Stoke park Residents celebrate Wind turbine decision!

Success on Wind turbine campaign

I am thrilled to announce that PfR have dropped their plans for the windfarm that was proposed on IBC land at Thorington, following an effective local campaign.

This is a summary of what they said

'Both the technical assessment PfR has undertaken and the local feedback has been invaluable in helping us hone our proposal and we are confident that this single turbine project is now the optimal design for the locality.

The project will no longer include the previously proposed turbine on Ipswich Borough Council (IBC) owned land east of Belstead and south of Pinewood. There are no plans to re-consider this in the future and the agreement with IBC will fall away at the end of the year.'

Well done to Jenny from Stop Ipswich Turbines who I have given my full support to from day one of the campaign. 

I was the only S.W. Ipswich councillor to publicly state that I was totally against the proposal being so close to homes. 

Well done to the residents who filled in and returned the survey from myself and Ben Gummer MP, proving the strength of feeling of the local people. Our first survey showed nearly a 100% of residents were against with a handful for. 

This is what a councillor should do - represent their community irrespective of their own feelings. My own is that they look beautiful and graceful in the sea or at least a few miles from people's homes and so I was more than happy to work on Stoke Park's behalf.

And well done to PfR in coming to the right decision. I have found them to be most helpful in answering my questions and it's been tough for some of their representatives when dealing with us at public meetings.

Of course there is still one turbine left which will be much further away from my ward and Babergh district but that is for other residents to deal with. I can only look after the residents who voted for me. 

However if those residents are not happy, I urge them to attend the meeting with Mr Yeo that was set up by SIT and to feel motivated by the success of the campaign so far.

I celebrated last night and hope that my residents will do the same tonight. They deserve it!

Response by PfR re Thorington Wind Turbines

PfR have asked that I show their response to residents concerns as per my previous posts. I am happy to do that as I think it is only fair to see all sides.

Please feel free to add your own comments after this piece in the area shown or contact me direct.

Also please remember there is a meeting tonight Wed 28th November 2012 at Belstead village 7.30pm with the developers. See you there!

Dear Mr and Mrs Daynes, 
  

Thank you for your email. We have addressed your comments and concerns in detail below, however, we would be happy to discuss the predicted effects with you in due course when we have a final design and can undertake the detailed assessment. At that point we will also be scheduling some community surgeries locally which we hope you will be able to attend, these will be advertised both on our website and in the local press.
  

I would like to reassure you that we completely understand your concerns and that as a responsible developer we will be fully addressing issues such as noise and shadow flicker as part of our environmental impact assessment (EIA) prior to submission of any planning application for the project. An EIA is the process by which assessments of all the varying receptors are assessed for significant impacts, for example birds and other wildlife, levels of noise, shadow flicker, archaeology, landscape and visual effects etc. 
 
In addition, as with any new development, the Local Planning Authority (Babergh District Council) has a duty to ensure that the proposal does not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of local residents. It is absolutely standard for any successfully consented planning application to have various planning conditions attached to protect the interests of the local community, covering both noise and shadow flicker. 
  

Shadow Flicker
As part of our EIA, we routinely assess the potential for "shadow flicker" effects. Shadow flicker is when the shadow of the rotating turbine blades is cast onto a building, or a given location, and viewed through a narrow gap such as a window. Shadow effects outside buildings are far less noticeable compared to those seen inside through a window, due to the higher levels of ambient light outside.
 
We can predict the potential for shadow flicker because it requires a combination of predictable conditions to coincide for it to take place. The occurrence of shadow flicker is dependent on the time of day, location of the sun in the sky and how clear or cloudy the sky is. The orientation of nearby residential properties and their windows are then assessed and an assessment is made of all the days and times when shadow flicker could occur at each location.  

The calculation of the potential shadow flicker at is carried out as follows. The position of the sun relative to the turbines and the resulting shadow they would cast is calculated in steps of 1 minute throughout the year. If the shadows of the turbine rotors at any time casts a shadow on any window (or solar panel), then this will be recorded as 1 minute of potential shadow impact.
  

The following information is used: 

.             The position of the turbines (x, y, z coordinates) 

.             The hub height and rotor diameter of the turbines 

.             The position of the house or shadow receptor (x, y, z coordinates) 
.             The size of the windows (and solar panels in this case), their orientation, both direction and tilt (angle to the horizontal). 

.             The geographic position (latitude and longitude) together with time zone and daylight saving time information. 

.             A simulation model of the sun's position in the sky
  

It is important to make clear that these simulations are worst-case scenarios (i.e. calculations which are solely based on the positions of the sun relative to the turbine and the window). If the weather is overcast (reducing shadows) or calm (i.e. the turbines are not rotating), or if the wind direction forces the rotor plane of the wind turbine to stand side-on to the window, the turbine will not produce a shadow although the impact will still be assumed to occur in the simulation.  

A calendar can be produced for any specific point of observation, which indicates the exact days, and time periods throughout the year where shadow impact may occur.
  

As we do not yet have the final positions for the turbines, only a preliminary assessment has been completed to date. The final assessment will be undertaken during the EIA process and the results will be included in the planning application. 

We will ensure that any potential wind turbine development at the Thorington Barn site is designed to avoid any reduction of residential amenity through shadow flicker, including the use of mitigation measures if needed which can avoid shadow flicker occurrence completely. The predictability and infrequency makes shadow flicker a very manageable problem; effects can be curtailed by many mitigation measures for example creating screening features or programming the turbines to cease operation for the short time during which dwellings are affected.
  

Importantly, at distances beyond about 1km (10 rotor diameters) from the turbines, the effect of shadows will be very limited indeed, due to the distance over which the shadow is cast. This is widely agreed as the limit of potential for shadow flicker effects inside a building (as stated above, shadow effects being more noticeable inside buildings with a window than outside), and outside where the light levels are higher shadow effects would be barely noticeable.
 
  

Noise
Well-designed and well-sited modern wind turbines can be quiet enough to cause no disturbance to people living only a few hundred metres away from them. There are also strict environmental health guidelines and noise limits set out in Government guidelines ('The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms' 1996, DTI, ETSU, recently supplemented by additional guidance and confirmed by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) more recently (2007), to be the guidance that Local Planning Authorities should continue to use) and the development will need to operate within these to gain consent.
  

We have carried out a detailed background noise survey to inform our design and to ensure that any future proposal for the Thorington Barn site minimises any potential noise effects for local residents and complies with the strict noise limits, which would be enforceable by planning conditions if we were to obtain planning permission.
 
In order to accurately gain an understanding of any potential noise effects, we undertook a detailed background noise survey using noise monitoring equipment placed at various nearby houses, following consultation with the local Environmental Health Officer. We monitored the background noise levels for 24 hours a day for two to five weeks (in excess of the required survey period, in order to obtain a robust dataset). By correlating this background noise data with the predicted noise levels of the proposed wind turbines at various wind speeds, we are able to gain an accurate understanding of the potential noise associated with the turbines.
  

The results recorded a relatively high background noise regime at each property so we are fully confident that the noise emitted by the turbines would be well within the acceptable noise limits set out in the noise guidelines. For most of the time the noise levels from the turbines are likely to be similar to or lower than existing background noise levels. Once we have finalised our design we will update the noise assessment and confirm that the proposal will indeed meet the noise guidelines. The data and the results of these studies will be included in the environmental statement and will be assessed by the planning officer and the Environmental Health Officer. 
  

Turbine Locations
There will be a maximum of to turbines on the site. There are three locations shown on diagrams as we have yet to define the exact locations and we have been assessing many potential designs. However, only two locations will be selected for the final design.
  

Visuals
Once a layout for the site has been selected, photomontages will be created. These will be put onto the website and also be displayed at public exhibitions and community surgeries.
  

House Values
There is no strong evidence that confirms that the presence of wind turbines has a long term impact on nearby house prices. A report by RICS in 2007  stated that "proximity to a wind farm was simply not an issue". (http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=3524&fileExtension=PDF). A temporary negative impact on property prices can sometimes occur when a wind farm is in planning and construction based upon anticipated negative impact of the turbines, but this quickly readjusts when these anticipated negative impacts fail to materialise.
 
Finally, if you wish to read  some additional information can I suggest a review of the following document (http://www.cse.org.uk/downloads/file/common_concerns_about_wind_power.pdf).  I look forward to the opportunity to speak with you at the upcoming consultation events (TBC).
  

I do hope this address all the points made in your email. However, we are happy to discuss the predicted effects with you when we have a final design. Please do feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions or queries.
 
Kind regards
 
Alice Gill
Communications Manager
Partnerships for Renewables Development Company Limited
Station House, 12 Melcombe Place, London NW1 6JJ 

A residents reply to PfR and Thorington Windfarm proposal

Here is an e-mail I received from a resident who will be much affected by the new proposal, with kind permission from them to show it on my blog. I felt it succinctly conveyed the feelings of most of us, from the communications I have been receiving from residents in my ward, Stoke Park.
I have not edited it and have shown the letter in full.



We attended the South West area committee meeting of Ipswich Borough Council (IBC) on 7th November at Suffolk New Academy.

It was at the invitation of a SIT (Stop Ipswich Turbines) Action Group that IBC agreed to invite both SIT and yourselves to speak at this meeting and put both sides of the argument for the erection of 2 wind turbines at Thorington Barn overlooking Belstead Village, Pinewood, Thorington Park and Stoke Park. The land is owned by IBC but any planning application would go to Babergh Disctrict Council (BDC).


SIT made their statement and you (PfR) responded.


With regard to your responses we would comment as follows:-


Noise disturbance to residents

1. Your representative said the area already had a high level of noise both from the A14 and other background noise. This made it sound to us that this justified your company imposing more noise on residents in the area. No mention was made of what “other background noise” you were referring to.

It was pointed out by SIT that the poor road surface on the A14 was a contributory factor to the high level of noise you are recording and that the Highways Authority were hoping to deal with this shortly. Will you be re-assessing the noise levels once this has been done?

Mention was made of the wind turbines being quiet under “normal circumstances”. What do you class as “normal circumstances”?

2. SIT referred to the problems Kessingland were having with noise from the 2 wind turbines erected there. Your response was that the problems with noise they were experiencing were different and that it would not happen at the Thorington Barn site! Surely noise is noise and if you cannot guarantee your turbines will be noise free, we will take it from the residents of Kessingland that we will experience the sort of disturbance to our lives they are experiencing as a direct result of the erection of these turbines.


Flicker
1. Your response to the problem of flicker disturbance to residents was dubious to say the least. It was said it would only affect houses. Unfortunately SIT have evidence that it does in fact also affect ground level, including road surfaces. This could have a devastating effect on traffic along the A14.

2. You were unable to tell us how many people would be affected by possible flicker and mentioned the worst consequences of flicker could be mitigated during the design process. You seem to have missed the point entirely. These residents are not affected by any flicker at the moment and you are proposing to inflict this on them with this proposal. Also, your response did not mention the affect the flicker will have on anyone who has epilepsy. What will the consequences be on their quality of life if they are affected?


Visual effect on the countryside

Your representative did not respond to the visual effect on the countryside raised by SIT.

The area for the proposed wind turbine site is used by many from both Belstead Ipswich and other surrounding areas for walking, bird watching and other recreational activities and the noise/flicker generated by the turbines would destroy this pleasure.

No mention was made of the visual effect of the wind turbines in Belstead village. All residents will see the turbines but most will be within 500 – 800 metres from them. When they walk outside their front doors they will be towering above them.

As mentioned by SIT the law is outdated as to how far away from residential properties the turbines are allowed to be but surely you have a MORAL obligation to people not to put them so close to residential properties. Scotland have an advisory limit of 2km away from residential properties and even this isn’t enough in some cases.

How many people would be affected by the Wind Turbines within 2 km radius?

It appears you had no idea of the people/properties who could be affected by the erection of these wind turbines within a radius of 2 km but you did know on a clear day they could be seen 30 km (18 miles) away! This implies to us that not a lot of consideration is given to residents who may be affected. Certainly you are failing miserably to “consult” with residents in Belstead, Pinewood, Thorington Park and Stoke Park.


Figures quoted for energy production

Your representative quoted the figures these wind turbines would produce when “at full capacity”. As everyone knows, these turbines NEVER run “at full capacity” so the figures are completely irrelevant.

One questioner asked if residents affected by your proposal would get cheaper electricity and again the response “no”.


Applying for and the grant of Planning Consent

The most shocking part of the evening came when your representative explained you would be applying for planning consent from Babergh District Council for the erection of the 2 wind turbines WITHOUT specifying the exact size and type of turbine which would eventually be erected and BDC would grant planning consent on this basis. This cannot be right! If we or any other member of the public applied for planning for an extension on our properties and did not give precise details of the materials to be used etc, there is no way BDC would grant us planning consent.

2 – 3 Wind Turbines at Thorington Barn?

Your representative said you were looking at putting a “maximum” of 2 wind turbines on the site so why are they handing out leaflets clearly showing 3 locations on the map?


Distance from residential properties

Your representative did not mention that the proposed wind turbines would be only 500 metres away from residential properties. When I asked another of your representatives how she would feel if she lived so close to them she replied that she lived near a power station, as if that was a good enough reason for the turbines to be inflicted on us! Perhaps she had the choice BEFORE she moved to her present property and was able to make an informed decision, unlike us!


Consultation

You mentioned on several occasions the question of “consultation” with those affected. Well, as mentioned above you are falling well short of your obligations to residents who will
be affected if this proposal goes ahead. It appears to us that your first obligations are to your shareholders and not to those whose lives will be ruined by this proposal.

Had it not been for the formation of the SIT Action Group most of us would not have realised the significance of your proposal and we suspect had it not been for the formation of this group we would not have heard from you until it was too late.


Lease Agreement

Well, here again there appears to be some problem with IBC or yourselves letting anyone have a copy of this illusive agreement so residents of Ipswich can consider its implications. Unfortunately IBC decided to play the “political card” and opt out of responsibility for the grant of the lease as if there was nothing they could do to stop any application if their residents asked them to.

It was clear to us that IBC had let down their residents in the first place by agreeing to grant the lease to PfR without proper consultation with those residents would be affected by such a monumental proposal. Once in place, the residents will have to put up with them for 25 YEARS - this will be for the rest of our lives)! Surely this was enough to make the Council think twice and write personally to everyone concerned.


General

In general, we felt that we did not gain much from your representatives being at the meeting because most of the responses given were “they could not give a definite response yet”! Well, when will you give us definite responses to ALL our concerns?

We, along with many other people we have spoken to, did not have any objection to the erection of wind turbines until this proposal came along in the naive, mistaken belief that your company and others like you would not consider erecting massive wind turbines so close to residential properties. These kind of proposals will prove your undoing when more and more people realise the devastating effects they will have on their everyday lives.


Make no mistake about it, we in Belstead Village and other members of the action group SIT are determined to fight to stop BDC granting planning consent for your proposal. If you are in any doubt about the strength of feeling against your proposal then drive through the village and come and speak to us individually.

Mr and Mrs Daynes - Belstead village