Wind farms on 3 sides of Spaldington - some perverse joke?

RWE nPower renewables took the opportunity to hold two consultation exhibitions over the weekend, at Spaldington and Holme on Spalding Moor, where they displayed their plans for the River Valley scheme - a large wind farm consisting of 8 x 126m high turbines proposed to be built at each side of the River Foulness, between Spaldington and Holme on Spalding Moor.

This is the third application for a wind farm near Spaldington. The 5 x 126m turbine Spaldington Airfield site has already been approved at appeal by the Government’s Planning Inspector against the wishes of the community, and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee. Fortunately the 7 x 126m turbine Spaldington Common scheme was thrown out by the Inspector, but the developer is thinking about resubmitting a two or three turbine application for the site.  So wind farms on three sides of the village – “is this some perverse joke?” as someone said at the exhibition!

Having had dealings with the other two Spaldington wind farm developers – I think it is fair to say that RWE nPower renewables are head and shoulders above the others.  They have at least tried to engage with residents and the Parish Councils, and I certainly feel they have listened to what I have said regarding distances between turbines and properties - there is no turbine planned to be located within 750m of houses.

On talking to people at the Holme on Spalding Moor exhibition the response was very mixed as one would expect, although I think people were impressed by the quality of the displays and the amount of information presented, particularly with the 3D modelling showing views from all angles and elevations, and from all properties.

This may well be the best application of the three, being further away from properties and residents of Spaldington and Gribthorpe not having to drive through turbines to get home – but the cumulative impact of having turbines at each side of the village is going to be a serious issue, and for me is unacceptable.

Before submitting a planning application I hope the company takes on board what they were being told at the exhibitions, particularly about access, and improves the scheme accordingly, but also looks to be more creative in how the community can benefit especially linking to other projects around the River Foulness and creating bridleways and paths aimed at boosting local tourism.

I would rather them just go away - but we have to live in the real world, and although I will find it very difficult to support another wind farm in Howdenshire and particularly near Spaldington, I know it will be tough to go against the so called National Interest and EU dictat.  

Minimum distances between wind turbines & houses - A missed opportunity in East Yorkshire

Some 18 months ago I presented a motion to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council asking the Council to, “undertake a review of its ’Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy’, which could include minimum distance criteria between wind turbines and sensitive land uses such as residential dwellings, rights of way and roads”.  This was approved at the meeting of the full Council.

I followed this up with a question to the Leader of the Council almost exactly a year ago asking for an update on progress, and also yesterday when I again asked for an update.

Unfortunately the responses to my questions both yesterday and a year ago indicate that the ERYC officers have done very little regarding my original motion, which is frustrating.  The answer is still the same, “This may be included when we eventually produce the ‘Core Strategy’ for development in the East Riding”.  That’s fine, but in the meantime many of our rural communities will be decimated by having large wind farms constructed overly close to their properties.

What is very trying is that the original motion came as a result of a number of conversations with the Council’s team of Barristers, expert witnesses and Planning Officers during and after the Sixpennywood wind farm appeal public inquiry, which was unfortunately lost and developer Your Energy given the go ahead to construct 12 x 125m high turbines on a site between Howden and Gilberdyke.  It is particularly ironic that it was these conversations precipitated the suggestion that I put forward the motion in the first place as they 'lacked this vital tool in their armoury.'

Needless to say, in Howdenshire work is progressing on the Sixpennywood site, but more alarming, is that since this site was approved others have followed and we now see access and community fund issues being formally discussed around the approved 5 turbine Spaldington Airfield site, the approved two turbine Gallymoor site is moving ahead, plans are in the pipeline for a large 8 turbine wind farm at the River Valley site between Spaldington and Holme on Spalding Moor, and the applicant of the already once refused plan for the Spaldington Common site is looking at submitting an amended scheme.

If ever there was an indication of the need for the planning guidance I’m asking for it was last year, in the process leading up to, and when the Spaldington Common Wind Farm application was thrown out by the Planning Inspector at appeal.  The inspector confirmed that the wind turbines would have been far too close to, and would have created a negative and overbearing impact on nearby properties.  This showed quite simply that there is a limit to how close to properties wind turbines can be built.  In the lead up to the appeal the ERYC Planning Committee had refused this application even though the Council’s Planning Officers had recommended approval.

If robust guidance had been in place firstly would we have seen this application and secondly, even we had the application would the Planning Officers have instead recommended refusal.  A recommendation of refusal, would have been much easier to defend at the Public Enquiry, and the officers would have been in a position to the use their abundant skills in putting forward some of the evidence, which would have no doubt saved the Council a significant amount of money by not having to employ very expensive consultants/expert witnesses.

Spaldington Composter fails in attempt to bring more stinking waste into area

(pictured with Spaldington residents)

Great news for Spaldington! An application by a local agricultural composter at Ivy House Farm near the Water Tower, to remove planning conditions that would allow him ‘to increase the type of stinking waste he can take in’ was unanimously thrown out by East Riding of Yorkshire Council Planning Committee. This was against the recommendations of the Council’s Planning Officers.

Spaldington resident Kath Westin spoke on behalf of the community describing vividly the foul smell which often engulfs the village. As their Howdenshire ward Councillor it was a pleasure for me to sum up and speak in support of Spaldington and Eastrington residents. I pointed out that to allow more animal bi-product waste streams, such has flesh from the tannery industry onto the site would have a serious adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby residents with respect to odour, and it was in conflict with both national and local planning policies. The applicant’s agent didn’t bother turning up for the meeting.

I felt this application was almost exactly the same as one refused by the Planning Committee in 2008 – which was subsequently appealed by the Composter, but the Planning Inspector came down on the side of the Committee in upholding their decision. The planning inspector had said “Planning policies indicate that the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity should be considerations when determining planning applications for waste management facilities” and that “it may be appropriate to use planning conditions to control aspects of the development, including impacts such as odour, where these impact on neighbouring land uses and sensitive receptors”. The Inspector also stated that he considered the present conditions to be “reasonable and necessary, and sufficiently precise to be enforceable.”

Many of you will recall I presented a motion to EYRC on the agricultural composting industry, leading to a detailed examination by the then Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee in March 2008. (for more information please click here ). Since then we have seen a great improvement in practices of many composters throughout the East Riding – unfortunately I don’t feel we have seen much improvement in this composter’s operation. Quite simply Ivy House Farm stinks, it has for a number of years – and depending on which way the wind blows - so does Spaldington and Eastrington, and I failed to see that bearing in mind this composter’s operation stinks now with the present limits on what he can take in – imagine what it would have been like if he had been given carte blanch to bring anything and everything onto the site.

Who is the regulatory body supposed to protect residents when it comes to the potential nasty effects of agricultural composting of animal bi-products? – It’s the Environment Agency. Many will know that I’ve witnessed first-hand just how poor they are when it comes to regulating composters (and also a particular landfill site) – I certainly wouldn’t and can’t believe that any resident would want to leave it solely to the EA to protect Spaldington or Eastrington from the smell of death (as described by one of the Planning Committee members). I stressed that I wanted the ERYC to continue to play its part (and its duty) in regulating this site through the planning conditions already in place. This point was taken up by members of the Planning Committee in support of the refusal.

There had been 50 letters of opposition to this application which clearly showed people are sick of the smell created by this site as it is – I cannot imagine the impact on them if this was to have been made worse had planning consent been given.

Well done and many thanks to residents, Spaldington Parish Council and particularly the ERYC Planning Committee members for seeing this application for exactly what it was, and throwing it out!

Change of access to proposed Spaldington wind farm denied

This week the East Riding of Yorkshire Council's Planning Committee, voted against the officers recommendation, supported the local opposition and refused planning consent for an alternative access route for the construction of the proposed Falck Renewables 5 turbine Spaldington Airfield wind farm.

Both Spaldington resident Alison Taylor and I spoke at the meeting to support the community’s objection, and needless to say the Committee members shared our concerns, saw the application for what it was and threw it out, stating the unacceptable impact of the amenity of the area as the reason.

The frustration with this application was that the company already has an adequate access approved by the planning inspector at appeal – and I could see no reason whatsoever why this agreed access couldn’t be used, and now after the refusal by the Committee the company will have to use this route. Ok, it may inconvenience the landowner a little – but he’s going to make a pretty packet out of this wind farm so this is a small price to pay.

The audacity of the applicant to try and pass on the problems of ‘potential traffic HGV movements conflicting with other businesses located on the Airfield site’ to Mr & Mrs Taylor’s business, located just 150m from the proposed new access road was jaw dropping. Not to mention the extra 200 HGVs of aggregate required to construct this proposed access. I thought it rather telling that Mr & Mrs Taylor had not been consulted by Falck Renewables on this proposal, even though the change of access was to be so close to their home and business.

I can’t envisage for a minute the applicant appealing the Planning Committee decision – One can only imagine the conversation with the Planning Inspector – “Erm, errr sorry but we supplied you with duff information at the appeal, we’d not thought it through, and we’ve now changed our minds”. I’m sure they would get short shrift from the Inspector.

I described it as a ‘dog’s dinner’ of an application and this is exactly what it was. Falck Renewables have put the village of Spaldington through the mill with the original wind farm application – and still they continue. In the opinion of many, this application was to minimise the disruption to the landowner on whose land the wind turbines are to be built – nothing more and nothing less.

Latest Spaldington wind farm company is prepared to listen

Last Friday a first informal meeting was held between the latest Spaldington wind farm applicant RWE nPower Renewables, Spaldington Parish Councillors and Howdenshire ERYC Councillors Paul Robinson and Nick Evans, regarding the plans to build an 8 x 126m wind turbine farm north east of Spaldington village in an area called River Valley. A similar meeting had been held for HOSM and Foggathorpe Parish Councillors the previous evening.

(map above shows proposed wind farm in black along with the other consented wind farms in the area - shaded areas show 2km radius of each)

I had been in contact with the company’s Project Developer Nicola Bell from almost as soon as I heard about their plans, and I had been critical of their operation and the way that they were being viewed as cynically picking over the carcass of the failed Spaldington Common wind farm application thrown out by the planning inspector at appeal. I urged them to talk to the communities at the earliest opportunity and certainly before their plans were anywhere advanced, something almost all wind farm developers fail to do.

At the meeting it was refreshing to meet with a great deal of openness from Nicola and her team, some contrition for putting in the anemometer mast just before Christmas, and a willingness to listen and take on the views of the residents. They confirmed that after considering the appeal decisions to approve the Spaldington Airfield site but refuse the Common site they considered that their site was viable.

The proximity of the proposed turbines had obviously been considered by the applicant and they were able to confirm that they had no plans to site turbines closer than 750m to any residential property, and that their initial layout was not fixed and was expected to evolve after feedback from the Council, residents and other consultees. It was accepted that the proximity of turbines to residences was the most contentious issue with the previous two Spaldington applications.

The issue of access for construction traffic and turbine parts was also discussed, and RWE confirmed that whilst the main site access would be from the A614 at Welham Bridge, lorries carrying the materials needed to build the southern buttress for a new bridge over the River Foulness and stone for the track leading to the Spaldington side of the bridge would come through Spaldington village. It was pointed out that if there were no turbines on the Spaldington side of the river then RWE would not need to build a bridge and the considerable disruption to residents on Spaldington Main Street from the construction lorries could be avoided

The company seemed willing to listen to criticism and showed a willingness to change, and importantly understood why Spaldington people are so cynical due to how they have been treated by previous wind farm companies.

The message from the Spaldington Parish Councillors was quite clear in that RWE nPower Renewables need to understand that this is a rural area and residents value their peace and quiet and landscape. RWE acknowledged that they did not expect support from the community, but their best hope was to engage residents, have an open door policy, take points on board, listen to objections and communicate with people.

It is hoped further meetings will be held before a public exhibition in June with the planning application being submitted later in the year.

The Parish Councillors pointed out to RWE that their introductory letter stating that “Spaldington is almost 2km away” was inaccurate and misleading as in reality all houses on Spaldington Main Street and village centre are closer than 2km and some properties in the parish are only 800m – 1km from the closest turbine. RWE agreed to send out another letter clarifying the distances involved.

I concluded by stating that if other wind farm developers had been as proactive as we saw at this meeting, then we would have seen much less grief for the community over the past few years.

I feel RWE were a little taken aback at the research Parish Councillors had done. It remains to be seen whether RWEs offer to “work with the community” and “design a wind farm that is suitable for the area” amounts to more than just words - I sincerley hope it does!

Company not off to a very good start with yet another Spaldington wind farm application

So now we know, RWE npower renewables are planning to build an eight turbine wind farm on land north east of the Howdenshire village of Spaldington, on a site to be known as ‘River Valley Wind Farm’.

Many will be aware that residents of the village have, for the past two and a half years, been fighting off not one but two wind farm companies each wanting to construct overly large wind turbines close to the village. Last autumn one application for the five x 125m high turbine Spaldington Airfield site was granted consent at appeal, but the other for the Spaldington Common site was dismissed by the Government’s Planning Inspector.... Now yet another wind farm company is moving in on the community !

Interestingly the River Valley Wind Farm proposes to have one of the turbines located less than 790m from the site of the recently dismissed Spaldington Common Wind Farm. I understand this proposal is to be put out to consultation and residents will have their opportunity to comment - Where have we seen this before I wonder??

What is particularly frustrating is that detail regarding the number of turbines and their location within the site has come to light less than a week after the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee voted to approve an anemometer mast on the site.

Some would ask what difference it does make.

I would say it's a question of trust and openness and how the applicant is viewed by the community - sadly there is a perception that RWE npower renewables have not got off to a good start in this respect, particularly when one takes into account the application for the mast was submitted just before Christmas. This meant that the community of Spaldington, who had gone through so much the previous 18 months, instead of having a break, taking time to reflect, and recouping their financial losses, had to spend the festive season worrying about the threat yet another wind farm being imposed on them.

I spoke at the Planning Committee meeting, where I asked for the application for the mast to be deferred and suggested the applicant could provide some of the information pertaining to turbine size and numbers, and more importantly their location within the red lined area designated by the applicant for the wind farm.

I didn’t think this was an unreasonable request, certainly when compared to the unreasonable actions of RWE npower renewables so far in their quest to impose a wind farm on local residents. Unfortunately the advice given by the Council Officers did not support what I was requesting and although five members of the Committee voted to refuse the application, six voted to approve.

At the meeting I did acknowledge that the proposed site may be a good location for a wind farm and importantly I did support the Goole Fields application by the same company. Although I questioned if it would not have been better for them to have demonstrated a more open approach from the beginning.

The company has acknowledged its awareness of the recent appeal decisions on the Spaldington Airfield and Spaldington Common Schemes and has studied those applications, and has given careful thought to how their proposals would fit with the consented wind farm. They also state that they have taken into account the reasons for refusal for the Spaldington Common wind farm to ensure they can work with the community and key stake holders to design a wind farm that is suitable for the area. They then purport to recognise the importance and sensitivity of the recent decisions.

One resident summed it up his feelings by saying, “Is this some sort of sick joke – for me they appear to be acting like vultures picking over the carcass of a failed wind farm application”?

We have seen this drip, drip, drip strategy employed by wind farm companies time after time, the application for the mast to let residents know a wind farm is on its way, forget about any consultation at this stage. Then we see some sort of public exhibition where a number of wind turbines are proposed, the residents start a campaign, letters in the press and public outcry, then the company says they have listened and remove a couple of the turbines from the plan – leaving the number that they wanted all along - they then talk about how the community will benefit from a pot of money they can offer, or even more direct as we heard at one application.

If one looks back to a previous application, a few miles from this site, the anemometer mast was refused by the Planning Committee – what happened? Did the company appeal? No…. They just went on to submit a planning application for a wind farm that included the anemometer mast. So it can be done.

What I would have liked to have seen with this application was some decency and good old fashioned up front honesty in the process for once, by having the applicant come forward with their full plans right at the beginning. Needless to say this opportunity was lost.

Coriolis Energy tries to move goalposts on Spaldington Wind Farm access

Spaldington Airfield Wind Farm developers Falck Renewables and their agents Coriolis Energy are looking to move the ‘goalposts’ after the Planning Inspector granted them planning consent for a 5 turbine wind farm just outside the Howdenshire village of Spaldington, by submitting a planning application to change the previously approved access to the site. (detail shown on map above)

One of the accusations levelled at Coriolis Energy in the past has been their lack of engagement with local people, and we see that they have not learnt from previous experiences in Spaldington, as we yet again see a planning application with little or no consultation with nearby residents.

The original agreed access route to the site for all "normal" HGV traffic and the abnormal loads (crane & turbine parts) was from Howden along the A614 to the Spaldington Lane junction at Ivy House Farm (water tower), along the whole length of Spaldington Lane to the Boothferry Golf Club and then up the B1228 (Bubwith Road) to the CFS/ITS entrance.

The revised plans now show a change in the route with a new access being created directly off Spaldington Lane, which will have some benefits for one property, plus of course the Golf Club (the owner of which is also one of the landowners on which the turbines are to be constructed), who if the plans are approved, will see very few HGV movements connected with the construction. But interestingly the planned new access is now adjacent to Sandwood House, this being the property of the recent Chairman of the STOP anti-wind farm group who has obviously no interest in the wind farm.

This smacks of being a rather suspicious tactic employed by the developer and the landowner, to minimise the impact that construction traffic will have on the Golf Club. On speaking to a number of Spaldington residents, they think it is nothing more than a cynical ploy to bully and punish the STOP group for standing up to them.

Having studied the hard copy of the application it appears that it is only one property that will be adversely affected by the new access. Almost everyone else would face the same level of construction disruption that ERYC Highways and the Inspector have already found to be acceptable. There will be an increase in the total of HGV journeys to construct the new access road, but I assume this will be relatively small. With the wind farm already approved I think it is likely that ERYC will, unfortunately, look favourably on this application for a new entrance on Spaldington Lane. But having said that there seems to be no reason why the access cannot be moved further away from the boundary with Sandwood House, and I would urge Coriolis Energy to go back to the drawing board and amend their plans accordingly.

The Onward March Of The Machines

People recently travelling along the M18 will not have failed to notice the massive wind turbine towers soaring over Thorne and Moorends – these bladeless monsters are remarkably reminiscent of those large aggressive robotic beasts, terrifying people and attacking communities in the film ‘War of the Worlds’.

Fully functional tri-bladed monsters have already advanced to our western border, where they stand over and intimidate the good people of Airmyn from the far side of the River Ouse, this stealthy advance to our border allowed and approved of by our neighbours.

Somewhat larger second generation monster turbines are already on their way to invade Howdenshire from the south, they plan to march into Sixpennywood, between Gilberdyke and Howden and cast their long shadows over Balkholme, this invasion was approved by the previous government’s appointed Planning Inspector against both the will of the people, and ERYC Planning Committee.

Shortly after we will see a further approved invasion, this time from the north east as the tri-bladed monsters make their way down from the Wolds to settle menacingly above Sancton, spoiling the much valued view of the hills, and no doubt paving the way for further invasions from the north.

It may be that before this advance from the north east is fully realised, we see an approved outpost established just outside Holme upon Spalding Moor, as two huge humming tri-bladed monster centurions are erected to guard the Gallymoor landfill site.

Needless to say a powerful and well-funded invasion on the southern front was halted by a courageous rear-guard stance by the village of Spaldington, who last year went into battle against not one, but two wind farm companies seeking to build giant wind turbines at each side of their small village. To fight this battle the community raised in excess of £80,000 to enable a courageous leader, Barrister Tina Douglas & her team of expert witnesses to be employed, and under this leadership, true grit, fortitude and the British bull-dog spirit shone through, and by putting together a fantastic case at the public enquiry, the result was that one wind farm application was thrown out by the Planning Inspector and the other conditioned in such a way that the turbines will not be able to operate at full capacity because of noise. It was an honour and a privilege to charge over the hill into battle alongside those brave Spaldington warriors.

One would have thought the Spaldington warriors had gone through enough and deserved a break, to lick their wounds, take time to reflect and to recoup their financial losses, but alas warfare is never like that. I received notice just before Christmas that more invaders from the south were on the march, this time planning to bypass Spaldington and group at a place further north towards Holme upon Spalding Moor and Foggathorpe. A letter from RWE npower renewables informed me that they had recently started to investigate the potential for wind farm development on land North of Spaldington around Gribthorpe and Arglam, and that they would be submitting a planning application to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council for an anemometer mast.

The company acknowledges that it is aware of the recent ‘Battle of Spaldington’ and has learnt from it. They have studied those applications, and they are giving careful thought to how their proposals would fit with the consented wind farm. They also state that they are taking into account the reasons for refusal for the Spaldington Common wind farm to ensure they can work with the community and key stake holders to design a wind farm that is suitable for the area. They then purport to recognise the importance and sensitivity of the recent decisions…. Is this the action of a desperate enemy trying to lull us into a false sense of security one wonders? But they will ignore at their peril the fact that the ‘Spaldington Warriors’ are only resting, rebuilding and rearming for any future challenge.

We should also not forget the threat from Goole Fields, for there is also a great army of huge tri-bladed monsters ready and waiting to be amassed south of the River Ouse, and stacked in rows to intimidate us from over the water.

But as in that great ‘Terminator’ movie franchise, the forces for good have been able to capture and reprogram not just one, but two of the tri-bladed machines, adopted and renamed by the Children of Howden, and now working for the good of Howdenshire as they stand proudly over the water treatment works at Loftsome Bridge. With each turn of their mighty blades the water we drink is pumped and purified.

The largest of the tri-bladed machines are to be placed off our coastline, which will hopefully serve to protect and guard us from any 'further advances' emanating from the EU.

My message is, we have to be vigilant, we have the knowhow gained from the ‘Battle of Spaldington’ and we have the determination - but we also have the confidence that the monsters have a lifespan of only 25 years and we can outlive them – just like we can outlive the career of the Climate Change Minister!

No respite for Spaldington as yet another wind farm planned

Many will be aware that the Howdenshire village of Spaldington has for this past two and a half years been fighting off two wind farm companies each wanting to construct overly large wind turbines close to the village. One application was granted consent recently at appeal but the other was dismissed....

One would have thought the residents had gone through enough and could do with a break, take time to reflect and time to recoup their financial losses.

I was therefore staggered this weekend to receive a letter from RWE npower renewables informing me that they had recently started to investigate the potential for wind farm development on land near Spaldington, and that they would be submitting a planning application to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council next week for an anemometer mast.

The letter acknowledges that the company is aware of the recent appeal decisions on the Spaldington Airfield and Spaldington Common Schemes and have studied those applications, and they are giving careful thought to how their proposals would fit with the consented wind farm. They also state that they are taking into account the reasons for refusal for the Spaldington Common wind farm to ensure they can work with the community and key stake holders to design a wind farm that is suitable for the area. They then purport to recognise the importance and sensitivity of the recent decisions…. Is this some sort of sick joke?

The community of Spaldington is still trying to recover from the imposition of one wind farm next to their village, having failed in their gallant attempt to fend off two wind farm developers at the same time, despite the village funding their own team of expert witnesses and a barrister at the recent Public Inquiry. So before the dust has settled, before those residents have the chance to reflect on what has been a difficult and costly year for them, we have another wind farm company putting forward plans for an alternative site next to their village.

My message to RWE npower renewables is simple, this may well turn out to be a wind farm in the right place, but where is the sensitivity you talk about in your letter, could you not wait until the residents of Spaldington had been given the time to reflect on their difficult year over the Christmas period? Your actions are akin to fighting over a dead man’s estate before the funeral has been held – you should be ashamed!

Wind Farm Imposed on Howdenshire Village of Spaldington by Government Planning Inspector (but it could have been worse)

The Government’s Planning Inspector has published his decision on the appeals for the two wind farm proposals, one at each side of the small village of Spaldington. His decision is to allow the 5 turbine Spaldington Airfield application to the west of the village but to throw out the 7 turbine Spaldington Common application to the east.

I have worked very closely with the Spaldington residents and the STOP team since the ERYC Planning Committee’s decision to refuse these applications, knowing that the developers would certainly appeal the decisions. I know the residents team well, and having spoken to some of them today I realise just how deflated and devastated they feel, but this is tempered by winning one of them.

It is common for a community to stand up to fight the imposition of one large wind farm next to their village, but very unusual for them to have to fight two at the same time. In many ways this is a hollow victory and many Spaldington residents will be fearful of the future as their properties are overshadowed by some of the highest onshore wind turbines in the country within 750m. Much, much closer than we see at the only constructed similar size wind farm at Lisset.

It is ironic that within a handful of miles of Spaldington, turbines could be constructed far enough away from properties so as not to have a negative impact on them. This is mainly a result of those land owners not being willing to sell to the wind farm companies. What is perfectly clear is that more effort has to be made by developers and particularly the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to make sure appropriate sites are selected and not on the basis that a landowner is willing.

The Council’s Planning Committee come out of this very well in the way they made their decisions to refuse both applications, unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Council’s Planning Department, who had recommended approval on both applications and the flawed evidence put forward by the Council’s team as detailed in the inspectors findings. I really hope the Council’s Planning Department Officers now take a very close look at the inspector’s decision, particularly regarding proximity and specifically when he says, “In relation to the Common scheme, I have found that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents through being dominant and overbearing and noise disturbance”. For far too long I have been saying that a line has to be drawn in the sand when it comes to the proximity of large wind turbines to houses, and to read a Planning Inspector agree in many ways vindicates my position.

The Inspector also makes reference to the Council’s Interim Planning Document (IPD) on Renewable Energy when he says, “Although the IPD has been the subject of public consultation, given the absence of an adopted Development Plan Document and the apparent conflict with national guidance, I attach limited weight to the IPD”. Again this was something I raised in my motion to the ERYC Full Council on 13th October 2010 - but very little has subsequently been done, again I feel somewhat vindicated by the Planning Inspector’s comments.

In addition the Planning Inspector rightly criticises the key photographic evidence, drawings and measurements provided as evidence by the Council when he says “Whilst not all of the criticisms made by the appellants were accepted the Local Planning Authority (the Council) did acknowledge that, as submitted, all of the viewing distances and angles of view quoted were incorrect”. This is something that really should not happen.

On a positive note, we now have the line drawn in the sand regarding proximity distances from residences; we now know what is acceptable and what is not. It is important that this is built into a revised policy on renewable energy which I called for last year and is now needed following the Inspectors remarks.

This may be too late for some villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire, but will no doubt benefit many in the future, and developers will now have to consider this when submitting wind farm applications. I would like to recognise the STOP team of residents, expert witnesses and their Barrister – without which I am absolutely convinced the Spaldington Common wind farm would not have been thrown out. The work they have done will benefit the wider East Riding, and for that I am very proud.

The inspector’s conclusions are as follows:

In relation to the Airfield scheme, I have concluded that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on living conditions, landscape character, public visual amenity, ecology and the operation of Breighton Aerodrome. Whilst there would be some harm to the setting of Howden Minster, I consider that harm is outweighed by the significant weight to be attached to the need for renewable energy and benefits of the scheme. Accordingly, I conclude that, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the relevant provisions of the S106 UU, this proposal would not conflict with the objectives of development plan and national policy. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

In relation to the Common scheme, I have found that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents through being dominant and overbearing and noise disturbance and some harm to the setting of Howden Minster. Notwithstanding my positive conclusions in relation to landscape character, public visual amenity, ecology and aviation matters, I consider the harm is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme or the need to meet regional targets for the provision of renewable energy. Moreover, this harm would not be acceptably mitigated by imposing planning conditions. Accordingly, I conclude that this proposal would conflict with the objectives of development plan and national policy. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.

Spaldington Wind Farms Appeal Public Inquiry Presentation

The following is the presentation I gave to Spaldington Wind Farm Appeal Public Inquiry today. I'm not sure how it played with the inspector - but I think it totally wrong-footed the two barristers acting for the two windfarm companies. - in so much has they couldn't find it in themselves to ask me a single question at the end.


1. Introduction

If one was to ask, “How do I get to Spaldington?” Imagine if one or both of these wind farms were approved the answer would be “follow the road to the wind turbines - that’s Spaldington”.

This is not about the proximity of a wind farms to a village - it is simply about Spaldington being at the centre of a wind farm, with residents living between the turbines. It’s akin to separating the Lissett wind farm and dropping Spaldington right in the middle. If the applications are considered separately then either one is far too close to properties, we have not seen anything like the numbers of residences being so close to these large generation turbines anywhere else in the East Riding.

Visualising cumulative impact is very difficult when the number of wind farms that have been consented have yet to be built. This is why it is important to consider not only the 14 wind turbines already built within 20km of Spaldington but also the 78 consented, giving a total of 92 within 20km.

2. Howdenshire

When entering the East Riding of Yorkshire from the west one sees Drax Power Station, followed by the Rusholme Windfarm on the left, on the right you see Goole’s Capital Park with its massive buildings including the glassworks, pelleting factory, and large distribution centre. In the background we see the iconic salt and pepper pot towers, the church spire and the cranes on the Goole docks.

Continuing over the Ouse Bridge into Howdenshire we see the port of Howdendyke and the two large distribution centres on the right, and when one looks to the left a large expanse of rurality then opens up before you – in the foreground we see trees, woods and hedges planted by farmers who over the generations have invested to shape the area.

Howdenshire then stretches almost uninterrupted to the Vale of York to the north, the foothills of the Wolds to the northeast and towards the distant views of the Humber Bridge and City of Hull to the east. It is this tranquil, intimate, rurality dominated only by the tower and green roof of the historic Howden Minster that makes Howdenshire special.

Here I would take the advocate for the Common wind farm back to early in the inquiry when he mentioned the view in some way could be impeded by the crash barrier at the nearside of the M62. I hope since making that statement he has taken the time to join the 18,000 vehicles crossing over the Ouse Bridge daily from the west, and has driven in each of the three lanes of the motorway and seen for himself the unimpeded view of the Minster, and witnessed the potential impact that 12 moving 126m high turbines will have behind and above the roof and tower.

3. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Planning Committee

It is important to state that during the period from May 2007 to May 2011 I was a member of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council Planning Committee, although I am not representing the committee, these are my views. I have been involved in the decision making process regarding all the renewable energy applications brought before the committee during this period, including both Spaldington applications. I am not a policy maker nor qualified to defend any of the Council’s planning policies, I consider my role is to give overview, interpretation and weighting to those policies when making decisions. I would say that I have always voted to grant consent unless there was a clear reason not to.

The Planning Committee can only make a decision on what is in front of them, which can at times be very frustrating with some applications. I have always been open to arguments from all sides when it comes to wind farms and have voted both for and against, depending on the individual application.

Prior to 2007 the Planning Committee approved the wind farm at Lisset and the turbines at Loftsome Bridge. From 2007 the Committee has approved commercial wind farm applications at Twin Rivers, Goole Fields, Sancton, Burton Pidsea, and recently at Carnaby.

I have voted to support each one of these applications, and actually moved approval on many. I therefore take great exception to the advocate for the Airfield scheme previously alluding to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council being somehow against wind turbines. What I would say is that wind turbines or wind farms, along with other renewable energy applications have been approved when they have been of an appropriate size and scale for the landscape, have been in the right place, and have not had a negative cumulative impact on a locality or residences.

The problem is that Inspectors at Sober Hill, Routh, Sixpennywood, Tedder Hill, Roos and Withernwick have said that we have got the balance wrong. It is true that those Inspectors may not have got it right themselves, and it is important to recognise that ERYC got it right at Monkwith.

An interesting example of the Planning Committee’s decision making was at the meeting held on 8th October 2009 where two wind farm applications were considered.

The first application for the 3-turbine Monkwith wind farm on the East coast was difficult for members; I struggled with the site and the cumulative impact of 3 wind farms surrounding a village and the harm to the coastal landscape, which I felt had not been adequately considered, all members supported a my motion for a deferment, which led to the eventual refusal, and which was subsequently upheld at appeal.

Conversely the second application for the 16-turbine Goole Fields wind farm was considered to be very well sited, being remote, windy, and a considerable distance away from residences, an excellent application for a large wind farm in an appropriate location. It was clear the applicant had worked very closely with the communities neighbouring the site, there were very few objections but not a significant number of supporters either. This application was fully supported by the Committee.

This was exactly the same with the nearby Twin Rivers application determined at a previous meeting, which I had also supported.

I find that when making decisions on wind farm applications it is always a question of balance. It may well be quite clear that a proposal is just plainly of such a size and scale to be unable to be incorporated within the surrounding landscape within the locality, but it can also be more subtle, the wind turbines may have a negative impact on the setting of a town such as we see here with Howden. More often it is that the location may not be quite right with the turbines being better located a couple of fields further away from residences to reduce the impact, or to take advantage of natural screening wherever possible, or in the case of the Airfield application being too close to Breighton aerodrome.
All this can be very difficult when the industry is being led by speculative developers who cannot always persuade the owners of the land most suitable for locating wind turbines to become involved.

4. Increasing numbers of wind turbines getting closer to residences

If one looks at the consented wind farms in the East Riding it is clear that the physical size of the turbines is generally increasing, but worryingly we are seeing more turbines planned to be built ever closer to properties. I would take you to four applications.

The Goole Fields application saw no properties within 750m and only 3 properties within 1,000m.

Withernwick then saw 5 properties within 1,000m and none within 750m, and 100m to tip turbines.

The Sixpennywood application then saw 5 properties within 1,000m but of which 2 properties were within 750m.

Then at Monkwith 12 properties within 1,000m, of which one was within 750m.
Of all the wind farm applications the Planning Committee has considered – I can’t recall any where we’ve seen so many properties so close to 126m high turbines as the Spaldington applications. In the case of the Airfield application 30 residences are within 1,000m and alarmingly 7 (if one includes Mount Pleasant) are within 750m - which is beyond what is reasonable. In the case of the Common application we see 19 within 1,000m and 16 within 750m and the closest being around 450m must on the face of it be unacceptable. Also the centre of the village is less than 1,200 away from the nearest turbines on each application.

Considering the two Spaldington applications together we see 49 properties within 1,000m of which 24 are within 750m, with the closest being within 450m. Quite simply this is too many properties, too close to some of the largest wind turbines in the country.

At some point a line in the sand has to be drawn when it comes to how close 126m turbines can be built to unaffected properties – for me both these applications have crossed over that line.

5. Motion to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Recalling the evidence of Miss Bolger, I do think the Council’s Interim Planning Document leaves a lot to be desired and that is why in my motion to the Full Council on 13th October 2010. I asked that the Council “undertake a review of its ’Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy’, which could include minimum distance criteria between wind turbines and sensitive land uses such as residential dwellings, rights of way and roads”.

As part of the same motion I requested that the Council asked the Secretary of State to give urgent consideration to reviewing the government’s planning guidance on renewable energy as clarification is needed on national minimum distances between wind turbines and affected residences taking into account the size of the turbine.”

In his reply the Minister of State at the department of Energy and Climate Change, Charles Hendry MP says:

“There are no plans for the government to introduce a proximity rule. The assessment of an application to develop a wind farm already includes, amongst other things, an analysis of visual and landscape impacts to ascertain whether the location and height of the wind farm is acceptable”.

The minister also added;

“The Government considers that these impacts are best assessed on a case by case basis so that local factors can be taken fully into account, regardless of whether applications are dealt with at a national or local level. Where applications are dealt with at the local level, we believe that councils should have the opportunity to decide these matters on behalf of their local community”.

6. Miss Bolger’s Evidence

The Councils Interim Planning Document ‘Planning for renewable Development’ states in its Landscape Character Assessment type 5 - “there may be a greater capacity in this landscape character type to accommodate small scale wind farm development if appropriately located” – Clearly neither of these applications are small scale and are certainly not appropriately located. This is the real problem - there are much better sites within 4 miles that are infinitely preferable for smaller developments - being more remote from residences. In my opinion there is no reason whatsoever to locate 12 x 126m turbines within just 750m of domestic dwellings. I feel this does not fit within the Policies EN19 or EN73 in any way shape or form.

I share Miss Bolger’s concerns regarding the landscape character assessment being used in the Council’s Interim Planning Document, which of course was based on the much smaller generation wind turbines being considered at the time of publication.

Miss Bolger raised a very good example of the landscape around the Goole Fields and Twin Rivers wind farm sites which are clearly conducive to Windfarm developments - although in the Council’s assessment this area has landscape sensitivity more in keeping with that of a National Park, and less suitable than the area around Spaldington – clearly this isn’t the case. One is very open with few hedgerows or trees; the other has smaller fields with hedgerows, trees and associated wildlife. The former is able to accommodate the larger size and scale of a modern wind farm development; the latter is not.

This was my thinking when I was able to support the Goole Fields and Twin Rivers applications but not the ones here at Spaldington. What could be a clearer indication that the Council’s Planning Committee is not anti-wind farm, but rather more competent in understanding the local issues, and more reasonable in our decision-making then some would give us credit for?

7. Local support for and opposition to the Airfield and Common applications

There have been questions raised about levels of support for the wind farm applications.

As an elected ward Councillor representing Spaldington and the surrounding villages, I have had the opportunity to probably listen to more than most when it comes to resident’s attitude to these applications.

Whilst I acknowledge that local opposition in itself is not a good reason for refusing a scheme, I don’t ever recall receiving so many letters and emails asking me to reject a planning application, and we have all the surrounding Parish and Town Councils representing 13,755 local residents all objecting to these applications.

The ERYC Planning Committee had 395 letters of objection and 431 letters of support of the Airfield - but in the application for the Spaldington Common site we see 370 letters of objection but only 56 letters of support. Why is this? I wonder if it is anything to do with the agents for the Airfield applicants being more proactive in gathering letters of support from passers-by on the streets of places as far away Goole and beyond – One of the applicants was so proactive in Holme on Spalding Moor, that the Parish Council Clerk raised concerns about their aggressive actions in the village in an email to the Council as detailed in the STOP objection file appendix 15.

8. Impacts on Spaldington

Mr Stewart said the wider benefits outweigh any local environmental effects which have been identified. I take this with a very large pinch of salt, just like I did with his statement that golfers use wind turbines to gauge the wind direction, are we assuming from this that your amateur golfer will be able to gauge the wind direction and wind speed on a golf course using a turbine over a 1km away, at some 100m above the ground, and allow for any feathering into or out of the wind, or more importantly the wind speed at that height….. Perhaps not?

I would also like to pick up on Mr Stevenson’s comments regarding the residents of Spaldington being selfish when it comes to not wanting these wind turbines close to their village, and I for one found his comments a little repulsive, and statements such as ‘the residents are throwing the kitchen sink at this appeal’ are hardly helpful. I very much admire the residents for doing what they’ve done, it is to be commended not ridiculed, and if that’s perceived as throwing the kitchen sink at it then so be it – but it is nothing when compared to what either of the applicants have thrown at these applications.

9. Visual Impact

All the photomontages can show is a static picture when in reality we should be looking at a succession of movie clips, nothing is static (not including those many days that wind turbine blades don’t turn) what will the views be like if you walk through the village, or travel into the East Riding.

I also take issue with some of the viewpoints chosen by the applicants for the photomontages. What is perhaps more telling is that neither Mr Stevenson nor Mr Ingham has tried to produce photomontages from just outside residential properties that are known to be affected. E.g. The swallows, The lodge (even though Mr Stevenson suggested a planting scheme for this property), Fir Tree Stud, Cottage Farm etc.

Then we saw photomontages showing turbines behind trees when if taken a few meters to the left or right would have shown a true picture, or alternatively a stacking effect. I would certainly consider a 126m wind turbine within 450m of Avian Pastures to be somewhat of a ‘Holy Moley’ or a ‘show stopper’ and certainly in the ‘Red Zone’ as referred to by the Airfield advocate – I wonder why a photomontage was not produced from the viewpoint through the windows of this property.

10. Detrimental impact on Breighton Aerodrome

I have listened to almost all the evidence regarding the impact the Airfield application may have on Breighton Aerodrome, and I am somewhat surprised in the vast differences of opinion between the expert witnesses, and the fact that Mr Spaven seems to be very much at odds with the others.

It is abundantly clear that the Airfield Wind Farm presents an unacceptable threat to the safety of flights to and from Breighton Aerodrome. I am very concerned about inexperienced pilots being able to safely use the aerodrome from what I have heard and I am very concerned about pilots being able to safely fly vintage aircraft from there too.

Nothing that has been said by the developer’s representatives gives any assurance that the legitimate and serious safety concerns can be adequately mitigated. Tony Smith, who is vastly experienced in operating the aerodrome and in flying its vintage aircraft, said in his evidence that if the wind farm is built, it becomes a matter of when a serious or fatal accident occurs and not if.

It would be a serious loss to the area if Breighton Aerodrome, with its museum and its general aviation facilities were forced to close by the presence of the wind farm, whether as a result of the real safety issues or of reduced numbers of visiting aircraft, kept away by the perceived difficulty of operating so close to the turbines.

In his evidence Mr Spaven appeared to say that a 3 degree approach angle is not the norm and was ‘misleading’ and cited the example of Fife Aerodrome where the approach angle was 7 degrees, with this being a much more normal approach angle. This appears to be contradicted by Mr Spaven’s report he wrote in opposition to the Westfield Wind Farm, near Fife planning application*, where he clearly accepts the 3 degree approach calculations when clearing the turbine blade tips by only 200 feet.

Reading the content of Mr Spaven’s report, it would appear to be so contradictory to the evidence he provided to this inquiry so as cast serious doubts on its reliability and his credibility. (this is fully explained in the attached letter from Mr James Dalgliesh).

We have a saying up here in Yorkshire “you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds” – I suspect Mr Spaven might just have been trying to do both.

11. Targets

During this appeal we have heard a great deal about targets, we could argue about the interpretation of the wording and the thrust in the Regional Spatial Strategy when it comes to approved or installed capacity for renewable energy. It is my opinion that the East Riding is already carrying more than its fair share of the region’s renewable energy targets in those applications that have been approved.

It is clear that the area has met the 2010 target and its 2021 target but having said that the capacity to accept more wind farms is not in question – it just comes down to size, scale and location. What is also clear is that particular areas could become saturated with the cumulative impact of the many turbines when all those already approved are built, creating in effect wind farm landscapes.

The Monkwith scheme being so close to the consented turbines at Roos, Burton Pidsea and Tedder Hill, would have crowded that part of Holderness with turbines if it had been allowed to proceed. Here in lies the problem that many of us have to grapple with - many wind farms have planning consent, but apart from Lisset and Out Newton none are yet built.

12. Noise

The starting point for noise impact is the 1997 ETSU Guidance, which is based on average background noise levels at residences likely to be affected by wind turbines. This is open to abuse by wind farm developers as it based on average background noise levels, which can be affected by a number of factors. These were clearly identified in the evidence provided by Mr Stigwood. It is acknowledged by many, including myself and alluded to by David Davis MP that this 1997 government guidance is out-dated and flawed.

It would appear that the Common site is going to have issues resulting in the wind farm not being able to operate at its full rated capacity because of noise, as well as restrictions as a result of shadow flicker.

I listened with interest to Mr Bennett and as a layman found serious issues with his credibility. When one considers both applications the Airfield application was preceded by that for a large anemometer mast which is still in situ.

The Common application did not and resulted in a very temporary mast, that was not as high as recommended, it was supposedly struck by lightning, had a rain gauge that was working but Mr Bennett was unsure as to what it was actually measuring, and a wind vane that became frozen and only recorded wind in one direction, then a wiring fault that appeared to repair itself, we heard evidence about Mr Bennett not explaining to residents why equipment was being installed or the criteria being used, locations chosen near sources of higher background noise, like a domestic sewage treatment plant. There is also anecdotal evidence that so called farming activities had taken place around the noise measuring equipment during the period of measurement – including constantly working the land in the vicinity of the noise measuring equipment – all this giving a higher than normal reading. He then intimated that residents tampered with the equipment.

Early in his evidence he quite clearly said, “When the wind is blowing from the east the village will hear the turbines from the Common and when the wind is blowing from the west the village will hear the turbines from the Airfield”.

He also stated that his wind vane evidence “leaves a lot to be desired”.

When it comes to the Common site, I have serious doubts regarding the validity of this noise evidence, from what I have heard I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the protection of residents from noise is reliant on faulty equipment and it’s positioning, which has led to inadequate or invalid results.

13. Summary

This appeal is not about wind power as a concept, it’s not about national policy, it’s not about targets - it is simply that these are not small wind farms “Can two wind farms of such size and scale with their out of character vertical structures fit into the existing landscape without a significant adverse effect, on this part of the countryside and those residents who choose to live in it?”

If either of these applications is approved it will result in the greatest number, of the largest turbines, built as close to any property not connected with an application, in the whole of the East Riding of Yorkshire. This is in my view a step too far. Wind farms yes, but of an appropriate size and scale and far enough away from communities and residences so as not to leave them swamped with the inescapable and repressive impacts of wind turbines.

The decision making has to be about what is reasonable and what is not. No resident is entitled to a view nor entitled to silence, but they are entitled to reasonableness and I hope you sir will share my opinion that neither of these wind farms, either singularly or cumulatively satisfy the test as to what is reasonable for significant numbers of Spaldington residents.

There will be no relief from wind turbines for Spaldington residents - whichever way they look they will see them, whichever way the wind blows they will hear them. Whichever way they drive into the village they will be there – an inescapable presence.

14. Finally….

I would like to draw the inspector to a phase we have heard a few times during this inquiry that of an inescapable impact on individual properties and the village in general if either of these applications are approved. This starts when people enter the East Riding from the south or the west as they are returning home, they will see the 68 already consented turbines in the south west quadrant of the 20km radius of Spaldington.

Imagine when all the wind turbines within that 20km of Spaldington are constructed and a resident is travelling back home by road, let’s say they’ve been away on holiday and they’re travelling back from any of the airports at Doncaster, Leeds Bradford, Manchester or East Midlands. They journey north along the M18 or east along the M62 and the first sign of approaching the East Riding is the beginning of what will be a wind farm landscape, the turbines showing the way home and drawing them in. Getting nearer they rise over the Ouse Bridge and see the turbines that surround their houses viewed over the minster, continuing past Howden towards Spaldington village the turbines loom larger and larger before turning at the water tower to drive through the Common wind farm with the Airfield wind farm in front of them… they return home to the overpowering inescapability of living far too close to any of the two wind farms.

I hope that you Sir will draw the same conclusions, and dismiss both of these wind farm applications.

Cllr Paul Robinson

Spaldington Wind Farm Appeals hears 'very interesting' evidence from noise experts

This week at the inquiry looking into the two wind farm proposals at each side of Spaldington the issue of noise was discussed at length by the expert witnesses and each cross examined by the others barristers.

The Governments 1997 ETSU Guidance is used as the starting point for the assessment of noise impact, taking the average background noise levels at residences likely to be affected by noise from the wind turbines. This is open to abuse by wind farm developers as it is based on noise levels measured at only a few points around an application site, which can be easily affected by a number of factors. These were clearly identified in the evidence provided by Mr Stigwood representing the STOP campaign team. It is acknowledged by many, including myself and alluded to by David Davis MP that this 1997 government guidance is out-dated and flawed and was put in place a long time before we as a Council were looking at these massive 2 and 3 MW, 126m high turbines. We’ve also heard during the week that this guidance is ‘blind to wind direction’.

It became clear that the Spaldington Common site to the east of the village would have noise issues resulting in the wind farm not being able to operate at its full rated capacity, an issue I raised at the Planning Committee meeting when the application was originally refused.

I listened with interest to Mr Bennett, the expert witness for the Common Site and found serious issues with his credibility. When one considers both applications, the Airfield application to the west was preceded by a large anemometer mast which is still in situ. The Common application has only ever had a very temporary mast, that appeared not to be as high as recommended, was apparently struck by lightning, had a rain gauge that was working - but Mr Bennett was unsure as to what it was actually measuring, a wind vane that became frozen and only recorded wind in one direction, and a wiring fault that appeared to repair itself. Interestingly I did raise the lack of an anemometer mast for the Common site at the Planning Committee stage.

Then we had the sorry saga of the noise monitoring equipment, with stories about Mr Bennett not explaining to residents why the measuring devices were being installed or the criteria being used, and locations initially not even on residents own property and near sources of higher background noise. There is anecdotal evidence that so called ‘farming activities’ had taken place around the noise measuring equipment during the first period of measurement – including constantly working the land in the vicinity of the noise measuring equipment – thereby giving a higher than normal reading. He also intimated that unusually high night time noise at one site may have been caused by residents tampering with his equipment, when in fact it can be explained by the night-time operation of the resident’s sewage treatment plant!

Early in his evidence he quite clearly said, “When the wind is blowing from the east the village will hear the turbines from the Common and when the wind is blowing from the west the village will hear the turbines from the Airfield”.

He also stated that his wind vane evidence “leaves a lot to be desired”.

There is a question of what is reasonable, especially when it comes to the Common site, I have serious doubts regarding the validity of this noise evidence as it is reliant on faulty equipment whose positioning could lead to inadequate or invalid results. This is about the protection of residents from noise if this wind farm is given the go ahead to be built.

Then there is the problem of drafting enforceable planning conditions should both wind farms be consented. The two developers assured us they would cooperate and each be responsible if “their” turbines were downwind and hence appeared to be the source of the noise-nuisance. In principle this seems OK, the Airfield to the west, and the Common to the east – BUT what happens when the wind is from the north or the south? I can see the residents and the Council’s Public Protection department being placed in an intolerable situation, with it being impossible to determine which wind farm is the prime cause of the noise-nuisance, and the nuisance actually being due to the interaction between noise from both wind farms as Spaldington effectively becomes located in the middle of a wind farm.

Spaldington Wind Farms Public Inquiry

As the Spaldington wind farms appeal public inquiry moves through its second week the pattern is becoming clear. It’s the Council and the ‘STOP’ Team* working on the side of the residents against the two wind farm developers, and each developer defending their position but going out of their way to rubbish the other. (*STOP is the Spaldington Turbine Opposition Project with its own barrister and expert witnesses all funded by the community)

Week one saw the opening exchanges with the Council’s expert landscape witness, the landscape witness employed by STOP, and the expert witnesses employed by the two developers taking the stand. They all presented evidence and were cross examined by the four barristers, with each trying to score points against the other. There is certainly an interesting atmosphere between the two appellant teams and their barristers, Mr David Hardy representing Falck Renewables and Mr Jeremy Pike representing Volkswind.

The evidence provided can come across as rather complicated and extremely detailed as it focuses on degrees of potential impact on the landscape, and how the landscape can be defined and compared with other areas. It also goes very deep into the potential theoretical impact on individual residences, the distances of turbines from the houses, likely views from different windows, and from what angle turbines are expected to be seen. There are photomontages provided by all parties showing views from near and far, from house windows and from gardens, from roads and footpaths. These are then challenged by the other parties for accuracy and consistency. Interestingly the most widely used and referred to photographs are the aerial shots provided by STOP, these taken from a helicopter hovering at the tip height of each of the 12 planned turbines. This being the first time this type of photograph has been used at any wind farm inquiry in the East Riding.

There are many references to planning inspector’s decisions at previous wind farm inquiries, and paragraphs from those decision documents quoted by all sides by the barristers and witnesses to back up their positions. However it has been frequently stated in the proceedings the the inspector will come to his own conclusions.

The Inquiry also saw 4 witnesses from Spaldington take the stand to give evidence and undergo varying degrees of cross examination; these included Parish Council Chair Kath Westin, local horse and rider trainer and businesswoman Janice Chadwick, Beryl Norris a medium at the Fir Tree Spiritualist Church, and local resident Ann Marie Jackson. All gave very passionate and emotional presentations, and stood up to the questioning extremely well.

As the Councillor on the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s planning committee who moved the successful refusal of both wind farms before they were appealed and therefore some would say an ‘informed member’ of the public, I think the inquiry can be interesting if somewhat tedious at times. I keep saying to myself and others that the witnesses and the barristers don’t need to impress each other, me, or the public, they only have to impress the one person – and that is the Planning Inspector sitting on his own at the top table, who will ultimately make the decision to allow or refuse the appeals.

I am to give evidence on Friday 10th June 2011 !

Windfarm company still playing ‘fast and loose’ with resident’s concerns

Many will recall when I spoke against the Sixpennywood Windfarm application at the appeal hearing - I said the company Your Energy had acted in a very questionable manner from the very beginning, playing scant regard to community engagement, riding roughshod over local concerns, measuring the background noise in very dubious circumstances, and changing the size of the turbines between the Planning Committee making its decision and the case going to appeal.

Needless to say the actions of the company continue to raise concerns and annoy a number of residents as they now try to take 'common land', and look to close a bridleway for their convenience during the construction process.

Nearby Spaldington is poised for a similar battle against not one, but two large wind farm developers – one at each side of the village, as both go to appeal simultaneously in mid-May after yet again being refused by the ERYC Planning Committee.

Local democracy is worth fighting for, local voices are important and should be heard, alas this was clearly not the previous Labour Governments understanding, when they trampled all over local democratically elected Councillors, hopefully now that centralist government with its complete lack of understanding of rural issues has been thrown out. The new Coalition Government with its Localism agenda will hopefully give us a fairer hearing.

How ironic the number of times (like today), that I drive over the Ouse Bridge to see the wind turbines west of Airmyn at a standstill, but Drax in the background still churns out the megawatts.”

Council has power to decide if wind turbines are too close to homes

Following my motion that was approved by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council at the Wednesday 13th October 2010 Full Council meeting, where I requested that “the Council asks the Secretary of State to give urgent consideration to reviewing the government’s planning guidance on renewable energy as clarification is needed on national minimum distances between wind turbines and affected residences taking into account the size of the turbine.”

In his reply the Minister of State at the department of Energy and Climate Change, Charles Hendry MP says:

“There are no plans for the government to introduce a proximity rule. The assessment of an application to develop a windfarm already includes, amongst other things, an analysis of visual and landscape impacts to ascertain whether the location and height of the wind farm is acceptable.”

“The Government considers that these impacts are best assessed on a case by case basis so that local factors can be taken fully into account, regardless of whether applications are dealt with at a national or local level. Where applications are dealt with at the local level, we believe that councils should have the opportunity to decide these matters on behalf of their local community.”

Minister for Decentralisation, Greg Clark MP, in a very similar reply reiterates this, and also indicates the Government’s plans to put forward a “simple and consolidated National planning framework covering all forms of development.”

On face value this would appear to mean that the buck stops with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Planning Committee as to where wind turbines are located in relation to dwellings.

This will hopefully contribute to a positive outcome for Spaldington residents, when the two separate wind farm schemes close to the village are heard at appeal in the Spring. The proposal was for sites on either side of the village, with the community being in the middle of a 12 turbine windfarm of 126m high turbines. There would have been 24 houses within 775m of the nearest turbine and would have been the closest of any wind farm developments in East Riding to nearby homes.

The decision of the Planning Committee in September was to refuse both applications; therefore if the Ministers are to be taken at their word the decision to refuse these applications should be upheld by the planning inspector.

Separation distances between wind turbines and affected residences

I have submitted the following motion to be debated by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council at the Wednesday 13th October 2010 full Council meeting.

"That this Council

1) asks the Secretary of State to give urgent consideration to reviewing the government’s planning guidance on renewable energy as clarification is needed on national minimum distances between wind turbines and affected residences taking into account the size of the turbine

2) then undertakes a review of its ’Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy’, which could include minimum distance criteria between wind turbines and sensitive land uses such as residential dwellings, rights of way and roads.”

The motion was approved by the Council with only the 3 Labour Councillors voting against!

At almost exactly the same time the Goverment Policy for onshore wind turbines was being discussed by MPs and the Minister at Westminster, a recording of which can be seen here

The following is the speech I gave to support the motion:

The East Riding is already carrying more than its fair share of the country’s EU and National renewable energy targets in those applications that have been approved. The capacity of the East Riding to accept more wind farms is perhaps open to question – BUT what is clear is that particular areas will be saturated, and when all those already approved are built would be in effect windfarm landscapes. Herein lies the problem – many wind farms have planning consent, but apart from Lisset none are yet built.

Over the last 3½ years the Council Planning Committee has considered windfarm application after windfarm application – some have been approved, some have been refused – and of those that have been refused and appealed - all have been approved by a planning inspector.

When looking at the applications the Planning Committee has approved – each has been in a location away from properties… These include the Twin Rivers site, the Goole Fields site, Sancton, and the site near Burton Pidsea….

If one looks at the windfarms that have been approved, either by the Planning Committee or the Planning inspector it is clear that the physical size of the turbines is generally increasing, but worryingly we are seeing more turbines planned to be built ever closer to properties.

The Goole Fields application saw no properties within 750m and only 3 properties within 1,000m

The Sixpennywood application saw 2 properties within 750 and a further 3 within 1,000m

Withernwick then saw 5 properties within 1,000m

Monkwith saw 1 property within 750m and 12 within 1,000m

Then came the Spaldington applications…. of all the windfarm applications we’ve considered - I can’t recall anywhere seeing a proposal for so many properties within 1000m of 126m high turbines … 33 in this case… and worse still out of the 33 – 8 are within 750m - which is unbelievable. Also the centre of the village is only 1,000m away from the nearest turbine.

This is the background to this motion….

An adequate separation distance between wind turbines and properties is important for a number of reasons, with visual impact and noise being the main concerns.

Visual impact is quite easy to determine, imagine living within less than 750m of the Lissett windfarm to get a flavour of the overpowering nature of 125m high wind turbines. Imagine having to live with the constant movement…

Noise is much, much more complex.

The starting point for noise impact is the 1997 ETSU Guidance, which is based on average background noise levels at residences likely to be affected by wind turbines. This is open to abuse by windfarm developers as it based on average background noise levels, which can be affected by a number of factors. I have real issues with, and serious concerns over the way the background noise data has been gathered by some applicants - particularly the locations chosen for noise measurements and the so called farming activities that have taken place around the equipment during the period of measurement – including the running corn dryers or constantly working the land in the vicinity of the noise measuring equipment – thereby giving a higher than normal reading.

Then planning conditions are applied to limit the noise of the wind turbines to be less than say 5db above background noise levels – so if the background noise level is inflated the noise from the turbines can be somewhat greater, allowing for the larger turbines to operate at a fuller capacity.

It is acknowledged by many that this 1997 government guidance is outdated and flawed – after all it was put in place a long time before we as a Council were looking at these massive 2 and 3 MW, 126m high turbines.

This can be addressed very easily by ensuring that there is a minimum separation distance between a wind turbine and a property, as the noise diminishes with distance.

The second part of the motion adds a localised dimension to address separation distances, not only between wind turbines and residences, but also roads and rights of way. I have included roads because the skid marks on the road, observing the traffic travelling on the A165 between Beeford and Lissett, and talking to others, shows that drivers are distracted by the closeness of one of turbines to the road. The lesson from this does not appear to have been learnt as we saw a 126m high turbine proposed to be located with 60m of a highway as part of the Spaldington Common application – so much for fall over distances!

The response of the Secretary of State to the first part of the motion will determine how the second part is addressed. No one is exactly sure what the Government’s Localism Bill will contain when it comes to local decision-making regarding planning applications. But what is certain, the Council will need a policy on renewable energy that is fit for purpose.

This is not about preventing wind farms, it is about making sure turbines are located in areas that cause least problems for residents… it is about stopping our East Riding villages and hamlets being swamped by huge wind turbines being built unacceptably close.