NORTHUMBERLAND NEWS

‘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.

[...]’

PLANNING MEETINGS:

‘SISTERS’ SCHEME APPROVED

The application by Infinis for four 126m turbines on on the former Sisters opencast site, Widdrington, was approved by the Central Planning Committee at a meeting on Tuesday, 7 February.

The decision followed a planning officer’s recommendation to approve the scheme.

There is every expectation that NCC planners will also rubber stamp Peel Energy’s Maidens Hall application for thirteen 126.5m turbines, near Chevington.*

Both schemes are on the Northumberland coastal tourist route and will flank Druridge Bay with turbines.

This seems to be of no concern to NCC planners who have swallowed the wind industry line that, “There is no significant evidence that wind turbines have any effect on tourism.” (Karen Ledger, Head of Development Services, see below).

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

* NCC planning ref. 12/00290/RENEIA.

NORTH AREA COMMITTEE

The North Area Committee will no longer consider planning applications for wind turbines. These will be heard by the Central Committee in the future.

Sadly, the North Area Committee’s last outing, on 2 February, repeatedly saw the unquestioning acceptance of misleading information and advice from officers.

• 11/01751/FUL - 71m turbine at Wark Common Farm, Cornhill on Tweed.

  Passed on the basis of misleading information from the case officer on visual impacts: he actually contradicted the applicant’s own ZVI mapping in saying that the turbine would not be visible from settlements in the Tweed Valley!

  He was also unable to explain or justify why the cut-and-paste conditions included a requirement for a high-intensity aviation warning light, normally only ever required for turbines well over 100m.

  Sadly, none of the people considering the application were sufficiently well briefed to query the major errors in the noise conditions.

The Head of Development Services actually parroted wind industry propaganda in advice to members of the committee on planning grounds for refusal stating that, “There is no significant evidence that wind turbines have any effect on tourism.” As anyone who has researched the subject will know, this is not true.

• 11/02217/FUL - 47.1m turbine at Brackenside Farm, Barmoor.

  Passed on the basis of misleading information from the same case officer on the planning history of the site and on visual impacts and cumulation; more cut-and-paste conditions with major errors in the noise conditions.

• 11/02506/FUL - 34.2m turbine at New Haggerston Farm House, Haggerston.

  Wafted through without discussion.

All these applications had major errors, omissions and misleading statements in the officers’ reports.

‘PIE IN THE SKY’?

Peel Energy have submitted a planning application for thirteen 126m turbines near Widdrington.

UK Coal, the landowners, and Peel Energy have long had ambitions to build a lucrative wind development on this site area and have succeeded in getting the support of the Widdrington Regeneration Partnership (WRP) in presenting it as part of the so-called ‘Blue Sky Forest’ development.

There is currently no guarantee that the rest of the scheme’s possible elements - including a golf course, equestrian centre, ski slope, swimming pool, hotel and conference centre - will ever materialise should the turbine scheme be consented. All that Peel Energy are saying is:

The wind farm would lay foundations for other proposals at Blue Sky Forest through the installation of access roads and essential electricity network connections. As well as helping to reducing overall construction costs, there is potential to speed up delivery of the complete initiative. (Blue Sky Forest Wind Farm website).

Many people have questioned the viability of, for example, a major golf course in the middle of a massive industrial turbine array.

In view of these doubts, surely any wind power station consent should be conditional on the delivery of the other elements of the proposed project.

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

‘Widdrington wind farm plan seeks to kick-start £200m Blue Sky Forest project’, The Journal, 2 February, 2012.
Blue Sky Forest Wind Farm website.

MASSIVE TURBINES AT BLYTH HARBOUR

It is reported that work will start in May on the construction of a 130m (426 ft) REpower 3.4M104 turbine, the first of 7 replacements for the existing 42.5m turbines, at Blyth Harbour. ¹

The existing turbines have 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 will 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.

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”. ²

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 See below.

FAREWELL THE “FAR HORIZONS”

Make the most of our glorious landscapes this summer; RWE npower, the German-owned energy conglomerate, intend starting construction of eighteen 125m (410 ft) turbines at Middlemoor this year.

The Middlemoor turbines were consented at appeal in 2008, overturning a local decision to refuse planning permission. The site borders the Wandylaw scheme for ten 125m turbines which was also passed at appeal, overturning a local decision.

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.

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

HUGE SUBSIDY

Electricity consumers will be paying c. £8.9 million per year in subsidies for this blot on the Northumberland landscape (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).

‘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.

‘[...]’

SHORESWOOD TURBINE PROPOSAL

The owners of Shoreswood Farm are proposing to build a 74m (242 ft) turbine, on a prominent site at Ewe Hill, Shoreswood, near Berwick, NCC Planning Ref. 11/02725/RENE.

The site is close to that of turbine 1 of the original Moorsyde scheme, one of two turbines which were withdrawn by the developer on advice from the County Archaeologist due to visual impacts on the Duddo Five Stones Scheduled Ancient Monument. The revised scheme was subsequently refused locally and at appeal.

Enercon E48, 0.8MW turbine. ©Balnamoon Renewables Ltd.

TURBINE SIZE The developers propose using the Enercon E48 turbine. This has a hub height of 50m and a blade-tip height of 74m (242 ft). For comparison: the Angel of the North is 20m high and Berwick Town Hall is 46m (150 ft high). Many will be familiar with the Blyth Harbour turbines: these have a hub height of 30m and a blade tip height of 42.5m. The main part of the huge Dun Law (Soutra) commercial wind park on the way to Edinburgh has turbines with a blade tip height of 63.5m, while the new Dun Law extension has turbines with 49m hubs and an overall height of 75m, Similar to the Shoreswood project. The 22 new turbines being built at Drone Hill, near Coldingham, are 76m in height. NO HEIGHT INFORMATION Despite a complaint to the Case Officer prior to a revalidation of the application, NCC planners have refused to give the size of the turbine in planning notices, neighbour letters and other headline descriptions of the project: “11/02725/RENE | Full planning permission is sought for the installation of an 800kW wind turbine and associated infrastructure” (NCC planning page entry).

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION:

• VISUAL IMPACT ON DUDDO FIVE STONES. The turbine is close to the site of the original Moorsyde turbine 1 (when Moorsyde was a 14 turbine scheme). Moorsyde turbines 1 and 2 were withdrawn from the then application in 2006 on advice from the County Archaeologist because of their visual impacts on Duddo Five Stones, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).

  Moorsyde was appealed and finally refused in 2010, as was the Toft Hill proposal which also threatened the setting of Duddo Five Stones.

  The Assistant County Archaeologist has clearly advised the applicants that the current scale and location of the turbine is not acceptable:

  Given the planning history of the site, the choice of scale and location is surprising. I am concerned that the development will be harmful to the setting of Duddo Stone Circle (SAM) and that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that this impact has been minimised. In particular, I am concerned that the choice of turbine (c.74m to blade tip) has not been influenced by an aspiration to minimise development impact on the setting of Duddo Stone Circle (a designated heritage asset) as required by PPS5 Policy HE1.2,9 Key Principle viii10 of PPS22 and advocated by English Heritage guidance.

  I therefore recommend that the LPA encourages the applicant to review the application with a view to minimising the impact of the development on the historic environment, specifically the significance and setting of Duddo Stone Circle SAM. This should include a review of both the scale and location of development proposed.

  (Letter from Asst. Co. Archaeologist [Ref: B36/1: 13590] to the Case Officer, 24 January 2012).

• OTHER HERITAGE SITES. The applicant’s impact assessment completely fails to mention the World War 2 High Frequency Direction Finding site on Ewe Hill (see Wikimedia article). A little surprising, as this was opened as a tourist viewpoint by the Jackson family (applicants) in 2003, with public funding from Defra’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. ¹

  The tower base contains a raised viewing platform with a 360 degree compass rose guide to what one of the site interpretation boards describes as, “... wonderful views east to the coast, south to the Cheviot Hills and north across the Tweed to the Lammermuir Hills.”.

  
  Viewing platform, looking north to the Lammermuir Hills
  © Don Brownlow Photography

  Brochures on the site have been previously produced to publicise the site as a tourist attraction. The local press described the site in the following terms:

  A secret World War Two tower on a north Northumberland farm has been reborn as a viewing point for some of the most spectacular scenery in the county.
  A metal platform has been constructed inside the base of the RAF war plane guidance tower on Shoreswood Farm near Berwick, giving views of Eildon Hill, Border Ridge, the Cheviots, the Kyloe Hills, Halidon Hill and as far down the coast as Holy Island. ²

  
  Shoreswood interpretation board
  © Don Brownlow Photography

  The turbine would have major impacts on this tourism/heritage site, being approx. 400m WSW of the viewpoint.

• SCALE AND LOCATION. Other farm turbines in the area are much smaller and visually linked to farm buildings, for example: West Allerdean (15m), Felkington Farm (20m), Tillmouth Park Farm (31.5m) - see scale diagram, above.

  The Shorewood turbine is visually isolated from the farm building complex and is a large commercial turbine (74m). It is of a similar size to turbines used at commercial wind farms at Black Hill, nr. Duns (78m) and the turbines at Dun Law (Soutra) on the A68 to Edinburgh (63.5m and 75m).

  The design of the scheme is visually incoherent, with the turbine towering above the skyline in a very prominent position. It would be prominent in views to the Cheviots from local tourist routes, going against local planning guidance. The Moorsyde wind farm was rejected by the Secretary of State mainly because it was found that it, “would be seriously harmful to the principal views of the Cheviots”. (Decision letter).

  A smaller, farm-scale turbine close to the trees and farm buildings at Shoreswood Farm would be more acceptable to local communities and would have much less impact on what the planning authority describes as, “an attractive landscape with several landscape, ecological and historic designations in relative close proximity” (NCC screening opinion response).

  Local parish councillors, including the author of this article, did not object to the 31.5m turbine at Tillmouth Park, which is close to farm buildings and scaled to farm operations.

  County councillors have recently expressed their opinion of oversized single commercial turbines in sensitive locations by refusing two 77.9m turbines, at New Bewick and Ponteland (see below).

• TOURISM. We have already mentioned the impact on the Ewe Hill viewpoint, above. The turbine would also have major visual impacts on local tourist routes and sites, including the Salutation Inn and caravan park which is only c. 1 km from the site.
• ROAD SAFETY. The turbine site is also close to the Salutation crossroads, a very dangerous crossroads on a high speed section of the A698. It has seen at least one fatal accident in the past. This turbine would be an unnecessary visual distraction to drivers.
• CUMULATION. The application omits to mention nearby operating turbines at Felkington (20m) and West Allerdean (15m), both within 5 km and clearly visible from the site. They also omit proposals for two 54m turbines within 10km which had already been screened/scoped with NCC and are now subject to planning applications: East Newbiggin, Norham (Planning Ref. 11/02948/RENE) and Fellowhills, nr. Ladykirk (SBC Planning Ref.11/01476/FUL).

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

¹ ‘New point of view for secret war tower’, Berwick Advertiser, 28 May 2003.
² Ibid.

This turbine would have adverse impacts on the local area that are clearly disproportionate to its benefits, which would be financial and which would extend only to the applicants.

OBJECT NOW:

Objections can be made online, or write, making sure to quote planning reference 11/02725/RENE, to:

Mrs Sue Birnie, Senior Planning Officer,
Central Development Management Team,
Northumberland County Council,
County Hall,
Morpeth, NE61 2EF

Sue.Birnie@northumberland.gcsx.gov.uk
(Ask for an acknowledgement of your objection - NCC have a history of losing planning responses).

Please copy your objection to our Ward Councillor, Dougie Watkin:

Councillor R J D Watkin
4 Newburn Holdings,
Norham,
Berwick-upon-Tweed, TD15 2LW

DouWatkin@aol.com

TURBINE SITE LANDOWNERS FACE TRIAL FOR WASTE DUMPING

It is reported that two turbine site landowners charged with waste dumping offences now have their cases listed for trial at Newcastle Crown Court on 15 October.

William Jackson, of Shoreswood Farm, who is currently trying to get permission for a 74m turbine on his land, is charged with allowing controlled waste to be deposited at Shoreswood Farm without a permit.

Charles Armstrong of Middlemoor Farm, site of the consented Middlemoor turbine array of eighteen 125m turbines, has admitted a similar charge.

In all, seven men are facing trial on waste dumping offences committed at Shoreswood, Middlemoor and Murton White House farms between 1 January, 2008 and 31 January 2009.

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

See: ‘Waste dumping case sent for trial at crown court’, Berwick Advertiser, 26 Janiary, 2011.

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 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 are 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 have never been 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 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 one farm-scale wind turbine over 30m being recommended for refusal to date). 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 comments 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.

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

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

TWO 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. - Now rewritten to try and present themselves as being interested in the environment rather than the money! The site is purely a PR puff with no information on the company or their projects.
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.

‘[...]’

PARKHEAD APPEAL HITS THE BUFFERS

RES, the Parkhead developers, have withdrawn from the appeal that was scheduled to start on 29 June 2011 and their planning application has also now been withdrawn.

They had asked for an adjournment of the appeal, claiming that their application had been affected by conditions contained in the planning approval given for the Wingates application and, as a consequence, they were amending their application and wanted an adjournment in order to carry out additional assessment work.

Other parties to the appeal objected to an adjournment on these terms.

The Planning Inspectorate said that they would not allow an adjournment and that it was for the Inspector to hear representations at the forthcoming inquiry as to whether it should proceed on the basis of the original or any revised scheme. If it were to be the latter then an adjournment might be granted for the revised scheme to be considered.

Subsequently, correspondence from RES’ lawyers to the Planning Inspectorate was released which stated that RES were withdrawing from the appeal with immediate effect.

RES say that they are considering their options for submitting a revised scheme.

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

See: ‘Developer RES withdraws Park Head wind farm scheme’, The Journal, 2 June, 2011.

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.

NORTHUMBERLAND - SOME LOCAL RESPONSE GROUPS:



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



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



• 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.



• West Ancroft Community Action (WACA) - Tel. 01289 387257. - Group formed to fight a proposal by E.ON UK for eight 115m. (377 ft) turbines at Ancroft Northmoor (contiguous with the rejected ‘Moorsyde’ proposal) in the beautiful, unspoilt landscape of North Northumberland.
  Proposal withdrawn in August 2010, but, over a year later, E.ON are still causing planning blight in the area by threatening to return with a smaller scheme.



• 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.