5th
July 2012
Planning
Policy Team
Shepway
District Council
Civic
Centre
Castle
Hill Avenue
Folkestone
Kent CT20 2QY
Dear
Sir or Madam,
Planning Application Y12/0451/SH Proposed Wind Farm
We are
very disturbed to hear that the planning application for the Proposed Wind Farm
at Otterpool Lane, is now being considered.
Once again KCC/Shepway Council are determined to destroy an area of
outstanding natural beauty.
The Countryside Act 1968
states:
‘In the exercise
of their functions relating to land under any enactment every minister,
government department and public body
shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and
amenity of the countryside’.
Of major concern to everyone should be the lobbying by wind
farm developers of Government. because the planning regulations protect the
interests of us all, developers are seeking a fast-track route through the
planning laws in the interests of economics and themselves, but certainly not
to concerned individuals and groups.
A great deal of research has shown that onshore wind turbines are
a politically driven ‘quick-fix’ which has not been fully reasoned through.
They are:
• Ineffective as to overall emission savings.
• Unreliable, inefficient and unpredictable as
to power generation, requiring costly and inefficient standby power plants
• Uneconomic without subsidy.
• Damaging to the greater environment, to
tourism, and to the health and safety of local residents.
• Devaluation of nearby property – would you
want to live next to 125m high turbines?
With the collapse of major power companies like Enron and
British Energy, bonds must be taken by Councils to cover the costs of
decommissioning wind turbines. Scottish Power, for instance, have debts of £6 billion,
equivalent to their total turnover. What guarantee do we have that they will be
around in 25 years time to decommission any turbines installed?
By concentrating on windpower, research and engineering effort is
being diverted from other, less environmentally damaging and more reliable
renewable energy sources. For the power companies windpower is a quick, proven
and relatively simple route to government subsidies – in other words they are in it for the money!
A. HEALTH RISKS
The British Wind Energy Association states ‘Wind turbines are not
noisy *(i)
‘More and more people are describing their lives as unbearable
when they are directly exposed to the acoustical and optical effects of
windfarms. There are reports of people being signed off sick and unfit for
work, there is a growing number of complaints about symptoms such as pulse
irregularities and states of anxiety, which are known from the effects of
infrasound (sound of frequencies below the normal audible limit *(ii))’
Because
of the low rotational rates of the turbine blades, the peak acoustic energy
radiated by large wind turbines is in the infrasonic range with a peak in the
8-12Hz range.. [and] it would appear that wind energy does carry health
risks. Typically, except very near
the source, people out of doors cannot detect the presence of low-frequency
noise from a wind turbine. They can, however, if the noise has an impulsive
characteristic, ‘hear’ it within homes in nearby communities, again under the
right set of circumstances. Because of the impulsive nature of the acoustic
low-frequency energy being emitted, there is an interaction between the
incident acoustic impulses and the resonance of the homes which serve to
amplify the stimulus, creating vibrations as well as redistributing the energy
higher into the audible frequency region. Thus the annoyance is often connected
with the periodic nature of the emitted sounds rather than the frequency of the
acoustic energy’.*(iii)
Standing 1000 metres downwind of the turbines is enough for most
people to realise that they would not like to live within this distance of a
turbine. The sound is invasive enough to penetrate the walls and double glazing
of a house of modern construction and still be clearly audible inside’..
For people living close to a windfarm life can quite
literally be hell. Noise, flicker and visual domination are all a constant
source of concern and anxiety’.
SAFETY
:As with any large rotating structure – and some turbines
are 400 feet tall – there is a risk to passers-by from structural failure e.g.
lightning strike and storm damage. In winter ice shards forming on the blades
when static can be thrown up to a quarter of a mile when the blades begin
rotation. This will produce formidable safety concerns for windfarms close to
footpaths & bridleways
TOURISM
A National Tourist Survey showed that 90% of
British holidaymakers who go to the countryside do so to enjoy it for its own
sake. Evidence from Europe shows that visitor numbers have dropped by up to 40%
where windfarms proliferate. – that would mean a loss of several million a year
and countless jobs. Economic disaster for a highly rural area, as farming,
fishing & forestry are all struggling to survive. Directly or indirectly we
all depend on tourism, and there is no viable alternative. Tourist areas market
the country on the people, the history, and the landscape – justifiably so. If
we destroy that landscape with windfarms so that tourists go elsewhere to
unspoilt areas, where will that leave our economy, and especially the rural
areas? Even a 10% drop in tourism would be economic disaster
In
Scotland in April 2002 they surveyed the last 100 bookings from self-catering
cottages, and 76% of past guests said they would definitely/probably not visit
the area if a windfarm was built. If windfarms proliferated in Scotland, 68%
said they would definitely/ probably not visit again – a frighteningly high
proportion.
The
Welsh and Cumbrian Tourist Boards are already backing objections to windfarms,
and the Welsh Tourist Board has revised its policy on wind farms and
specifically endorsed the following.
The
Board opposes the introduction of commercial wind turbines and wind turbine
power stations in both the primary designated areas (National Parks, Heritage
Coast, National Marine Nature Reserves and Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty) and on natural sites that are clearly visible from the primary
designated areas. They consider that elsewhere proposals should demonstrate
that there will be no detrimental effect on tourism.
WILDLIFE
The visual, aural and physical damage windfarms impose on
the landscape is all too apparent. Given the number and height of turbines the
risk of bird-strike is considerable, especially in poor visibility. There is no
denying that wind turbines are inextricably linked to bird and bat mortality.
The RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) receives regular funding
from the power company Scottish & Southern. How then can we be assured of
their impartiality when assessing Environmental Impact Reports?
In
conclusion, how can Shepway Planning Department even consider the planning
application of these wind turbines when they are so near to residential
properties in Sellinge, Lympne and surrounding areas. We do not want these windfarms. They
are detremental to the environment, health, tourism and Wildlife and will
strongly affect our quality of life.
Yours
faithfully
Denise
Jorgensen
David
Lambourne
Copied
to Damian Collins MP
Rt Hon
Michael Howard
Ronald
Lello, Chairman Sellinge and District Residents Association
Most of this information can be found in a detailed
document. If you would like the full
report please let us know.
(i) (www.bwea.com
frequently asked questions).
(ii) The Darmstadt Manifesto: A Paper on Wind Energy by the German
Professors Initiative Group
(iii) Neil Kelley, US National Renewable Energy Laboratory].
