Here are Cranfield Parish Council's comments on the Brogborough wind energy project scoping report.
3.2.10
table 3.4 notes that the application for a wind turbine at Stewartby has
been withdrawn. At the most recent Marston Vale landfill Liaison meeting in
July, FCC confirmed that they were going to resubmit this application to BBC
in late July.
para 3.2.4
Consultees: should include all the parishes in the Cranfield Marston ward:
Cranfield, Marston, Hulcote and Salford, Brogborough, Ridgmont, Lidlington,
Millbrook, plus all those with the potential for visual impact, including
Wootton, Stewartby, Ampthill, Houghton Conquest. As a major planning
application, we would like to see all parishes over a very wide area
notified of the application, even if not apparently directly affected.
Cranfield Airfield is not named as a consultee in Appendix A, but clearly
needs to be one.
Para6.2.6 Noise and vibration
The Parish Council would like to be involved in the selection of noise
monitoring sites around the Wood End area of Cranfield. The area is
especially quiet, particularly at night, which needs to be taken into
account. Also, there have been problems in Wood End with the electricity
generating engines at Brogborough. In certain meteorological conditions,
usually when the weather is very good and wind conditions very still, the
sound of the engines reverberates over to Wood End, and at times the noise
can be very loud.
6.6.10
The LVIA needs to be based on a large enough area to take full account of
the long distance views that extend across and along the length of the
Marston Vale, from the ridges that enclose the Vale.
Key viewpoints should include the impact on named long distance routes that
run adjacent or close to the proposed turbines at Wood End. These routes are
the National cycleway route 51, the Bunyan Way and Clay Way. The long
distance views from the Greensand Ridge Way, at Ampthill should also be
assessed, along with views from the picnic area, owned by the Marston Vale
trust, at Lidlington.
The Parish Council would like to be involved in the selection of viewpoints.
6.8.3
States Cranfield Airport have raised concerns that the development could
affect the potential for it to install a radar system in future. But
Cranfield air field is not listed in Appendix A as a consultee - is this
information taken from their objections to the Marston Millennium Park mast,
or have they actually consulted Cranfield? Given that the secondary run way
takes off in the direction of the proposed wind turbines, they should be
consulted on this scoping document.
6.10
Shadow flicker has the potential to affect a number of properties in Wood
End, especially as these are in an elevated position, so the blades will
effectively be at eye height.
Other issues
No mention is given of the potential effect on the approved restoration
scheme for Brogborough landfill site. This needs to be assessed
No rationale is given for the proposed location of the turbines. What
evidence supports the individual site choices? The scoping masts have been
erected since this scoping report was produced, and therefore no information
from these has been used in the selection of the proposed turbine locations.
This needs to be addressed in the EA.
3.2.10
table 3.4 notes that the application for a wind turbine at Stewartby has
been withdrawn. At the most recent Marston Vale landfill Liaison meeting in
July, FCC confirmed that they were going to resubmit this application to BBC
in late July.
para 3.2.4
Consultees: should include all the parishes in the Cranfield Marston ward:
Cranfield, Marston, Hulcote and Salford, Brogborough, Ridgmont, Lidlington,
Millbrook, plus all those with the potential for visual impact, including
Wootton, Stewartby, Ampthill, Houghton Conquest. As a major planning
application, we would like to see all parishes over a very wide area
notified of the application, even if not apparently directly affected.
Cranfield Airfield is not named as a consultee in Appendix A, but clearly
needs to be one.
Para6.2.6 Noise and vibration
The Parish Council would like to be involved in the selection of noise
monitoring sites around the Wood End area of Cranfield. The area is
especially quiet, particularly at night, which needs to be taken into
account. Also, there have been problems in Wood End with the electricity
generating engines at Brogborough. In certain meteorological conditions,
usually when the weather is very good and wind conditions very still, the
sound of the engines reverberates over to Wood End, and at times the noise
can be very loud.
6.6.10
The LVIA needs to be based on a large enough area to take full account of
the long distance views that extend across and along the length of the
Marston Vale, from the ridges that enclose the Vale.
Key viewpoints should include the impact on named long distance routes that
run adjacent or close to the proposed turbines at Wood End. These routes are
the National cycleway route 51, the Bunyan Way and Clay Way. The long
distance views from the Greensand Ridge Way, at Ampthill should also be
assessed, along with views from the picnic area, owned by the Marston Vale
trust, at Lidlington.
The Parish Council would like to be involved in the selection of viewpoints.
6.8.3
States Cranfield Airport have raised concerns that the development could
affect the potential for it to install a radar system in future. But
Cranfield air field is not listed in Appendix A as a consultee - is this
information taken from their objections to the Marston Millennium Park mast,
or have they actually consulted Cranfield? Given that the secondary run way
takes off in the direction of the proposed wind turbines, they should be
consulted on this scoping document.
6.10
Shadow flicker has the potential to affect a number of properties in Wood
End, especially as these are in an elevated position, so the blades will
effectively be at eye height.
Other issues
No mention is given of the potential effect on the approved restoration
scheme for Brogborough landfill site. This needs to be assessed
No rationale is given for the proposed location of the turbines. What
evidence supports the individual site choices? The scoping masts have been
erected since this scoping report was produced, and therefore no information
from these has been used in the selection of the proposed turbine locations.
This needs to be addressed in the EA.
2 comments:
Point of order on section 6.8.3 re the airfield - there has not been a "secondary" runway since last year.
By secondary I take it you refer to the old northerly runway 18/36. This has now been downgraded to being a taxiway (it was seldom used anyway & was only suitable for light aircraft).
There is, however a virtual runway in that direction for helicopters, basically a strip of mown grass so that they can have a pretend runway to practice upon.
The latest aerodrome chart will make that clear see http://tinyurl.com/cldc689
Note that helis are often routed to arrive or depart over the southern windsock from the Vale side. So there might be potentially conflict there.
Note also that the airfield did object to the proposed windfarm opposite Newport Pagnell, on the grounds that it would interfere with its' proposed radar service, intended to improve all-weather capability of the airfield.
There's quite a lot of opposition to this locally, but there might come a time (perhaps sooner rather than later) when we cant get too picky about how we keep the lights on. Green energy is good, no doubt we will all have to have its all we can afford. Whats the story with FCC? I dont know much about them, from their website it seems that they are reasonably responsible - which may off course be BS, but I think this is the way to better understand this proposal. Does the community benefit, is it a good use of derelict land, is this the right way to engage so that Cranfield can play its part in transition to green energy? Or is it corporate cynicism just looking to exploit everything it can?
Post a Comment