Minutes of Public Meeting organised by Fenland Landscapes Against Turbines Committee

Date: 7th April 2007

Venue: Jubilee Hall, Smeeth Road, Marshland St James

Present:

Independent Chairman: Paul Ringwood
Guest Speakers: Dr John Lilley, Mr Mike Barnard
Local villagers: Approx 300
Developers: Ian Robinson, Bruce Pittingdale
Flat Committee Members:
Chairman:Lyndon Mason
Vice Chairman:Hugh Langston
Treasurer/Fundraising: Jamie McGuffog
Secretary: Janette McGuffog
Minutes: Janet Henson
Wildlife Advisor:Sue Cooper
Committee Members: Terry Hills, Liz Langston, David McGuffog, David Markinson, Ruth Mason, Lee Newman, Sally Woodward

Purpose of Meeting

To inform local people of the plan for wind turbines in the area as the developers had not organised a public meeting a group of local parishioners who have called themselves Fenland Landscape Against Turbines (FLAT) have at their own expense called the meeting to inform all of the plans that have been known to the Borough Council for over 18 months.

Introduction

The Independent Chairman for the evening addressed the audience at 7.00pm stating that due to the large number of people who were still outside wanting to get into the hall for the meeting that we would delay the proceedings for a few minutes to allow as many people as possible to attend.

7.10 pm start of meeting

Paul Ringwood introduced himself to the meeting and explained he is a retired shop keeper from Wolferton nr Sandringham and is an ex independent Parish Councillor, and is still a Lay Reader for local church.

The committee (FLAT) are a few villagers who at own expense have organised the meeting. The meeting has been organised to give information and some people in the audience will for, some against and some indifferent.

We have a series of talks and would appreciate if all Questions could be held to the end. We have plenty of time planned for this. He then passed over to David McGuffog the first speaker.

David McGuffog

David was born in Scotland and lived in the Lake District. He moved to Marshland St James 29 years ago. His love of the peace and quiet of the area stems back to his early years living in a remote part of Scotland and the Lake District.

David explained he is green as the next person, he has low energy bulbs, changed his car to the more eco friendly diesel and recycles. He wants to highlight the hidden proposal that is affecting Marshland St James and the surrounding villages.

The proposal for the turbines has been made known to the Parish Council over 18 months ago and they have failed to let people in the area know about it. David had thought until looking further into it they the turbines looked elegant and were produced green electricity. Since the 10 March when he found out about the proposal he has carried out research on the internet and has found that they are very inefficient and if it was not for government subsides which we all pay hidden taxes towards they would not go ahead. He and the committee know as FLAT have got together to try to give people and independent view of the facts behind the turbines.

David then passed over to the next speaker – David Markinson.

David received and enthusiastic round of applause for his opening speech.

David Markinson

David opened his speech by saying that the committee were overwhelmed at the large turn out and for any further meetings would organise a larger venue.

David is an independent candidate who is against wind farms and will be standing at the local Borough elections in May. His own view is that they are not efficient and are not green. There is a place for proposals like this and that is out at sea where there is a more constant wind. He believes that there should be a democratic vote before go ahead.

He was surprised at the how large the project was and how it has been handled over the last two years. Councillors should have told villages that one of the largest projects in the History of the Fens was being considered. The local farmers who are member of the consortium denied all knowledge of the wind farm, then four hours later the August 2006 map was discovered.

Laughter broke out in the audience at this point in disbelief that this could happen.
Councillors have known for over 18 months and this project is valued at over £40.million

Articles in the press give information on how peoples lives has been destroyed by living near a wind farm. Problems include sleep depravation, depression, the still and quiet of the area destroyed, flickering due to turbines going round during the date, wildlife including birds and bats killed. Loss of value to homes by as much as 54%. People imprisoned in home due to fact they cannot sell. If the go head is given then the area will be classed as a designated area for wind turbines and they can then spread like a disease over the whole landscape.

We need volunteers to hep us and we all need to work together.

Applause for his comments and people in the audience agreed with his comments.

Sue Cooper

The next speaker who has lived in Middle Drove with her farmily for over 27 years and is Norfolk born and bred. Until 10 March 2007 she thought they were elegant to the eye and green. That was until a Daily Mail Article about the Davis family. This changed her view and she started to research further. The Davis family are speaking at another venue today, which is similar to this one. She has their permission to tell their story.

Sue then continued to read the newspaper article that told the story of the families plight. They kept a regular diary the vibration and noise was such that the family had to rent a sleeping house, as they could not sleep in their own home. Of 243 nights 231` were disturbed. The sound is like a heartbeat that is slightly faster than the human body, the body seems to tune into this and is constantly trying to race to keep up with it. The latest information is that they have had to move from their home completely. Even the moles that blighted the garden have moved out due to the vibration and noise.

Laughter from the audience that even the wildlife has shown they do not want to live in the shadow of wind turbines.

The Davis family wanted their story to be made public so that others will not have the same traumatic time as they have.

The wind Farm application was turned down by their local Council.
However, John Prescott’s office overturned them and the plan went through.

As the law stands – No compensation.

This law was written when he turbines where a tenth of the size they are today.

The Sterne review showed that wind farms abroad have to comply with tighter restrictions.

Wind farms in France have to be 2 kilometres from homes in the UK 500 metres.
Power companies abroad are running out of wilderness.

The leaflet we received was the first that she knew about the proposals.

Jack Bantoft and the Askews have known about this for 18 months and were in favour of the proposals. They had not read the article in the mail.

We need to be kept informed. If the farmers pull out no land, no turbines.

Cries of hear, hear was heard from the audience.

Sue received a round of applause and handed over to the next speaker.

Dr John Lilley

Dr John Lilley introduced himself and explained he was a Managing Director of a major supplier of wind turbine engines. His engines had powered wind turbines in Denmark and Los Angeles. He has also worked for the Met Office and Atomic Energy. He has worked and spoken at Congham.

The following text is a copy of the talk given at the meeting which was kindly supplied by John Lilley to give people facts and links to sites of interest.

1. Introduction

As you probably know, electricity generating companies are required by the government to find increasing amounts of their output from qualifying renewable sources. The proportion has to reach 10% by 2010. ‘Wind electricity’ produces or the generating company about twice as much money as thermal generation thanks to a system of subsidies.

A company called Marshland Wind Farms is proposing to build a wind farm at Marshland St James.This substantial scheme proposes twenty-six 2 MW wind turbines each about 110 metres (360ft) high to the tip of their 87 metre diameter rotors. The hub height of 67 metres is the same as the original Ecotech 1.5 MW turbine at Swaffham, although the rotor there is smaller at only 70 metres diameter. The eight 1.8 MW Enertrag turbines at North Pickenham have similar size rotors to those in the Marshland proposal, but with hub heights of 80 metres.

2. Would it provide Environmentally Friendly Electricity?

Of course it would, but not as much of it, nor as conveniently, as you might expect.

Despite their advanced technology wind turbines are as unpredictable as the wind itself, and, as the wind strengthens and weakens, so does their output. Over the last ten days I doubt whether any local turbine has produced any output..

This reduces our 52 originally installed megawatts to only 13 useable megawatts if we use a ‘Load Factor’ of say 25%. (The established general figure recently for onshore installations in England is slightly lower at 24%)

One typical ‘traditional’ power station offers roughly, depending on type, 1000 megawatts.

There is another major problem with wind turbines called intermittency which means that the generating company cannot tell from one day to the next how much if any power will be produced. To overcome this issue the industry has what is called a spinning reserve which means that conventional power stations are kept running inefficiently so they can produce power quickly if the wind drops.

3. So how many homes would be supplied?

This is a nice dramatic way of describing and comparing outputs much favoured by the Wind Industry.

It can be shown that a typical UK household requires about 4700 KWhrs or ‘Units’ of electricity annually, broadly equivalent to 0.5 KW continuously.

On this basis one ‘Marshland turbine’ at 25% duty factor could supply the equivalent of 1000 homes and the whole Marshland Wind Farm, could supply 26,000 homes. Without ‘backup’ not reliably, but an impressive figure.

By comparison our ‘traditional’ 1000 MW Power Station typically at 80% up time could reliably supply 1.6 million homes, and is the equivalent of 1600 ‘Marshland turbines’.

4. Is our local Landscape a suitable place for a Wind farm?

In August 2003, “Land Use Consultants” (LCU) produced for ‘Breckland Council and The Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk’ a report entitled:

‘Wind Turbine Development: Landscape Survey Evaluation and Guidance’

This comprehensive document looked very thoroughly at different sizes of wind farm and their effectiveness in conjunction with Norfolk landscapes of various types and character. Whilst including wind speed patterns, the study also looked at land form and topography, settlements, skyline, landmarks and visible built structures such as churches and windmills, as well as views, remoteness, and tranquillity.

The Marshland scheme matches the criteria in the report for ‘Large’ turbine groups, that is, more than 25 turbines. At the position of the site proposed for Marshland the report concludes, combining all the criteria, that “this landscape has a reasonable capacity to accommodate a large (or medium) scale group” .

Average wind speeds at Marshland are quite low, 6.3m/s at 45m, 5.8 m/s at 25m and 5 m/s at 10m. Wind turbines are not much use below 6.5m/sec (15m/sec = 34 mph).

5. What happens when they build these Wind Turbines?

A typical wind turbine costs around £1m to build. It will be made up of the foundation, the tower weighing about 150 tonnes (probably in three sections), the nacelle with generator and gearbox weighing about 60 tonnes, and 3-bladed rotor weighing about 30 tonnes, some 240 tonnes in all for each turbine. Main component sub-assemblies are delivered to site on massive low-loader trucks some 40 metres long.

Very large mobile cranes will obviously be necessary too for off-loading, erection, and subsequent maintenance, requiring robustly built access tracks, and hard standing near individual generator sites.

A typical ‘best case’ 300 cubic metre foundation is about 650 tonnes of aggregate, cement and steel reinforcement etc. Assuming the concrete is mixed on site this represents say, some 40 big truckloads of material, per turbine, or over 1000 truckloads in all, for the foundations alone. In poor soil requiring bigger foundations, it might be considerably more than that.

6. What about Noise and how might Property Values be affected?

These are highly contentious topics. Let’s look at noise first.

The planning guidelines specify something called ETSU-R-97 which refers mainly to measurable audible sound levels. The developers follow this meticulously. Unfortunately there is increasing evidence that the guidelines are inadequate, and that the separation between dwellings and turbines is insufficient to prevent environmental noise pollution and health problems. In particular the problem of ‘Infrasound’, the barely audible low frequency vibration caused as turbine blades successively pass their supporting tower, and a major contributor to reported health complaints, is not properly addressed. Interestingly the guidelines appear to provide less protection to people than those of the World Health Organisation. In addition ETSU allows for turbines to produce more noise at night than during the day. Furthermore one recent comprehensive report (Frey and Hadden Feb. 2007) suggests a minimum safe buffer zone of 2km for 2MW turbines. This would raise many difficulties for wind farm developers, being considerably more than current standards. In fact humans receive less protection than whales or dolphins.

As the general debate on all this increases there is obviously an additional follow-on effect with property values. A report from Bradleys Chartered Surveyors back in 2004 suggested that properties 600 to 800 metres distant might be devalued by 30% dropping to 20% at 1 mile and 10% at 2 miles. Clearly, individual circumstances vary, and relate to whether or not turbines can be seen or heard, as well as the type of property and the area in which it is located. At worst someone suffering a major noise-induced health problem could be completely trapped in their own home, with no prospect whatsoever of selling. Naturally the mere existence of a proposal such as we face right now cannot be hidden, and will have a deterrent effect on potential buyers.

There is some evidence to suggest however that with reference to visible intrusion alone, the devaluation effect becomes less some 2 years after the turbines are commissioned and the area has settled down.

Nevertheless it is probably only a question of time perhaps before someone invokes European Human Rights legislation, and successfully claims substantial damages against a landowner or developer.

7. What will happen to Birds and Wildlife?

People rightly worry about birds colliding with turbine blades, although at least in England there are few reports of serious bird problems at present.

A typical rotor tip speed is well over 150mph, so if a bird dodges the first tip it has 1.3 seconds to avoid the next one. Many reports suggest that it is large slow flying raptors that are most at risk and we do have, for example, many barn owls in the vicinity.

A particular problem arises locally with pink-footed geese, which are still seen in large numbers from time to time. They are undoubtedly vulnerable when flying at night or in foggy weather. In the light of the planned increase of sugar beet cropping in the vicinity, numbers of geese on the land are likely to return to their very significant former levels, where sometimes thousands have been seen.

Some concern arises too with bats which seem surprisingly unable to cope with blade collision avoidance. The effect on wildlife in general particularly during the construction stage is obvious. All aspects of this have to be included in the early stages of assessment by the developers.

8. What about Planning Permission?

The fact that, at Marshland, the installed capacity proposed is more than 50 MW (just!) is very significant in terms of Planning Permission procedures.

S36 is an integrated procedure that takes into account the views of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) after consultation with various bodies such as Natural England, as well as with the public. An LPA objection could result in a Public Enquiry.

Many wind development applications are perhaps deliberately configured to exceed the 50 MW installed capacity threshold of S36 which transfers them from the Town and Country Planning Acts to the Electricity Act 1989, where applicants believe that S36 gives an easier route to consent via the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

In 2004 new planning advice guidelines were adopted in England in the form of Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22). These give considerable licence for the onshore deployment of windpower.

We should note too, that lack of commercial or technical viability, such as a low average windspeed, is of relatively small significance in terms of planning consent.

Any application has to include an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure which requires the developer to compile an Environmental Statement (EI) describing the likely significant effects of the development on the environment and proposed mitigation measures. It has to be made available to the public for comment as well as to statutory consultation bodies, and taken into account prior to any consent. The question of local airfields will be considered during this stage along with consideration of effects on radar, TV and Radio broadcasting, and public utility communications. An EIA seems to have commenced at Marshland. It was preceded by a planning application for the erection of an anemometer mast for wind speed tests.

An application for Wind Farm Planning Consent is very difficult to overturn once started. The procedure is heavily weighted in favour of the developer, and likely to become more so as the present log-jam of delays builds up throughout the UK.

9. Is Electricity from the Wind, ‘Free’?

The government has a very complex financial system in place based around:

The Renewals Obligation (RO)
The Climate Change Levy exemption (CCLe)
Renewal Obligation Certificates (ROC’S)

The net effect of all this is to pay to the suppliers, three premiums on top of the wholesale price of wind generated electricity, and some of this is already incorporated into our own electricity bills, whether on ‘green tariff’ or not.

This hidden tax provides the largest subsidy in history to providers of renewable energy, an incentive which has brought multinational power companies flocking to our shores, and been responsible for the distortion of our planning system.

Just one 2MW turbine could receive an annual subsidy of over £235,000. Without Renewal Obligation Certificates few developers would be building wind farms.

Spain has abandoned this subsidy. Denmark has not built an onshore farm for four years.

10. Conclusions

Let us not be mistaken, this Wind Farm is an attempt at massive Industrial Development in a peaceful rural area, possibly representing, it has been said, the biggest single change since the Fens were drained.

With six offshore wind farms off the Lincolnshire coast and in the Wash, at either consultation stage or with permission, and totalling over 500 turbines, do we really need inefficient onshore generation as well?

You may think that given all the concerns about global warming and power resources, Marshland ought to be prepared to do its bit to help. What would be the result?

If this project were to go ahead we can see that the peaceful areas in and around Marshland would be simply devastated, never to be the same again for many years. From the moment the work starts there will be massive intrusion into daily and leisure life. An increasing volume of heavy plant and transport, disruption, noise, dirt, spoil deposition, huge scarring of the countryside, disturbance to water courses and ground structure, all would take their toll on your wonderful tranquility, and on the value of your homes. The effect on feeding, breeding and roosting sites would destroy wildlife. Local pursuits of walking, riding, cycling, bird watching, painting, and there like, all would be affected.

What will be the reward for suffering all of this? Well, you will be contributing a piddling 13 megawatts of unreliable electricity, equivalent to less than 1.7 % of a conventional reliable power station.

Ask yourselves, is this really, honestly, about saving the planet? Or is it mainly about political expediency, improving company balance sheets, and buying the compliance of landowners. You might say ‘from our pockets into theirs’, although with agricultural and rural policies rapidly driving many farmers out of business who can blame them for accepting offers which will readily assure a future for their families.

References

Artists Against Wind Farms. www.artistsagainstwindfarms.com

Barningham High Moor. www.wind-farm.co.uk

British Wind Energy Association. www.bwea.com

Campaign to Protect Rural England. www.cpre.org.uk

Communities and Local Government. www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143248

Country Guardian (much use made of this site) www.countryguardian.net

Daily Telegraph – 12th September 2006. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main

Department of Trade and Industry. www.dti.gov.uk/cgi-bin/nre/noab1.pl & www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/renewables-explained/wind-energy/onshore

Ecotricity. www.ecotricity.co.uk

Embrace Wind. www.embracewind.com/myths.html

Enertrag UK Ltd. www.enertraguk.com/north_pickenham.html

Hyder Consulting. www.hyderconsulting.com

IBERDROLA – Web. www.iberdrola.es Wikipedia Iberdrola: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberdrola

Moorland Without Turbines. www.mwtlewis.org.uk

Myndd Llansadwrn Action Group. www.turbineaction.co.uk/wind-turbine-facts.htm

National Centre for Policy Analysis – ‘Why Renewable Energy is Not Cheap and Not Green.’ www.ncpa.org/studio/renew/renew2.html

Royal Society for Protection of Birds. www.rspb.org.uk

Say No to the Whinash Windfarm. www.nowhinashwindfarm.co.uk/facts.asp

Visit Wales Now http://visitwalesnow.org.uk (some dramatic pictures here)

Windfarms – Rape of the Countryside or Salvation of the World? http://garsmeth.members.beeb.net/hall.htm

Wind Energy and Aviation Guidelines. www.bwea.c4om/pdf/Wind-Energy-and-aviation-interim-guidelines.pdf

Windpower Monthly News Magazine http://windpower-monthly.com

Dr John Lilley received a rousing applause from the audience who had listened to his summary.

Mike Barnard

Two and a half years ago he had been in the same position in Boxworth when they found out about a less than 50 mw proposal for a wind farm. The council rejected this. It went to a Public Enquiry and was turned down. The Cambridge scheme was not approved at 1/3rd of the size. It was turned down completely.

Mike brought with him a model, which gave an idea of the impact of turbines. The largest features in our landscape are usually the churches and large trees. His model showed a smaller original turbine and one at 100metres. The ones proposed in this area are equivalent to and additional 8 stories higher than this. The area the sails cover are equivalent of a football pitch at each turn. They will have a major visual impact over 10km away.

You need to overcome apathy at residents at that distance, as it will affect them.

One of the things they did was to fly a Blimp at the hub height so that people could see the visual impact. Look at the visual impact in the Warboys area where more than one proposal can be seen. Together they can be seen over 17 km away.

The turbines once up are there for 25 years and will generate £6 million per year. Do you really think another application will not go in at the end of that time?

The same subsides are paid regardless of on or off shore farms. They are more expensive to build off shore that is why developers are trying to get approval for on shore farms.

In 2006 an energy review was carried out and it was recommended that more should be off shore rather than on shore.

In the Renewable Energy report it highlighted our region as potential for off shore wind farms and they should make up 80% of total. The three key areas identified for offshore development are the Wash, Thames Estuary and the Lancashire coast. In the East of England Region therefore two of the three are available to support the renewable energy targets.

If the wind speed increases from 6 to 8 ms the electricity output doubles. If moved to a windy site half the wind turbines would be needed.

They have a major impact on the character of the landscape.

The main causes of noise problems are flat lands and large landscapes. This area is a prime area for noise problems.

Bats are attracted to insects due to heat of the turbines and are chopped by the blades, as are birds.

TV reception can mean you loose reception altogether. In one area over 400 houses had to have new aerials because of this.

Summary

You have an exceptionally good turnout tonight. Work together, raise money, use media. An environmental impact study can be over 800 pages. Do not wait. Do not believe all you read. Get independent expert advice. Remember the local experts in the area are you the people who live and work here.

Work together - Good luck - I hope you win

A round of applause from the audience thanking speaker

Question and Answers

There followed a very lively questions and answers session which at times became quite heated. A show of hands clearly indicated that the overwhelming majority of attendees were opposed to the Wind Turbine Power development.

Paul Ringwood – Conclusion

Good evening with a lot of information to allow people to understand what impact a wind farm will make in the area. Technical content has given people facts.

• Reminder – Keep things peaceful. Do not send threatening letters.
• Work together with your committee.
• Many individual petitions i.e. letters are better than one petition. Co-ordinate with committee. Once your letter logged and on the list at the council you will receive information from developers or from those against the development.
• Get media coverage
• Do not fly post.
• Make sure minutes of meetings kept.
• Henry Bellingham has moved and has a proposed wind farm next door to him. He could assist you.
• Work with other groups if you can. Nationally we need to address the issue. Many more groups like this.
• Write to local MP’s, MEP’s. A government paper could help cause.
• Your local committee who organised tonights meeting need your help. If you have any expertise or can help with delivery of leaflets please let them know.
• Costs can be high when you need to employ experts to counter the developers proposals please support your committee members. Buckets have been placed around hall for collections. A bank account has been opened and a proper committee including treasurer has been set up.
• Work with them.

Thank you all for attending this meeting.

The meeting concluded at 9.45 am