There was a brilliant hint of spring, yesterday morning. In the company of Rectory Lane residents Peter Gardner and David and Karen Diamond I took an exploratory ramble around Rectory Wood, down towards the former landfill. On the north west side FCC are proposing to locate four wind turbines which, from blade tip to ground, would be 90 metres. Peter is about 500 metres from the site. The Diamonds are slightly further away.
The proposal has provoked alarm and criticism. There are a range of objections ranging from unsightliness to noise and/or health problems. The Parish Council will express a view on this when it appears as a planning application and Central Beds will be the actual planning decision maker. It helps me, as a parish councillor, to have a physical sense of what the chosen area is like and listen to those living in the immediate vicinity.
Those who are opposed to the turbines have to be conscious of the narrow grounds on which CBC will actually make its decision (not to mention a planning inspector if FCC appeals a refusal). There are health case studies of individuals who say they have been badly affected by the installation of a turbine near to where they live. But there are no randomised strictly regulated health trials as far as I am aware.
Noise is also a developing area of research with concerns reported but currently a lack of well established evidence. One point that is regularly made relates to low frequency noise. This, I am told, is highly penetrative of the built environment. So double glazing doesn't help. In addition light flicker is cited as a persistent irritant.
In strict planning terms there are two areas of concern. Firstly, the simple loss of amenity from having a 60 metre plus 30 metre blade structure near to where you live. This will also apply to walkers and horses using well established rights of way and bridle ways. Secondly and directly related to this, is the absence of any well established minimum limit for the distance between houses and turbines. If this did exist there would then be a level playing field for discussion.
We can't rely on FCC for information or answers to these questions as they want to get their application through. Our councillors at the correct point must ask planning officials for direct, unambiguous assurances of health, noise and flicker issues. The officials must be prepared to give guarantees on these (i.e.take responsibility).
Then we need a discussion about what is a reasonable distance in terms of amenity and public use of an important leisure and recreation area in the Vale.
I usually have something to say about CBC procedure. In the short term I will be seeking to ensure that the Council is as transparent and communicative as possible. That is the least we can expect.
The proposal has provoked alarm and criticism. There are a range of objections ranging from unsightliness to noise and/or health problems. The Parish Council will express a view on this when it appears as a planning application and Central Beds will be the actual planning decision maker. It helps me, as a parish councillor, to have a physical sense of what the chosen area is like and listen to those living in the immediate vicinity.
Those who are opposed to the turbines have to be conscious of the narrow grounds on which CBC will actually make its decision (not to mention a planning inspector if FCC appeals a refusal). There are health case studies of individuals who say they have been badly affected by the installation of a turbine near to where they live. But there are no randomised strictly regulated health trials as far as I am aware.
Noise is also a developing area of research with concerns reported but currently a lack of well established evidence. One point that is regularly made relates to low frequency noise. This, I am told, is highly penetrative of the built environment. So double glazing doesn't help. In addition light flicker is cited as a persistent irritant.
In strict planning terms there are two areas of concern. Firstly, the simple loss of amenity from having a 60 metre plus 30 metre blade structure near to where you live. This will also apply to walkers and horses using well established rights of way and bridle ways. Secondly and directly related to this, is the absence of any well established minimum limit for the distance between houses and turbines. If this did exist there would then be a level playing field for discussion.
We can't rely on FCC for information or answers to these questions as they want to get their application through. Our councillors at the correct point must ask planning officials for direct, unambiguous assurances of health, noise and flicker issues. The officials must be prepared to give guarantees on these (i.e.take responsibility).
Then we need a discussion about what is a reasonable distance in terms of amenity and public use of an important leisure and recreation area in the Vale.
I usually have something to say about CBC procedure. In the short term I will be seeking to ensure that the Council is as transparent and communicative as possible. That is the least we can expect.
No comments:
Post a Comment