to aspire to increase this to 20% by 2020. The recent Kirkharle appeal decision recognised that the 2010 10% target for Northumberland had not been met by a substantial margin and there will be a very significant challenge in meeting the local target and Government objectives by 2020 [my emphasis].” (Officer’s Report, Wingates Moor turbine array, Application 11/00158/RENEIA, 22 February 2012).

PREVIOUS FORM

Even if erroneous statements are made at a public inquiry, they should not continue to be parroted in a planning report without any evidence.

There is clear confusion created with the use of the term “local target” in conjunction with “10% target for Northumberland”.

This follows the case of a senior planner selectively quoting from a government policy document at a public meeting: “Targets should be expressed as the minimum amount of installed capacity for renewable energy in the region” ⁽²⁾ and then using this to argue that the percentage of electricity consumed was irrelevant when the full sentence read: “Targets should be expressed as the minimum amount of installed capacity for renewable energy in the region, expressed in megawatts, and may also be expressed in terms of the percentage of electricity consumed or supplied [our emphasis].” ⁽³⁾

DECLINING CONSUMPTION

Allowance should also be made for the decline in energy consumption, mainly due to the recession. Original targets were set in relation to 2005 data (see graph), progress is therefore substantially underestimated.

Ironically, Rio Tinto, the owners of the Alcan aluminium smelter at Blyth, the largest industrial energy consumer in Northumberland (and its largest employer), recently cited the cost of energy and environmental taxes as the major factor in the final closure of the plant with the loss of 515 jobs.

WIND FARM LANDSCAPES

While Durham is currently the wind farm “capital” of England, by the end of the summer of 2012 Northumberland will have overtaken it, when the wind farms now under construction are all switched on.

Those awaiting construction will take us well over any other region – over 9 times as much as Yorkshire, 14 times as much as the next highest region and 67 times as much as the South East!

Is this fair and balanced? Is it acceptable that NCC employees continue to recommend even more damage to Northumberland’s tourist landscapes and the amenity of local communities?

Is it right and proper that we should be subjected to 21 times more abuse than the average resident in the rest of England?

-------------------------

⁽¹⁾ Word doc. (1.2Mb file download).
⁽²⁾ Interim Manager, Central Development Management Team, NCC, speaking at the Communities & Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting on 21 June, 2011 (NCC website).
⁽³⁾ PPS22, 'Regional Targets', 3. (Available on the DCLG website).

An older version of Bill Short’s analysis as presented to NCC planners and members of the Communities & Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee us available as a Powerpoint presentation ( 3.7Mb ppt file download).

FAREWELL THE “FAR HORIZONS”

Make the most of our glorious landscapes. Twenty eight 125m turbines are now under construction at Middlemoor and Wandylaw, west of the A1, near North Charlton.

RADAR PROBLEMS

These turbines had been held up because of the effect they will have on defence radar systems at Brizlee Wood, near Alnwick, part of the UK Air Surveillance And Control System (ASACS). An American radar system is now to be fitted which is supposed to ameliorate the problems caused to defence radars.

LANDSCAPE DAMAGE

Nothing can lessen the damage that will be caused by these 28 massive turbines to our tourist landscapes. They will scar views over a huge area, most especially from Ros Castle, favourite viewpoint of Viscount Grey of Fallodon (formerly Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary 1905-1916). In 1956 ROS Castle was presented to the National Trust as part of a national memorial to him. It is one of the best-loved viewpoints in Northumberland and stands above Chillingham Castle park with its wild cattle and the beautiful heather moorland of Hepburn Moor.

There will, of course, be much wider damage, extending to views from the Heritage Coast and the National Park.

HUGE SUBSIDY

Electricity consumers could be paying for subsidies worth c. £8.9 million per year just for the Middlemoor scheme (calculated using npower’s predicted 27% load factor - less than the wind industry’s claimed average for modern turbines - and the current average auction price of £45.17 per ROC, as of 24 January 2012).

MORE TO COME

These 28 turbines are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg. Lynemouth (13 x 121.2m x 2MW) and Kiln Pit Hill (6 x 120m x 2MW) were recently completed and Green Rigg (18 x 110m x 2MW) is nearing completion.

Barmoor (6 x 110.5m x 3MW), Blyth Harbour repowering (7 x 130m x 3.4MW) and Boundary Lane (3 x 115m x 2MW) all started construction this summer.

Dozens more massive turbines have been consented or are in the planning pipeline.

TURBINE TRANSPORT STILL RAISING QUESTIONS

Questions have continued to be raised about safety, regulation and costs to the community of turbine transport since the A696 was closed for a week when a giant transporter carrying part of a wind turbine tower crashed off the road at Raylees, near Elsdon.

The transporter was part of a convoy carrying turbine parts from Blyth to Green Rigg, near Ridsdale, where Wind Prospect are building 18 Vestas V80 turbines for French-owned EDF Energy. The transport route had been designated as the A68, but was changed by the delegated decision of a Northumberland County Council planning officer after a transporter had grounded on the southern section of the A68.

The Chinese-made tower section was eventually recovered on 31 May and returned, this time with a substantial police escort, to Blyth for inspection and repair.

Local people continue to query the suitability of this route and why the crashed transporter apparently did not have a proper police escort.

THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM

The Green Rigg turbines are, at 110m total height, with 39m blades, smaller than most turbines currently proposed in Northumberland, which are generally 125m high, with 45m blades. The Middle Hill proposal for nine 125m turbines close to where the transporter crashed, typifies these.*

The Chinese-made tower section that overturned at Elsdon is 45m long (147ft) and weighs 56 tonnes.

CUTTING CORNERS

Questions remain on how this route was approved by Northumberland County Council and why the convoy, according to press reports, was travelling on this dangerous route without a police escort.

Local people say there has been a history of accidents on this road, some involving heavy military transporters heading for the Otterburn ranges.

COSTS AND COMPENSATION

Businesses in Otterburn have been seeking compensation for the thousands of pounds they lost due to the closure of the A696 for a week. But it is reported that EDF are ignoring compensation claims and are saying that a ‘goodwill gesture’ payment might eventually be made from the area community fund towards renovating the Sports Centre in Otterburn (see press story below).

This has a certain irony when you realise that Wind Prospect recently issued a press release entitled, ‘Northumberland Wind Farm Brings Boost to Region’s Businesses’.

CARBON BURDEN

The press report that the 18 Green Rigg turbine towers were manufactured in China for the Danish Vestas company. This information does not appear on the Wind Prospect website, which has a list of every single minor UK contract associated with the scheme.

-------------------------

* MHAG website.
Press reports:
‘A696 near Otterburn closed after turbine transporter crash’, The Journal, 29 May 2012.
‘Wind turbine recovery from Northumberland road “hurting trade”’, BBC News, 30 May 2012.
‘Wind turbine carrier crashed on A696 “safe” route’, The Journal, 30 May, 2012.
‘Operation to move wind turbine from A696 at Otterburn’, BBC News Video, 30 May, 2012.
‘Otterburn traders to seek compensation from wind farm group’, The Journal, 31 May, 2012.
‘Otterburn A696 ditch wind turbine is finally moved’, The Journal, 1 June, 2012.
‘I won’t pay my rates till losses are recouped’, The Journal, 4 June, 2012.
‘Windfall prospect for Otterburn village sports centre’, The Journal, 7 June, 2012.

ANOTHER BELFORD SHOCKER!

German-owned, speculative wind developers Energiekontor have announced a proposal for nine 100m (328 ft) turbines just to the south of Air Farmers’ sixteen turbine scheme at Middleton Burn (see below).

Both sites are close to the village of Belford.

The company recently announced another scheme at Horn Burn, just over the border, near Ayton.

Local people say NO!

An exit poll at Energiekontor’s March exhibition showed the level of local opposition to this scheme:

“More than 98 per cent of attendees registered their views in an exit poll. 99.41 per cent of voters were against the proposals, with just one person undecided.” *

Keeping the public in the dark

Northumbrians are routinely kept in the dark by County Council planners until such time as developers choose to reveal their (carefully prepared) PR campaigns.

NCC fails to publish information on screening and scoping approaches by wind companies. These are routinely published online by other local planning authorities and give local communities some notice of what is going on in their area.

In Northumberland, the first most communities know of a huge wind power development is when they receive a brochure from the developer or their PR company. This can be months, or even years after the company has first approached the local planning authority.

The County Council is also failing to keep its planning pages up to date. Having made access to planning files more difficult by centralising records, they are now failing to provide the proper online records which are supposed to substitute for paper copies of planning documents.

These online planning entries will usually record most of the original application documents, but are not updated with responses from official consultees, correspondence with officers, public submissions and other documents which are essential to understanding the progress of any planning application.

In the opinion of many parish councillors the planning process is less informed, open, democratic and fair under Northumberland County Council than it was when we were served by small local district council planning offices.

-------------------------

* ‘Belford to fight wind farm plans’, Berwick Advertiser, 15 March 2012.
Developer website.
Local response group: Middleton Burn Action Group.

THE VIEW FROM COUNTY HALL

© NCC, Love Northumberland. The reality (125m turbines) Courtesy Middle Hill Action Group.

Northumberland County Council are running a campaign which reveals their idealised view of turbines and their impacts. The reality The reality is very different, as shown in the corrected graphic which uses turbines scaled to currently used 125m models. Dozens of very large industrial turbines are under construction or have been consented but not yet built in Northumberland (see our maps and site listings). Getting bigger Many small first generation turbines, such as the 42.5m Blyth Harbour turbines, are being replaced (‘repowered’) with very much larger models. The 130m replacements for Blyth’s harbour turbines will start construction in May, 2012. Yet larger turbines are already under development, these are expected to be up to 250m high (820 ft). For comparison, the Chatton TV mast in Northumberland is 152.9m high. (See: The shape of things to come, Home Page).

-------------------------

‘Northumberland council wind turbine images not acurate says campaigner’, The Journal, 9 march, 2012.

MASSIVE TURBINES AT BLYTH HARBOUR

A 130m (426 ft) REpower 3.4M104 turbine, the first of 7 replacements for the old 42.5m turbines, has been built at Blyth Harbour. ¹

The old turbines had the dubious distinction of being the least productive in the UK, managing to produce only 3% of their headline capacity in 2010/11.

The new turbines have a blade diameter of 104m. With the 121m turbines at Lynemouth, they will be very visible over a large area of the coastal plain and far inland: the Lynemouth turbines alone are very visible from the A697 and A1.

GIANT OFFSHORE TURBINES TO FOLLOW

Narec, Blyth, received yet another government grant in February 2010, this time for £18.5 million, for, “a grid connected offshore demonstration platform, with the capacity to accommodate up to 100MW of offshore wind power”, with turbines up to 195m high (639 ft) high. ²

An application to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO)was made at the end of March, 2012. A Non-Technical Summary is available from Narec. ³

This “demonstration facility for pre-commercial prototype offshore wind turbines” has been approved by the Crown Estate. It is scheduled to support 15 turbines, up to 195m (639 ft) in height (the existing offshore turbines are 93m high).

These will be sited as close as 6.5 km to the shore at Blyth/Newbiggin.

PSST... DON’T MENTION CLIPPER

In all the publicity regarding the Habour and Offshore schemes there is a remarkable silence regarding Clipper Windpower and the grandiose ‘Britannia Project’ for a massive, 10MW, offshore turbine.

Narec had a development deal with Clipper windpower for this turbine which was supposed to feature in both Harbour and Offshore plans.

Many offshore industry experts had questioned the viability of this project from its inception in 2007. It finally folded in 2011 when the government pulled the plug on grant funding, “due to Clipper’s failure to meet financial and technical milestones”. ³

-------------------------

¹ ‘REpower to upgrade Blyth wind farm with UK's biggest turbine yet’, Business Green, 24 January, 2011.
² Narec website.
³ Narec website link.
See below.

‘TURBINES’ POOR RECORD’

Northumberland Gazette, Saturday 11 February 2012.

‘Much-criticised wind turbines on the edge of Alnwick have been out of action for almost half the time they have been installed, according to figures released following a Freedom of Information Act request by the Gazette.

‘The statistics, provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), show that the three generators at its flagship Lion House were offline for a total of 494 days since they went live on March 2, 2009. By comparison, they were working for 581 days during the same period.

‘The problems arose after a world-wide recall by the turbine manufacturer, Proven Energy, which discovered a fault with its P-35 model in 2009. Proven finally went bust last September, but was sold by receiver KPMG to Irish renewables firm Kingspan Wind.

‘However, Kingspan has refused to honour any liabilities and warranties for P-35 turbines, while KPMG has said owners will not receive their money back. The taxpayer will now have to foot the bill to get them working again.

[...]’

‘TAXPAYER COULD PICK UP BILL FOR BROKEN TURBINES’

Northumberland Gazette, 12 January, 2012.

‘Wind turbines standing idle on the edge of Alnwick will not be repaired by the manufacturers, it has emerged, with the tax-payer likely having to foot the bill to get them working again.

‘Town councillor Sue Allcroft has been chasing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the three generators at its flagship Lion House, which have rarely turned since mid-2010 following a worldwide recall of the that model – the P35 – by their Scottish-based manufacturer, Proven Energy.

‘Proven finally went bust last September, but was sold by receiver KPMG to Irish renewables firm Kingspan Wind.

‘However, Kingspan’s website states that all liabilities and warranties for P35 turbines remain with KPMG, as they did not form part of the buy-out deal.

‘[...]’

GLENDALE TRUST DROP WEETWOOD TURBINE SCHEME

Glendale Gateway Trust have voted to drop the controversial scheme for up to two 74m (242 ft) industrial turbines that they had planned to build, in partnership with CoRE, on scenic access land at Weetwood Moor, near Wooler.

At a full Board meeting on 12 October, 2011, they voted 7 to 2, with one abstention, to follow the recommendation of a report to abandon the project.

The minutes of the meeting record that:

The paper outlined the issues which Tom sees as insurmountable; a high level of borrowing, lack of confidence in the financial projections, little confidence in the deliverability of the project and the likelihood of widespread local opposition to the turbine. Tom’s report recommended withdrawal from the project. ... David B had received emails from 2 Trustees not at the meeting both of whom supported the recommendation.

-------------------------

Glendale Gateway Trust website.
CoRE website.
Press:
‘War of words over Wooler wind turbine plan’, The Journal, 12 August, 2010.
‘Glendale Gateway Trust defends wind turbine plan’, The Journal, 19 August 2010.

HAVING FITS

Northumberland had, until recently, largely escaped what has been described as a tidal wave of applications for so-called ‘farm-size’ turbines that is afflicting the Borders and Lothians. There is every indication that this is now changing, as some agents are using highly exaggerated claims for the possible returns from Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) in order to sell turbine packages to landowners.

Individual turbines can be very substantial structures, often up to 80 metres in height, as at New Bewick (77.9m), East Coldcotes (77.9m), Shoreswood (74m) and Wark Common (71m). For comparison, the Angel of the North is only 20m high and the old commercial turbines at Blyth Harbour were 42.5m in height.

The piecemeal approval of large numbers of these turbines will change the character and quality of our tourist landscapes as surely as individual turbine parks which have been refused in the same areas on the basis of their unacceptable visual impacts.

We have heard some shocking stories regarding the techniques being used to sell these turbines. These can involve landowners being sucked into the expenditure of tens of thousands before they discover how exaggerated agents’ claims are and how unsuitable sites are in planning terms.

FAILURE TO FOLLOW GOOD PRACTICE

There are also major criticisms of the way Northumberland County Council planners are handling these applications, many of which are of astonishingly poor quality, considering their potential impacts.

They are almost never required to provide a full environmental impact assessment, though planning guidance reserves the right for an EIA to be required by the planning authority. They are also seldom required by NCC planners to produce a proper visual impact assessment. Applications are sometimes being decided on the basis of a handful of highly selective photomontages, often of very poor quality and not meeting any recognised guidelines.

All too often planning officers are ignoring planning guidance that has led to the refusal of groups of turbines in the same area.

A recent application (11/01423/FUL) for a 24m turbine at Unthank Blue House was recommended for approval and approved despite a total lack of any VIA material. This is surprising when the location of the turbine and its potential impacts on a “key view to the Cheviots” from the B6354 is considered.

CONCEALING HEIGHTS

The same application betrayed the attitude of NCC planners in its description. This, while downplaying the scale of the turbine - “The erection of a small scale 11 kw Gaia Wind Turbine” - had no mention of the turbine’s height. Visitors were forced to comb through the application documents and then do a calculation dividing turbine rotor diameter by two and adding the result to the tower height in order to discover the tip height of the turbine.

Other planning authorities use impartial descriptors and include the tip height of the turbine in planning notices and website headings.

FUDGING NOISE ISSUES

Noise issues are also being ignored by planners and applicants. Applicants are getting away with supplying little more than the noise information supplied in a manufacturer’s brochure.

There are also examples of noise impacts being deliberately downplayed or hidden by applicants and not spotted by NCC planners or environmental health officers who have no expertise in this area. Planners are also using ‘cut and paste’ noise conditions from larger schemes, which are often inappropriate, defective or unenforceable.

IGNORING ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS

They are also ignoring advice on environmental safeguards.

Natural England, Wildlife Trusts, bat groups ¹ and even the companies pushing smaller turbines say that they should not be sited in or close to hedgelines due to the risks to bats without proper bat activity surveys.² Yet an objection by Natural England on this point was ignored for a recently built 15m turbine at West Allerdean.

PRESUMED CONSENT?

Just as planners in neighbouring authorities are applying much more rigorous criteria to single/smaller turbines, recommending refusal in very many cases, NCC is going in the opposite direction: recommending approval for nearly every application, however bad (we have only heard of two farm-scale wind turbines over 30m being recommended for refusal to date) - both on heritage grounds. This is leading to a growing suspicion that a secret policy of ‘presumed consent’ for farm-scale turbines is being applied by officers.

Parish councillors hear increasing numbers of complaints from the public that there is little point in having a development control system if a planning authority is going to ignore normal planning criteria and try to steamroller applications through against the opinion of local people and their representatives.

-------------------------

¹ Natural England guidance.
² “Not in hedgerows – bats!” (Mark Newton, FRSI, Fisher German, RenewableUK conference presentation on small turbines).

LARGE ‘FARM TURBINES’ REFUSED

Members of the Northumberland County Council’s Planning and Environment Committee have sent out a clear message that they wish to protect rural Northumberland from very large single turbines in inappropropriate areas.

The committee decisively rejected proposals brought forward by agents George F White for two 77.9m (255 ft) turbines for landowners at East Coldcotes, Ponteland and New Bewick, near Eglingham.

Both schemes had been recommended for approval by NCC planners, despite an overwhelming weight of objections from local residents and questions about impacts on protected landscapes.

EAST COLDCOTES

The East Coldcotes turbine was proposed by ‘Green Energy Ponteland Ltd’, a private company owned by Louis Fell, a partner in George F White, the agents for the proposal.

The site is on land owned by Peter Jackson, leader of the Conservative opposition group on Northumberland County Council. Mr Jackson initially claimed that he had no knowledge of the proposal. ¹

The proposal was rejected by 9 votes to 2, with Councillors refusing to accept the planning officer’s claims that the scheme would not have significant impacts on the green belt and the amenity of nearby residents.

NEW BEWICK

The New Bewick turbine, also presented by George F White for the landowner, was refused nem con, with one member abstaining from voting.

Several councillors presented impassioned arguments for the preservation of the unspoiled landscape in the area and rejected the officer’s claims that the turbine would have no significant vusual impacts on tourist landscapes. Councillors also questioned the claimed benefits for a turbine in a lowland, low wind area.

Claims by George F White’s representative that there was little local opposition to the scheme was met with laughter from the many members of the public who were present in the Council Chamber and was subsequently dismissed by Councillor Taylor who spoke of the unprecedented number of representations he had received from local people.

-------------------------

¹ ‘Councillor urged to resign over Ponteland wind turbine plan’, The Journal, 1 December, 2011.

ONSHORE TURBINES - NORTH SAYS NO!

A poll in The Journal, referencing comments by Energy Minister Chris Huhne (see Home page), has echoed an exit poll of visitors to the Middleton Burn exhibition in Belford.

According to The Journal, “Some 79 people agreed with Mr Huhne that they [wind turbines] are indeed elegant. But those backing him were somewhat outweighed by the 767 who voted to say they considered turbines to be a blight on the landscape.” ¹

The Middleton Burn exit poll showed that 250 of 267 visitors were against the scheme, only 10 were in favour, while 7 were undecided. ²

-------------------------

¹ ‘Wind farms poll shows nine in ten reject minister’s backing’, The Journal, 8 October, 2011.
² See ‘93.6% SAY NO!’, Middleton Burn Action Group (MBAG).

93.6% SAY NO!

EXIT POLL SHOWS OPPOSITION TO MIDDLETON BURN PROPOSAL

An exit poll of visitors to a presentation by Air Farmers on their scheme at Belford on Thursday, 29 September, 2011, shows that the overwhelming majority are against the scheme.

Visitors leaving the exhibition were given a ballot paper with the simple, unloaded question: “Having seen Air Farmers Ltd’s exhibition (29th September, 2011), are you FOR or AGAINST the Middleton Burn proposal for 16 125m (410 ft) wind turbines at Swinhoe Farm, Belford?”

The total responses were:

• Against - 250

• For - 10

• Undecided - 7

Ballot papers have their authors’ contact details and are available for inspection by officers of the planning authority.

Air Farmers issued visitors with a long questionnaire with a sequence of leading questions designed to show support for wind power and their scheme.

Many of the people present refused to fill it in.

NEW WEBSITE

The MBAG website has now published a review of Air Farmer’s dodgy PResention.

THE WORST SITE IN NORTHUMBERLAND?

‘Air Farmers Ltd’, a private wind development company based in London, are looking at developing a site at Swinhoe Farm, close to Belford. They are calling it ‘Middleton Burn’.¹

The proposal currently consists of sixteen 125m (410 ft) turbines, though the company may well reduce the numbers and/or height in due course ‘in response to consulation’.

This massively exceeds anything contemplated in capacity studies for North Northumberland and would have cumulative impacts with consented schemes at Middlemoor, Wandylaw and Barmoor.²

VISUAL IMPACTS

This scheme would dominate views from Holy Island and the coastal AONB. It would be at the centre of a chain of turbines, from Middlemoor in the south to Barmoor and distantly visible turbines at Black Hill, Crystal Rig and Aikengall, on the Lammermuirs skyline.

The site borders St Cuthbert’s Cave (National Trust). Turbines would tower over the crest of the hill behind the site and destroy the peace of this much-loved place with the thumping beat of their blades (the company’s own noise predictions show that the noise would exceed the allowable limits at houses).

The turbines would also be as close as 200 metres to St Cuthbert’s Way, while the Northumberland Coastal Path/St Oswald’s Way runs through the site and again passes as close as 200m (a 2 kilometre separation distance from important tourist trails like these is required by Scottish Borders’ wind farm planning guidance).

The scheme is only 2.3 km from a major population centre at Belford.

ECOLOGICAL AND TOURISM IMPACTS

This area has previously been seen as off limits to wind speculators due to its proximity to the heritage coast and the Lindisfarne National Nature Reserve.³ The site borders the Holburn Moss SSSI and SPA; Holburn Lake is on the Ramsar list of Wetlands of International Importance.

It will have major impacts on the Kyloe Hills and Glendale Area of High Landscape Value.

All in all, it is hard to imagine a more inappropriate site for a large array of massive industrial turbines.

‘AIR FARMERS’

Air Farmers is a small and highly secretive privately-owned company which was only formed in 2008, it is based in London. The company has no previous history in wind development. It has just announced another proposal at Middle Hill on the boundary of the National Park close to Elsdon (see below).

Mr Jens Rasmussen, A Danish National is the managing director. At their exhibition he refused to reveal anything about the company or its financial backers other than the very little that appears on Company House records.

All that we did discover from Mr Rasmussen is that Air Farmers have resigned from RenewableUK, the wind industry trade body.

We were also surprised to discover that Air Farmers do not directly employ Mr Bob Morgan, the Middleton Burn and Middle Hill Project Manager. As recently as 2010 he was a development manager with developers Cornwall Light and Power, before forming his own consultancy company.

-------------------------

Response Group: Middleton Burn Action Group (MBAG).

¹ Scoping documents should be available from Northumberland County Council’s Central Development Management Team: Tel. 01670 534055, Email - Central.planning@northumberland.gov.uk.
Developer website. You will find more information on the project on the MBAG website!
² Arup’s capacity studies for the Charlton and Berwick areas can been downloaded from the archive website for strategy integration in North East England .
³ Natural England website.
Press coverage:
‘Villagers flock to see windfarm plans’, Northumberland Gazette, 29 September, 2011.
‘Anger over wind farm plan’, Berwick Advertiser, 22 September, 2011.
‘Developer moves to allay Northumberland wind turbine worries’, The Journal, 20 September, 2011. (Recommended!).
‘New Belford wind farm plan set to spark controversy’, The Journal, 17 September, 2011.

125M TURBINES - THE REAL THING

The enlarged section in the picture shows workmen in the nacelle; the orange and yellow dots at the base of the turbine are more workmen.

These turbines are clearly visible on the skyline from 35km away in North Northumberland.

MASSIVE TURBINE SCHEME AT ELSDON

‘Air Farmers Ltd’, a privately-owned, speculative wind development company based in London, is looking at developing a turbine array on a site at Middle Hill, bordering the A696 and the National Park to the south east of Elsdon.

The proposal is likely to be for nine 125m (410 ft) turbines.

The turbine array would be close to Winter’s Gibbet, the National Park boundary and the scenic viewpoint at Battle Hill.

Another scheme, for sixteen 125m turbines at Ray Estate, is close by; it was consented in 2010 after a public inquiry. A further proposal, for twenty-two 120m turbines in Harwood Forest (‘Ray 2’), close to the east, is also at the pre-application stage.

-------------------------

Developer website.
Sign the ‘Oppose Middle Hill Wind Farm Development’ i-Petition.
Press coverage:
‘Fierce criticism of wind turbine plans’, The Journal, 19 September, 2011.
‘Anger as landmark is earmarked for windfarm’, Hexham Courant, 15 August 2011.
‘Fury at “Victorian Disneyland” slur’, Northumberland Gazette, 11 August 2011.
‘Uproar at plans to build wind turbines at Elsdon’, The Journal, 9 August, 2011.

MORPETH GROUP LAUNCHES WEBSITE

‘Action for Rural Morpeth’, the community response group fighting proposals in the Morpeth area has launched its new website.

Action for Rural Morpeth website

The Morpeth green belt is the latest target for speculative wind developers:

‘NORTH COVERT’

It was recently revealed that Coriolis Energy are developing the North Covert scheme for Italian-owned Falck Renewables.²

Consultancy firm TNEI are representing Coriolis/Falck Renewables. They refuse to say how many turbines are being considered for the site or how large they might be. The site area lies close to Edington and Molesden.

An application for an 80m anemometer mast on the site was consented in August, 2011.³

TRANWELL

Another scheme is being proposed at Tranwell on the historic site of RAF Morpeth.

Wind Ventures, a small speculative wind development company, is proposing to build four 126m turbines on the site.⁴

-------------------------

¹ Action for Rural Morpeth (AfRM) website.
² Coriolis website.
³ NCC Planning Ref. 11/01001/RENE.
⁴ Wind Ventures website.

‘OBJECTORS VOW TO CARRY ON’

Northumberland Gazette, 8 June, 2011.

‘Objectors to a potential windfarm scheme have vowed they will not rest on their laurels after being told that there are currently no plans for a development close to their homes.

‘Panic erupted earlier this year when a map revealing nine turbines sited on the outskirts of villages such as Hadston, South Broomhill and Togston, as well as Druridge Bay Country Park and beach, was discovered.

‘The document, produced by Terence O’Rourke Ltd – planning consultants for wind power company Future Electric Limited – showed an indicative layout of a possible scheme, with some turbines less than 500 metres from houses, sparking fears of a proposal.

‘[...]’

MILITARY RADAR DEAL OPENS THE WAY FOR MORE TURBINE SCHEMES

A deal done between the Ministry of Defence and the wind industry to buy American radar sets may open the way for a new wave of large-scale turbine parks in Northumberland.

Applications such as Middlemoor have been dogged by MOD objections due to problems caused to military radars. Moving turbine blades can mimic the signal from aircraft or missiles and could cloak attacks.

The wind industry has now struck a deal to purchase 2 Lockheed Martin TPS-77 3D mobile radars, costing £20 million each. A third, at Trimingham in Norfolk, will be part-funded by DECC, industry and the Crown Estate.

It is reported that the MOD has confirmed that the purchase of a radar set for Brizlee Wood will be announced in the coming weeks, with installation during the next 18 months.¹

This will allow North British Windpower’s 48 turbine Fallago Rig project, on land owned by the Duke of Roxburghe, to be built. It should also unblock other turbine schemes with radar problems in the Borders and Northumberland.

However, it will not only expose areas such as the Lammermuirs, which already have huge numbers of operating and/or consented turbines to yet more applications, but it will will also open up areas that were previously ‘off limits’ due to radar impacts.

The costs of this will, like subsidies and grid strengthening to cope with erratic wind power generation, be passed on to the electricity consumer.

Dr John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation said to the Telegraph:

The 27 gigawatts of wind power thought by government to be enabled over the next decade if aviation objections are lifted will cost the electricity consumer approximately £164 billion in subsidy alone over the life time of the wind turbines, around 25 years.

That is a sum nearly five times the annual cost of the entire Ministry of Defence: Army, Navy and RAF combined. Coming at a time of constrained budgets, not least in the MoD, there will be intense and justified questions about the value for money represented by public subsidies on this scale.²

Mark Rowley, who heads the Say No to Fallago campaign, is quoted in the same article as saying:

If even a fraction of the extra schemes are consented, this important gateway to Scotland will become a 21st century Hadrian’s Wall made of 400 foot turbines stretched across some of the finest landscapes in Scotland.

-------------------------

¹ ‘Three new Lockheed Martin radars could unlock 8GW of wind power’, BusinessGreen, 1 September, 2011.
² Telegraph, 28 August, 2011.

THE ALICE IN WONDERLAND WORLD
OF WIND DEVELOPMENT

The wind industry’s trade body includes the following in its list of ‘Top Myths About Wind Energy’:

11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy ¹

Meanwhile, in the real world ...

TURBINES V. TOURISM

Wind Prospect Developments recently won planning permission for eighteen 110m turbines at Green Rigg, near Sweethope Lough in Tynedale, Northumberland. They have once more objected to plans for a tourist development nearby.

Sherod Walker had plans for the eco-friendly Waterfalls holiday park and equestrian centre refused by Northumberland County Council earlier this year, his appeal is due to be heard in February.

The project was expected to create 106 temporary jobs and 67 full-time posts. It would have put £2m a year into the local economy and was backed by local organisations, the naturalist David Bellamy and 330 individual supporters.

The county council turned down the plans on the basis of visual impact – the issue upon which Mr Walker is taking the case to appeal.

He has now submitted a second application for a smaller development of three holiday cottages and two stables on land next to his house on the Waterfalls estate.²

Once again he is facing objections from Wind Prospect, whose turbines are only 450 metres from the Waterfalls park boundary.

Again they say that noise from the wind farm, which is not yet fully operational, must be taken into account in considering the new development.

In a letter from their solicitors regarding the first proposal Wind Prospect stated that:

... this is a proposed holiday centre, where patrons would reasonably expect to sit outside to enjoy the relative peace and quiet of the countryside. [...] Noise from the permitted wind energy development will be very likely to provoke complaints, and this will place both the [NCC] Environmental Health Department and the wind farm operator in an impossible position: a complaint about noise could be found to be justified, and construed as a noise nuisance, even though the wind farm was operating lawfully within the constraints of its planning conditions. ³

So, it appears that a wind development company is admitting that:

• wind turbine developments can seriously affect the peace and quiet of the countryside;

• wind turbine developments can cause a noise nuisance within the grounds of a nearby property where noise has been monitored;

• wind turbine developments can harm or restrict tourism;

• complaints about turbine noise may be justified even though the turbine scheme is, “operating lawfully within the constraints of its planning conditions”.

-------------------------

¹ Renewable UK (formerly known as the British Wind Energy Association) ‘Top Myths About Wind Energy’.
² ‘Boss takes on wind farm in new battle’, The Journal, 20 November, 2010.
³ Letter from Hammonds LLP, 11 June 2010, to Northumberland County Council planning department (letter and map linked here).

WHY NORTHUMBERLAND SAYS NO

The Duke of Northumberland, the largest landowner in Northumberland and the person with perhaps the greatest single, personal responsibility for preserving the our countryside and heritage, has spoken out on his reasons for opposing industrial wind power stations in the Northumbrian countryside:

R CURRAN asks (The Journal letters 25th November) why I am silent on the wind farm issue.

As I and my forebears have opened quarries and mines, built offices, schools and supermarkets, a considerable number of houses and been involved in a wide range of other developments which occasionally provoke local opposition, I could stand accused of double standards if I became publicly involved in the wind farm debate in our region.

However, I have privately stated my opposition and personally written to councillors to state that opposition. There are no wind farms on my family estate and I have repelled all requests to apply for them.

I have studied the debate, arguments and statistics and come to the personal conclusion that wind farms divide communities, ruin landscapes, affect tourism, make a minimal contribution to our energy needs and a negligible contribution towards reducing CO2 emissions.

The landowner and developer are enriched while the consumer is impoverished by higher energy costs.

Turbines are ugly, noisy and completely out of place in our beautiful, historic landscape.

Their requirement for vast amounts of concrete and, in some cases, the destruction of large areas of peat add significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere so that it takes many years for them to provide a real benefit.

They generate intermittently, require back-up from traditional or nuclear power and, in some of our most beautiful countryside, necessitate the erection of many miles of large pylons and high capacity lines.

As I am a private, unelected and relatively apolitical individual, Mr Curran’s view that I am the most influential voice in Northumberland is somewhat unrealistic. However, if my personal opinion has any effect on diminishing the threat from vast industrial machines in our landscape, I will be delighted.

Duke of Northumberland

It is worth noting that the Duke is not alone in refusing to have power stations on his land, the overwhelming majority of leading landowners in Northumberland have refused tens of millions (paid from our electricity bills) being offered by speculative wind developers.

In our area, examples include Ford and Etal Estates (Lord Joicey), Lambton Estates (Lord Lambton) and Lilburn Estates (Duncan Davidson).

Nor is it only the big landowners. The great majority of responsible farmers put their role as custodians of the landscape and good neighbours ahead of easy, unearned money from wind turbines that would damage the landscape, local tourist businesses and the wellbeing of their neighbours.

‘TIME CALLED ON CLIPPER 10MW PROJECT’

reNews, 19 August, 2011.

‘The troubled Clipper 10MW offshore turbine project Britannia has been kicked into the long grass by US parent company UTC. The decision has forced the Crown Estate to abandon plans to erect a prototype of the machine in the UK [at Blyth].

‘Crown officials confirmed this week that the Britannia deal was off the table and that UTC had repaid the £1.6m plus VAT invested by the estate in the turbine project.

‘A spokesperson said the “aims and objectives of the (Clipper) investment had been achieved” because the offshore turbine market had been “stimulated” as a result.

‘reNews reported doubts about the future of the turbine’s development as long ago as October 2010, when UTC grabbed 100% of Clipper. Company sources reacted angrily at the time to reports of a “crisis meeting”.

‘A second reNews story, in May 2011, revealed that millions of pounds in UK government grant funding for development of the machine had been withdrawn due to Clipper’s failure to meet financial and technical milestones.

‘Companies linked to the Clipper 10MW project included David Brown Gear Systems and Narec. It is unclear how they will be impacted by the decision to ice Britannia.

‘The Crown Estate has been reluctant to provide any information about its tie-up with Clipper, despite a schedule that originally envisioned an operational demonstrator in 2010.

‘It said as recently as May that it was continuing to work with the turbine outfit on an updated programme for the project.

‘Support for Clipper included £5m from One North East to build a blade manufacturing facility at the Neptune Yard on Tyneside. That is expected to be mothballed.*

‘Clipper was also named as a finalist by the UK government in the upcoming NER 300 funding round. The proposal, to deploy a 10MW machine off Blyth in Northumberland, is expected to be withdrawn.

‘Clipper announced its Britannia project in October 2007. At the time established turbine manufacturers questioned the logic of putting so much government backing behind an untried offshore technology.’

-------------------------

* See: One NorthEast press release (PDF file).
The regional press has, at last, published a sanitised version of the story, see: ‘Wind turbine firm Clipper halts North East investment’, The Journal, 24 August, 2011.

U.T.C. DUMP “MISBEGOTTEN ACQUISITION” CLIPPER WINDPOWER.

Giant US industrial conglomerate United Technologies dumped Clipper Windpower soon after its acquisition.

Associated Press reports Drexel Hamilton analyst Rick Whittington as calling Clipper a “misbegotten acquisition.”.

It is reported that Clipper have ceased building new turbines and that a major customer is seeking to freeze the company’s assets — including its Cedar Rapids factory and equipment — to ensure it can pay a possible arbitration settlement of a lawsuit regarding $59.5 million in advance payments for wind turbines it no longer produces.

By February, Clipper will consist of “somewhere under 100 employees.”, and it is likely that the only part of the company to live on will be servicing the proprietary gearboxes in its 739-turbine fleet.

-------------------------

‘United Technologies to sell wind, rocket engine businesses to finance $16.5B Goodrich deal’, Washington Post/Bloomberg Business, 15 March, 2012.
‘Customer seeking to freeze Clipper Windpower assets, including Cedar Rapids factory’, The Gazette, 4 November, 2012.
‘Clipper chops South Coast jobs, operations’, Pacific coast business times, 16 November, 2012.

NORTHUMBERLAND - SOME LOCAL RESPONSE GROUPS:



• Action for Rural Morpeth (AfRM)- Group opposing the ‘North Covert’, Tranwell and other proposals threatening rural Morpeth.



• Carham area Turbine Action Group.



• Fight Fenrother Windfarm. - Opposes plans by Energiekontor for five 126m turbines at Fenrother, near Longhorsley.



• Fight Follions Wind Farm (And on Facebook). - Group opposing a very large (78m) ‘farm turbine’ in a sensitive landscape between Callaly and Thropton, close to the National Park.



• Middle Hill Action Group (MHAG) - Group formed to fight a proposal by Air Farmers for nine 125m. (410 ft) turbines at Middle Hill, close to the village of Elsdon and bordering the National Park.



• Middleton Burn Action Group (MBAG) - Group formed to fight a proposal by Air Farmers for sixteen 125m. (410 ft) turbines at ‘Middleton Burn’ (Swinhoe Farm), close to Derchant and Belford.



• Tranwell Windfarm Action Group (TWAG) - Group formed to fight a proposal by Wind Ventures for four 126.5m turbines on the World War II Morpeth Airfield at Tranwell, just to the west of the town.



• Wingates NOT Wind Farms - Group formed to fight the proposals by Infinis (Novera), Coronation Power, RES and BT for turbine arrays on several wind farm sites which would surround Wingates village and severely impact on the surrounding area. Website not available at the moment.