|
DETAIL
The committee have discussed
this application and reviewed the documentation and have asked
me to make the following observations to the Planning Committee.
We object to this application.
We acknowledge the need for renewable energy but also
acknowledge the importance of Weston Hills as a resource for the
towns and villages in the area, so there is a conflict.
Our main concerns and reasons for objection, relate to the
impact these proposed turbines would have on the area, in
particular the environmental impact and the impact on the
quality of life of the peoples of Baldock, Weston, Letchworth
and other surrounding populated areas.
We have broken our points down into specific areas of concern,
being:
1.0 Vibration
1.1 There is much evidence that low frequency vibration can
cause considerable issues and set up sympathetic vibration that
can be catastrophic (the Millennium Bridge being a simple
example).
1.2 Great lengths and expenditure were implemented to retain the
visual aspect of the hills when the By-Pass was constructed. The
resultant steep banks could be at risk of subsidence if such
vibrations are set up in the area.
1.3 There are residential properties with direct sight lines of
these turbines that could be seriously affected by vibration,
especially the lighter construction properties on the Mobile
Home site off Limekiln Lane, Baldock.
1.4 It is clear from experience at other locations that the
actual effect of any vibration cannot be calculated as the
complex mathematical models do not exist to predict with
complete accuracy. If the top consulting engineers in the UK
cannot predict how a simple structure like a bridge will react
to vibration, how can anyone predict how a complex geological
environment will react to low frequency vibration? The answer is
they cannot. This is true of any situation where vibrations,
especially sympathetic vibrations, occur. It is therefore true
to say that whatever is documented within the Environmental
Statement is of no significance and cannot guarantee issues will
not arise.
1.5 We think the NHDC and/or the Developers should be prepared
to indemnify all property owners in the district, who are
affected by the operation of these turbines, against all losses
and expenses incurred, including relocation costs, loss of
property values and compensation to change of
circumstances/lifestyles.
1.6 We further think the developers should be contracted (by
Bond or other suitable monetary method) to resolve any issues of
land movement, however small for the duration of the operating
lives of the turbines plus a period to be determined by a
suitably qualified person to prevent future issues with land
movement.
2.0 Noise
2.1 Noise is a very sensitive issue and must be a prime
consideration of the NHDC when considering this application.
2.2 The actual noise level generated by these turbines must be
viewed only in the context of what increase there is to existing
background noise levels. It is normal for a proper ES to measure
the background noise levels at each potentially affected
property, covering a full spectrum of frequencies and periods
and to then calculate the increase in that background level in
all instances. To say the worst case is 35dBA is irrelevant, as
it could be a significant increase and totally unacceptable.
2.3 Any increase in background noise, at any property in the
district, is unacceptable. North Hertfordshire already has
significant noise issues with transport (vehicles and aviation)
and NHDC should be investing in reducing background noise
levels, not increasing them.
2.4 On this issue alone we think the application should be
rejected.
3.0 Visual
3.1 The committee felt that the operating issues alone were
enough to reject the application, so the visual aspects,
although discussed, did not present the main focus of concern.
3.2 It seems ironic that major costs were attributed to
providing tunnels for the Weston Hills to reduce the visual
impact, to then site such turbines on top of the hills. The
logic of this requires some detailed explanation from NHDC/HCC.
Also, we would expect to see some accountability for the
misspending on the tunnels if suddenly the visual impact has
taken a lower standing in any proposed developments on or around
the hills.
4.0 Who Gains?
4.1 We do not see who is to gain from this proposal other than
the Developer. The actual effectiveness, other than a token
“green” gesture, of 3 turbines helping to offset the energy
consumption of the district, is not proven in the wider arena in
these rural locations; they make more sense on larger scale
developments off shore.
4.2 There is mention of a fund to be set up for the village of
Weston, but it is a very loose statement that is no more than a
token gesture and probably unenforceable. It also excludes
Baldock which is as geographically close to the site.
4.3 There was no attached Section 106 agreement we could find.
We feel that a development of this scale and impact, on Green
Belt, should show some significant gains to the local
communities of Weston and Baldock.
5.0 TV/Radio Reception
5.1 It is of considerable concern, that on the eve of going
“digital” and with many years of poor reception, it could get
worse! The concept that “things will be sorted out by the
Developer at their costs” is ludicrous. Are they going to
measure the signal strength at every house in the district as a
bench mark? How will a householder prove they have been
affected? We see this as unmanageable and unworkable.
5.2 In the event that the Developer did address this issue, any
solution offered must not result in any additional costs being
incurred by householders for the lifetime of the turbines, and
also be at least like for like with what they have. For example,
if the solution were to arrange for the installation of cable
television, it would not be acceptable to just pay for the
installation. There are ongoing costs. There are also
limitations to cable, such as only being able to access one
channel at a time (unlike conventional technologies where users
can watch one and record another); whilst this can be
circumvented by higher levels of subscription, these should
again be borne by the Developer.
5.3 In any event, we are of the opinion that, if there is any
risk of disruption of the various signals, the application
should be turned down.
6.0 NHDC Qualifications
6.1 Do NHDC have the qualifications to deal with the Technical
aspects of this application? This is a very rare occurrence, in
the district, and there are not so many in the UK. It is
unlikely that the experience and expertise is within the
Council. There are many technical issues within these documents
requiring varied specialists to analyse and report. Who is going
to bear the costs of such specialists? Have the Council employed
outside consultants to deal with these aspects?
7.0 Other Points
7.1 There is concern that should this application be granted,
which we hope it is not, that others could follow in the
district, leading to a reduction of the little green space we
have between our towns and villages.
7.2 There are many side issues to this application, loss of
Green Belt, loss of amenity space, routing of power cables to
the National Grid, access to the site, maintenance of the site,
wildlife issues, disruption during construction and so on,
leaving us with the opinion that this proposal should be
rejected, but rejected on good solid planning and environmental
issues, such that it will stand up to an appeal. This is, hence
our reference to the qualifications of those experts employed by
the council in 6.0 above; the arguments need to be solid and
stand close scrutiny in the Public Arena.
|
