Illwind evidence in response to Honda Letter

In response to Honda & Ecotricity’s letter, IllWind have provided the evidence below which substantiates some of their claims that they have made regarding minimum wind turbine separation:

Extract from Scottish Policy Document (Para 190):

When identifying areas with potential constraints on wind farm development, planning authorities should consider the following:

  • the historic environment,
  • areas designated for their regional and local landscape or natural heritage value,
  • tourism and recreation interests,
  • likely impacts on communities, including long term and significant impact on amenity,
  • impact on aviation and defence interests, particularly airport and aerodrome operation, flight activity, tactical training areas, aviation and defence radar and seismological recording, and
  • impact on broadcasting installations, particularly maintaining transmission links.

A separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. Development plans should recognise that the existence of these constraints on wind farm development does not impose a blanket restriction on development, and should be clear on the extent of constraints and the factors that should be satisfactorily addressed to enable development to take place. Planning authorities should not impose additional zones of protection around areas designated for their landscape or natural heritage value.

Lincolnshire County Council criteria:

Anti-wind farm campaigners have welcomed Lincolnshire County Council’s plans to publish a list of criteria developers would need to meet in order to build onshore turbines.

Despite applications for such sites being handles by district planning officers, the county authority say they want to make their views known, so a more uniform approach can be taken to protecting the rural landscape.

And that could see a better deal for residents, with renewable energy companies avoiding potentially contentious areas all together as they know in advance that permission is likely to be rejected.

One of the proposed automatic county council objections would be for any development within the Wolds area of outstanding natural beauty – or for turbines over 100m, within 2km of it.

In addition, the council would object to any large turbine development within 2km of a village, anything which would spoil a 10km view from recognised Ordinance Survey view points or anything which compromises the “visual dominance of Lincoln Cathedral”.

UK Noise Association:

The UK Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km, just under a mile) between giant wind turbines and homes.

Download the original document.

Other info:

German manufacturer Retexo-RISP suggest on their web site that “buildings, particularly housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the wind-farm“. That was written when turbines were half the size of today’s models

Extract from Enertrag document “Proposed Wind Farm at Ellands Farm, Hemington

“Enertrag site all turbines at least 700 metres from residential properties in order to minimise any ocurrence of shadow flicker”

A fuller response is now available here.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Illwind evidence in response to Honda Letter”

  1. Why is the village website being used to propagate rubbish that has no scientific basis. I would suggest my fellow residents actually look at the facts for themselves rather than those of the usual NIMBY’s in the village.

    The comments about ‘windfarms’ refer to dozens of turbines not 3.

    1. Robert,

      I have to take issue with your comments.

      If you read this post, you will find that the content provided is simply providing recommendations for the minimum distance.
      Discounting the case of the UK Noise Association, the other sources are potentially more ‘reliable’:
      – The Scottish Office.
      – Lincolnshire County Council – Though neither Illwind, not I have been able to find the actual guidelines which the council published.
      – Wind Turbine manufacturers – If anything you would expect them to recommend smaller distances so that they can install more wind farms.
      Their references do as far as possible
      In terms of the ‘scientific justification’ and whether that is valid or not, I have tried not to promote that on the village website. I have my own reservations about some of the methods being used by the IllWind group. As a result I have avoided overly promoting their activities – you will notice that there has been no promotion of their aborted second blimp flight or the successful flight which took place today. They have their own website which they maintain independently where they can promote their blimp flights and make their arguments as to why Wind Turbines are not a good idea, (whether they are scientifically rational or not).

      The village website has to strike a balance. It would be wrong for me to simply publish the documentation from Ecotricity, without also providing some mention of the concerns and response of the villagers and the Parish Council don’t forget. This is a website run for the benefit of all the village residents after all. But as I have said, I do try and maintain an editorial line, and to keep the information factual. On an emotive subject like this I would like to think that I have managed to tread it quite carefully.

      Regards

      Donald Jones

      PS: If you want a good reference for the way in which the media can misuse science for its own ends, then I would recommend that you read ‘Bad Science’ by Ben Goldacre.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s