Search Results for: noise

Hello again and Happy New Year!

 

A new report has been released which measured infrasound and low frequency noise at a wind farm in Shirley, America.

 

What is unusual about this report is that tests were carried out by 4 different acousticians – 2 who work for the wind industry and 2 who are independent.

 

The final report contains a body of text which all 4 acousticaims have signed and 4 seperate appendix reports from each individual.  Here is an important statement from the main body of the report agreed and signed off by all four.

 

The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies.“ 

 

Click here to read more about the report

 

Credit:     Christopher D Hanning, (honorary consultant in sleep medicine) and Alun Evans, professor emeritus,     Article published 8th March 2012 in the BMJ

 

 

A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children, and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels.

 

Click here to read full article

…an academic study by Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill

 

(Department of Psychology, School of Public Health, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, School of Population Health, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand)

 

This paper was published recently (September 2011) in an interdisciplinary  journal (public & evironmental health). Here's part of the abstract of what the study found:-

…residents living within 2 km of a turbine installation reporting lower overall quality of life, physical quality of life, and environmental quality of life. Those exposed to turbine noise also reported significantly lower sleep quality, and rated their environment as less restful. Our data suggest that wind farm noise can negatively impact facets of HRQOL [Health Related Quality of Life] .

You can access the full paper here and the conclusions are reproduced below:-

A thorough investigation of wind turbine noise and its effects on health is important given the prevalence of exposed individuals, a nontrivial number that is increasing with the popularity of wind energy. For example, in the Netherlands it is reported that 440,000 inhabitants (2.5% of the population) are exposed to significant levels of wind turbine noise. Additionally, policy makers are demanding more information on the possible link between wind turbines and health in order to inform setback distances. Our results suggest that utility-scale wind energy generation is not without adverse health impacts on nearby residents. Thus, nations 339 Noise & Health, September-October 2011, Volume 13 Shepherd, et al.: Health and wind turbine noise undertaking large-scale deployment of wind turbines need to consider the impact of noise on the HRQOL of exposed individuals. Along with others, we conclude that nighttime wind turbine noise limits should be set conservatively to minimize harm, and, on the basis of our data, suggest that setback distances need to be greater than 2 km in hilly terrain.

 

Credit:    Julian Whittle     News & Star     (13/08/11)

 

Opponents of a proposed windfarm at Hallburn, east of Longtown, have welcomed the news that Carlisle city councillors are poised to throw out the scheme.

 

Planning officers say vibrations or seismic noise from the turbines might hinder scientists at Eskdalemuir, 25 miles away, from monitoring nuclear tests around the world. That would prevent the UK from meeting its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

 

They are recommending that councillors refuse planning consent next Friday.

 

Eileen Naudé of the anti-windfarm group Block Longtown Windfarms (Blow), said: “ I’m not going to build my hopes up yet. It hasn’t been refused yet and there could be an appeal.”

 

Cornwall Light and Power, trading as REG Windpower, wants to build six 415ft turbines. The council received 266 letters and e-mails, and a petition, against the scheme and 89 expressions of support.

 

Planning officers believe that the only way to reduce vibrations to an level acceptable would be to fit dampeners not only to the six turbines but to other turbines in north Cumbria and southern Scotland.

 

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says its equipment at Eskdalemuir can tolerate a degree of seismic noise but existing windfarms mean it is at the limit.

 

Click here to read the full article

Credit:   David McKay     The Press and Journal      (26/07/11)

Noise complaints have been lodged about one in three commercial wind turbine schemes in a rural part of Aberdeenshire – more than double the UK average.

New data from Aberdeenshire Council following a freedom of information request by a local action group has revealed the extent of opposition to wind turbines operating in the Formartine area, which includes Ellon, Oldmeldrum and Turriff.

Campaign group Concerned About Wind Turbines (CAWT) has blamed planning guidance, which allows for a relatively small separation distance between turbines and homes.

 

The separation distance between turbine and residential property in Aberdeenshire is just 400m,  most of the complaints have risen within the last 18 months and include a single 80m turbine to tip, 1 km from the complainant.

The figures were obtained under a Freedom Of Information request by CAWT (Concerned about Wind Turbines).  Click here to link to a more indepth report.

Credit:   David Wilkes,     Daily Mail,     (04/07/11)

A couple driven out of their home by noise from a wind farm launched a landmark battle in the High Court yesterday over their inability to get a peaceful night’s sleep.

Jane and Julian Davis say the low- frequency hum of the 320ft tall turbines, which they liken to the sound of a helicopter, kept them awake even with earplugs and their double glazed windows closed.

They claim it became so intolerable they were forced to move from their home in Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire, six months after the eight-turbine wind farm began operating just over half a mile from their home in 2006.

Mr and Mrs Davis are challenging the turbines’ owners in a case which, if they win, could lead to operators of up to 50 wind farms across the country having to stop their turbines or compensate hundreds of residents living near them.

"The case will focus on ‘amplitude modulation’, the swishing noise made by the blades in certain conditions.

Research suggests many complaints about wind farms relate to this, and the industry admits it is not properly understood."

To read the full article click here

Below are sections of an article by Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor of The Australian

Click here to read the full article

 

URGENT research should be undertaken into the potentially damaging health effects of wind farms on nearby residents, says a landmark Senate report released yesterday.

In a dramatic win for residents' groups who have raised widespread concerns about the impact of wind farms on rural communities, the committee recommended that noise measurements be expanded to include low-frequency noise, or infrasound.

Campaigners welcomed the report and said there should be an immediate halt to wind farm developments until the potential health impacts were better understood.

.

The majority Senate report yesterday called for tougher rules on noise, new rules to govern how close wind farms can be built to houses, and an independent arbitrator to hear complaints.

It said arbitrary setbacks – the distance that a wind farm must be built from a residence – may not be adequate and each situation may need to be considered on its merits.

But the most dramatic findings were in the area of potential harm from low-frequency noise.

The committee said the commonwealth government should initiate as a matter of priority "thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health".

"This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns," the committee said.

It said a National Health and Medical Research Council review of research should continue, with regular publication.

The committee recommended that the National Acoustics Laboratories conduct a study and assessment of noise impacts of wind farms, including the impacts of infrasound.

It said the draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines should be redrafted to include discussion of any adverse health effects.

The Senate inquiry was initiated by Family First senator Steve Fielding and attracted more then 1000 submissions both for and against wind farm developments. The inquiry was chaired by Greens senator Rachel Siewert and included Labor senators Claire Moore and Carol Brown and Liberal senators Judith Adams, Sue Boyce and Helen Coonan.

Sarah Laurie, medical director of the Waubra Foundation, a national organisation set up to raise awareness of the health effects of wind farms, said an immediate moratorium should be called for wind farm developments. "Given the Senate recommendations and strength of evidence to the inquiry, the precautionary principle should be adopted," Dr Laurie said.

She said the report's recommendations were exactly what concerned health professionals had called for. "Investigation of low-frequency noise, or infrasound, had not been properly conducted anywhere else in the world," Dr Laurie said.

The Senate committee was told that Denmark had flagged regulation of infrasound at wind farms and that Japan last year started a four-year study into the effects of infrasound from wind farms.

Credit:     Clare Peddy,     Adelaide Now,     www.news.com.au     (01/06/11)

 

Silencing wind turbines is the aim of a new project at the University of Adelaide.

Engineers are studying the causes of turbine noise to make them quieter and solve the problem of `wind turbine syndrome’.

They want to understand how air turbulence and the blade edge, or boundary layer, interact to make the noise louder than it could be.

A computer model will predict the noise output from wind farms so the team can accurately and quickly assess the effectiveness of noise-reducing designs and control methods.

Research leader Dr Con Doolan, of the University’s School of Mechanical Engineering, said the noise generated from wind turbines was “trailing edge or airfoil noise” – the same sort of noise generated at the edge of aircraft wings.

“If we can understand this fundamental science, we can then look at ways of controlling the noise, through changing the shape of the rotor blades or using active control devices at the blade edges to disrupt the pattern of turbulence,” he said.

Dr Doolan said further complicating factors came from the way the noise increases and decreases as the blades rotate.

The computer model will look at the noise from the whole wind turbine and how multiple numbers of wind turbines together, as in a wind farm, generate noise.

“Wind turbine noise is very directional. Someone living at the base might not have a problem but two kilometres away, it might be keeping them awake at night,” Dr Doolan said.

“Likewise this broadband `hissing’ noise modulates up and down as the blades rotate and we think that’s what makes it so annoying.

“Wind turbine noise is controversial but there’s no doubt that there is noise and that it seems to be more annoying than other types of noise at the same level. Finding ways of controlling and reducing this noise will help us make the most of this very effective means of generating large amounts of electricity with next to zero carbon emissions.”

Click here to listen to Jenny's moving story of living with Dalswinton wind farm 

Noise

Acoustic waves carried on oscillating particles in the air.

How much we perceive is partly dependent on the frequency, which is measured in hertz (Hz).  High frequency sound has more oscillations per second, whilst low frequency sound has less. Audible noise is defined as ranging from 20-20,000 Hz with

Low Frequency Noise  (LFN) ranging from approximately 20-200HZ. 

Infra sound is sound that is not audible (though it can sometimes be felt) and is usually defined as less than 20HZ.  At around 16-18Hz most people are unable to hear tone.

Sound does not get louder over distance but may become more noticeable because our ears hear different frequencies at different distances, with low frequency noise being heard over a larger distance

Measuring noise

Noise is measured in decibels (dB), usually on what's called an 'A' weighted scale.  To give you an idea of perceived loudness below are some figures quoted from Scottish Planning Policy PAN 45

Car at 40 mph at a distance of 100m     55dB

Wind farm at 350m      35-45dB

Quiet bedroom      30-35dB

Rural landscape   15 – 25dB

An important point to remember is that for every 10dB increase there is a perceived doubling in loudness, a 20dB increase is a quadrupling in noise!

Noise from wind farms is still a contentious issue due to the industry's reticence over many years to acknowledge its existence and their refusal to investigate it properly.

The Wind Industry's favourite answers to questions on noise:

Three favourite statements seem to be:-

1.   "Stand underneath a turbine and you will be able to hold a conversation."

2.   "Any noise made by the turbines will be covered by the sound of a babbling brook or the wind blowing through the trees."

3.   "The turbines will have to comply with strict guidelines on noise that will protect local residents."

So what are we going on about and why won't this issue go away?

Noise measurements are taken at properties closest to the wind farm, usually over a period of 4-6 weeks to give a baseline level for background noise .  Results are analysed and a best fit profile is produced.  Computer models are then used to predict a worse case noise scenario at each property.

Types of noise

There are 2 types of noise that can cause problems:-

Mechanical noise – usually caused by problems with the generator or gear box which are contained in a sound insulated housing in the nacelle.  Most modern turbines have a direct drive system which eliminates the need for a gearbox.  We are unsure as to the degree of noise caused by new machines as yet.

Aerodynamic noise – created by the rotor blades passing through the air at speeds of up to 180mph.  Speed, design of blade and set angle will play a part in the loudness of the characteristic swooshing or thumping noise.  This thumping noise is emphasised in high winds caused by additional turbulence around the blade tip and is known as Amplitude Modulation (AM)

Low frequency noise (LFN).

Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics, states " there are circumstances in which turbines produce increased levels of LFN.  This is mainly when inflow air to the turbine is very turbulent and there are interactions between the blade and the turbulence."  This generally occurs in certain atmospheric conditions. 

There is insufficient evidence to know what effects infrasound has on nearby residents but it is clear from the many anecdotal stories that a thorough independent investigation is needed.

Noise travels out from the source in all directions (like a firework exploding).  This explains why only a small amount of sound falls to the base of the turbine and you can hold a conversation!  The wind will pick up the majority of noise and carry it with it, hence the reason noise complaints are usually downwind of the structure.  Noise can travel for long distances and TW 312 have reports of turbine noise disturbing residents at least 1 mile and up to 4 miles from the respective sites. Topography, atmospheric conditon, wind speed and direction all play a part.  There have been many days over the winter when the wind wasn't blowing that the noise of the traffic on the A75 was clearly audible some 5km distant.

Noise Guidelines (ETSU-R-97 and PAN 45 – in Scotland PAN 45 are used which are based on ETSU-R-97)

ETSU-R-97 guidelines were written in 1996 when turbines were approx 50-70m to tip.   There are a growing number of experts in the acoustics field who maintain they are outdated and unfit for purpose.  They were designed to give "indicative noise levels to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities".

The guidelines state that daytime noise levels outside the nearest property should not exceed 35-40dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background, whichever is the greater.  Background noise levels in rural areas can be as quiet as 20dB, so the greater limit would allow level of 35-40dB.  This would be a quadrupling in perceived noise.  Studies have been published on the type of noise emitted by turbines and it was discovered that the swish of the blade was more annoying to more people than traffic noise at the same level.  Further studies show that people who live in a quiet location were likely to find noise a nuisance around 7 dB lower than someone who lived in an urban environment. 

At these levels you should be able to sleep in your bedroom during the day but you are not guaranteed to be able to sleep on your patio on a warm summer's day

Night time noise levels are not permitted to exceed 43 dB(A) or 5dB(A) above the prevailing background, whichever is the greater.  These levels are higher than the recommended night time noise level of the World Health Organisation, who advocate a limit of 40dB to protect people's ability to get back to sleep once wakened. Disturbed sleep is acknowledged by the medical profession to have serious consequences to a person's health, causing stress, tiredness, irritability, lack of concentration and ultimately affecting the cardiovascular system.

The wind farm industry is the only industry where the night time noise level is higher than the daytime limit.  We all know it is much quieter in an evening than during the day so what sense does this make?

A particular set of conditions which appear at night cause problems for people living near wind farms.  Studies showed that data used from wind speeds measured at 10m above ground was not the same as that at 80m high.  When conditions are quiet and still on the ground during the night, it can be that at hub height wind speed can cause turbines to operate and produce noise that cannot not masked by the non existent wind at ground level. 

In 2006 the UK Government published a report on wind farm noise and it's effect on nearby residents produced by an acoustics company called Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP). The study supported the view that there was no need to review the ETSU guidelines.  Under a FOI request, which at first was refused as not being in the public interest, Den Brook Judicial Review Group secured the release of all draft reports.  The published report revealed that important recommendations had been dropped from the final draft including:-

1. Night time noise limit be reduced from 43dB to 38dB

2. Where there was a discernable beating character to the noise it be reduced further to 33dB

3. The recommendation that consideration be given to revising the night time limits in ETSU guidelines

We do not know whether any of the proposed wind farms would produce noise problems for local residents – but then neither do the wind farm companies

Amplitude modulation (the thumping noise) is impossible to predict and there is insufficient evidence of the full part that infrasound plays in noise complaints.  A thorough and independent review of these aspects should be conducted before wind farm companies are allowed to build these factories at ever decreasing distances from people's homes.

If someone did have a noise problem, they first have to decide whether to complain to Environmental Standards at the council.  They should be aware that any formal complaint against noise must be declared when selling property.

Stories abound of the difficulties in trying to solve the issue of noise from turbines and frequently wind farm companies are found to be operating within the ETSU guidelines but the problem remains unresolved for the complainant.

Noise from wind farms in the UK

According to research carried out by Salford University, approximately 1 in 6 windfarms cause noise problems for nearby residents. However this figure may be severely underestimated as some people will be too frightened to complain, believing nothing will be done to help them or it will be marked against them for property sales.

In Dumfries and Galloway the last 2 operational wind farms (Dalswinton and North Rhins) have generated noise complaints. Worryingly, one of the complainants lives 1 mile (1.6km) from the wind farm, which presumably complied with the ETSU guidelines.

Click here to listen to Jenny's moving story of living with Dalswinton wind farm 

 )

    

For a good well balanced article on the problems with noise click here – Acoustic Ecology Institute

    

SPECIMEN OBJECTION:

This text is presented on a special page, without the usual website graphics and colours, so that you can cut and paste it into a new email or into a Word document for printing. Select and copy the text below the horizontal line and paste it into a new email – then add this addrerss to the TO: line

PlanningRepresentations@dumgal.gov.uk

 

or post it by conventional mail to:

Head of  Planning and Regulatory Services 

Dumfries and Galloway Council 

Kirkbank House  

English Street 

Dumfries  

DG1 2HS

You can add or delete text as you like! Just insert your address, the date and then your name at the end. Remember if two or more people sign the same objection it will only count as one so please sign and send in individually.

 


 

Your Address

 

Date

 

Dear Planning Officer,

 

Planning Ref No 13/P/2/0284 – Erection of 6 x 115m & 1 x 100m turbines and associated infrastructure at Knockendurrick, Glengap, nr Twynholm.

 

 I OBJECT to the Knockendurrick Wind Farm for reasons set out below:

Approval would set a precedent for this area and potentially open it up to further developments with future repowering to bigger towers and blades.

Although there has been a reduction in height, the DGWLCS is clear that the size and scale of the proposed turbines are inappropriate for the designated landscape and the surrounding landscape character areas.

There would still be significant adverse visual impacts on The Fleet Valley National Scenic Area, the adjacent Regional Scenic Area, important viewpoints, settlements, tourist routes and archaeological monuments/assets.

There are approximately 30 properties within 2 km of the site and for many, the development could be visually overwhelming.  Local people face a loss of amenity and a potential threat from noise with possible consequences for their health and quality of life.

There could be adverse effects on wildlife/biodiversity through displacement and increased mortality, particularly in relation to red kite.

This application fails to meet criteria in a wide range of planning policies & guidance including —Scottish Planning Policy (SPP169), Local Development Plan (OP1, IN1, IN2 Part 1 NE1 and NE2), Supplementary Guidance and the Dumfries and Galloway Windfarm Landscape Capacity Study.

Any short-term economic gains from this scheme will be outweighed by the long term losses to the highly valued landscape in the heart of Dumfries and Galloway’s popular tourist area. 

 

I hope that this application will be refused.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Name

 

IMG_1693thumb

At the October 14, 2014 Brown County Board of Health meeting, a motion was unanimously approved declaring the Shirley Wind turbines a "Human Health Hazard".  The text of the unanimously approved motion reads:

 

"To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI. A Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health."

 

Visit BBCRWE wesbite for more info.

Please send any expressions of support and, if applicable, your expereinces to:  BOHsupport@bccrwe.com   

 

Apologies for the lateness of December’s Newsletter – it has been a very busy couple of months for TW312, so without further ado, let’s update you on the latest developments in the local wind farm world – but not before we have taken this opportunity to wish you a

 

VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!
 
 


 

Knockendurrick
 
The opportunity to comment on this proposal is now closed.  It was heart-warming to see that 698 people submitted an objection to this application.  Banks’ people though raised 500 letters of support and several people contacted us to say Banks were knocking on doors even up until the last day.  There are still representations awaiting logging and it is likely to be Wednesday before the final numbers will be known.
 
There appears to be a problem with objection cards posted around 6th to the 9th November as we know some seem to be missing.  If people are concerned that their objection hasn't been received by the planning office please let us know at turbinewatch312@gmail.com
 
The objections already listed on the council’s e-planning website can be viewed here

http://eaccess.dumgal.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_DUMF_DCAPR_103687
 
The MoD and Historic Scotland have both lodged objections.  Historic Scotland usually only object to a development on ‘national grounds’ and have cited the significant adverse impact on the cairn on Cairntosh Hill.
 


 

Chapman's Howe – 3 x 100m turbines

The MoD has withdrawn their objection to this proposal and the date for decision is 20th Jan 2014.  We suspect that this application will be decided at the Planning Application Committee (PAC) meeting on Wed 29th Jan.
 
High Barcaple  – 1 x 62m turbine

At the PAC meeting on the 11th December, the proposed 62m high turbine at High Barcaple was refused due to landscape impact grounds as the site is located in drumlin pastures.  According to the Landscape Capacity Study drumlins are not suitable (in general) for turbines of more than 35m to tip.  There is presently a 50m mast at High Barcaple which is highly visible around the area.

 

Appeal decisions

Two recent decisions by Scottish Government Reporters have been a bit of a mixed bag.  The Standingstone Farm, Borgue appeal for a 45m turbine to tip was refused as the Reporter found “the proposed development incompatible with its landscape setting and the landscape character of the area.”    This decision once again demonstrated support for local policies but sadly an earlier finding by a different Reporter to grant the Little Sypland appeal for a 1 x74m turbine, seemed at odds with all previous outcomes.
 
Plascow – 3 x 74m turbines

The applicant has agreed an extension for decision until 28th February 2014

 

Barcloy Hill – 5 x 115m turbines

No further news

 


 

New wind farm applications   
 

Two applications have been submitted recently (just in time for the Christmas and New Year period!).
 
Mochrum Fell (13/P/2/0327) for 11 x 126.5m turbines and Auchleand (13/P/1/0366) for 7 x 130m from our old friends Community Windpower Ltd
 
 
Mochrum Fell forms part of the ridgeline which can be seen from many parts of our area and the backdrop to the Ken Valley and Dalry.  The application will be advertised next Thursday (19th) December in the paper meaning the closing date for comment will be Thursday 16th January 2014.  It would appear that objections are already being accepted though.  We do not know the dates for comments for Auchleand yet!

 

A further reminder of these two proposals will be sent out in the New Year as a lot of people will be busy in the run-up to the festive season.

 
Below is a short objection letter for Mochrum Fell that you may copy and paste into your own document
 

It is better to rewrite the objection in your own words but we know people don’t always have time.  Every objection submitted is important

If more than one person from your household wants to object please send the objection in from each separate person.  One objection signed by more than one person still only counts as one!

 

Remember to include your name, address and date for validity (posted objections must also be signed)

Email to PlanningRepresentations@dumgal.gov.uk

Post to     

Head of Planning and Building Standards
Dumfries and Galloway Council
Kirkbank
English Street
Dumfries
DG1 2HS

Objections must be submitted by 5pm Thursday 16th January, 2014

 

 
Address
 

Date
 
Planning Application number 13/P/2/0327
 
Erection of 11 x 126.5m turbines and associated infrastructure at Mochrum Fell, Parton
 
Email   PlanningRepresentations@dumgal.gov.uk
 
 
Dear Planning Officer,
 
 
I OBJECT to the Mochrum Fell Wind Farm for reasons set out below:
 
 

Mochrum Fell wind farm would be prominently sited and highly visible over a large area cluttering the backdrop to Loch Ken and the south and impacting historical assets, designated landscapes, roads, footpaths and viewpoints (Policies E2/3/11, S21).

 

Significant adverse impact on the landscape of the surrounding area due to the height, number and siting of the turbines which will industrialise and change the character of the neighbouring countryside. (IPP & Policies E3, S21, GP7 and 24).

 

19 homes within 2km of the wind farm could suffer potential noise and/or health impacts. (Policies S21, GP24).

 

Excessive & abnormal construction traffic through Crossmichael & Parton, estimated 8,000 HGV movements, between 40 to 90 vehicles per day.  (Policies S21, GP24).

 

Potential adverse impact on the area’s natural heritage, including protected species – goshawks, red kites, great crested newts, 7 bat species. (Policy E6) Impact on established tourism & recreational businesses, tourist routes & trails. (Policy S21).

 
I request that you refuse this application.
 
Yours sincerely
 

Name
 

_________________________________

 

 

Save the Machars
 

We have heard about another campaign group, in Wigtownshire, which is fighting developments over in that area, so please give their website a look and help if you can.

 

www.savethemachars.com
 

_________________________________

 

 

Community Benefits Consultation

 
There is a ‘community benefits consultation’ being run by the Scottish Government which is open for comment until the 17th January 2014.  If anyone would like to comment please go  to  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/8279  for further information.
 

_________________________________
 

 

Planning News
 

Planning applications
 
 
13/P/1/0351   Annabaglish 14 x 110m   closed for comments
                                (Newton Stewart/Wigtown way)
 
13/C/3/0024   Harestanes ext 7 x 126.5m  (Section 36)
                                Open for comments until Friday 20th Dec
                                Please contact us for details of where to submit
 
13/C/4/0025  Beck Burn, Longtown   (Solway Moss)  9 x 126m
 
13/C/4/0026   Hallburn Farm, Longtown   6 x 126.5m
 
 
Scoping requests
 
13/E/2/0035   Corlae Byre, Dalry   1 x 22.4m

13/E/2/0036   NW of Kirkland Cottage, Manse Rd, Lochfoot
                                1 x 34.42m
 
 
Approved
 
13/P/2/0252   Torrorie Farm, Kirkbean 1 x 20.35m

 
_________________________________

 

TW312's email address has changed to

turbinewatch312@gmail.com 

 
Visit our FACEBOOK PAGE

 

The Knockenduurrick application is now open for comment and members of TW312 have been reading the Environmental Statement submitted by Banks.

 

Key points:-

 

Banks contend that seven 132m high turbines, planned near Twynholm and the Glengap Forest, are suitable for the proposed location based on the guidance from the Dumfries and Galloway Landscape Assessment of 1998, which acknowledges that the intended site could be suitable for a wind farm.

 

The key point Banks have conveniently ignored though, is that this document refers to turbines of approximately 60m to tip as was usual for that era.  Current guidance in the Dumfries and Galloway Wind Farm Landscape Capacity Study (LCS) is quite clear that this size of turbine is not suitable for the complex landform.

 

Banks also admit that 19% of the Fleet Valley National Scenic Area (NSA) will experience significant adverse effects on the landscape character – but then decide in the big scheme of things that isn't important!

As such, only a small percentage of the NSA (19 % of the total land area) would experience significant adverse effects on landscape character. This leads to the conclusion that the effects would not be significant overall

 

Turbines would be visible from Vennie Hill, Rutherford's Monument, Cardoness Castle, Mossyard, Barstobrick (Neilson's Monument) parts of Kircudbright including some of the Conservation Area, Twynholm, Ringford, Borgue and Gatehouse.

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

Approximation of the view from Mossyard if Knockendurrick is builtOur thanks to John Smith for his kind permission to use his stunning photomontages.

 

Banks are asking for the turbines to be able to operate at a higher noise level than is usual for a development of this size.  This is due to the cumulative effect with the operating/consented smaller farm turbines in the area.  There are over 30 properties within 2km and 15 are predicted to experience significant adverse visual effects.

 

We are still reading the ES and will post more information when we can

 

 

TW312 firmly believes that this development is inappropriate for the location.

 

We have provided a specimen objection letter (below) you can copy that includes some key points.

 

It is better to rewrite the objection in your own words but we know people don’t always have time.  Every objection submitted is important

 

If more than one person from your household wants to object please send the objection in from each separate person.  One objection signed by more than one person still only counts as one!

 

Remember to include your name, address and date, for validity (posted objections must also be signed)

 

Email to

PlanningRepresentations@dumgal.gov.uk

 

Post to 

Head of Planning and Building Standards

Dumfries and Galloway Council

Kirkbank

English Street

Dumfries

DG1 2HS

 

 Objections must be submitted by 5pm Thursday 28th November 2013 

 

If you object via email or letter and receive one of the objection cards through your letterbox, please pass the card onto someone you think may be prepared to object.

 

Thank you!

 

Please note: It is better to rewrite the objection in your own words but we know people don’t always have time.  Every objection submitted is important

 

If more than one person from your household wants to object please send the objection in from each separate person.  One objection signed by more than one person still only counts as one!

 

Remember to include your name, address and date for validity (posted objections must also be signed)

 

Email to

PlanningRepresentations@dumgal.gov.uk

 

Post to 

Head of Planning and Building Standards

Dumfries and Galloway Council

Kirkbank

English Street

Dumfries

DG1 2HS

 

 Objections must be submitted by 5pm Thursday 28th November 2013 

 

If you object by email or letter and have also received one of the objection cards through your letterbox, please pass the card onto someone you think may be prepared to object.

 

Thank you!

 

[please copy the text below the line or view as PDF or downlaod as a Word file]

CLICK HERE to see the specimen objection letter as a pdf document (best for copying)

CLICK HERE to download the letter as a Word document

 


 

[your address]

 

 

[date]

 

 

Head of Planning and Building Standards

Dumfries and Galloway Council

Kirkbank

English Street

Dumfries

DG1 2HS

 

 

Dear Planning Officer,

 

Planning Application    13/P/2/0284

Erection of 7 x 132m wind turbines and associated infrastructure at Knockendurrick, Irelandton, Twynholm

 

 

I object to this application on the following grounds:-

 

  • Approval of this scheme would set a precedent and open the area to further large scale turbines.

 

  • The proposed size of turbine is contrary to the detailed guidance in the Dumfries and Galloway Wind Farm Landscape Capacity Study which concludes “There is no scope for siting the large typology within this landscape due to the scale of these foothills and their likely prominence from adjacent sensitive landscapes.”

 

  • The height of these turbines will diminish the scale of the landmark hills of Knockendurrick, Cairntosh, Fuffock and Bengray. Scottish Natural Heritage advises turbines should not be more than one third of the height of key landscape features.

 

  • The predicted significant adverse impact on approximately one fifth of the Fleet Valley National Scenic Area is unacceptable and I disagree with the applicant’s conclusion that (6.318 Environmental Statement) “This leads to the conclusion that the effects would not be significant overall.”   Turbines would be highly visible from Vennie Hill, Rutherford’s Monument, Cardoness Castle, Mossyard  and around Sandgreen

 

  • The development will have a wide visual impact affecting parts of Kirkcudbright, Twynholm, Gatehouse of Fleet, Borgue and Ringford (including Neilson’s Monument at Barstobrick) as well as more distant settlements and visitors driving in and around the National and Regional Scenic Areas.

 

  • There are over 30 properties within 2km and 15 properties will suffer significant adverse visual effects (ref Appendix 6.7).  Local people face a potential reduction in their quality of life, property values and tourism businesses.  Emerging evidence indicates that wind turbines can impact indirectly on health due to disrupted sleep, stress and annoyance from noise.  These effects can then cause problems such as loss of concentration and cardiovascular problems.

 

 

This proposal breaches SPP 127, 187 and local policies S21, E3, E6, GP7, GP24, D36 and the IPP.

 

I do not believe the benefits of this development will outweigh the negative impacts and hope you refuse this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

[your signature if sending by post]

 

[your name]

 

CLICK HERE to see the specimen objection letter as a pdf document (best for copying)

CLICK HERE to download the letter as a Word document

 

3 x 100m turbines at Chapman's Howe Wind Farm

at

Hartburn Farm, Kirkcudbright

 

Please, we need as many genuine objections as possible as we are aware that there is a support 'campaign' ongoing.  Please pass this on to as many people as you can and show the developers and our councillors that we care about the landscape of D & G.

 

CH_panorama_1_600px

Proposed 3 x 100m turbines near Hartburn Farm, Kirkcudbright

Click on the photo to see a larger image.

 

The 2 x 20m turbines on site will be removed if Chapman's Howe is approved.  They are barely visible to the left but show the difference in size!  This is an approximation of what the development will look like.

 

The site lies off the B727 (National Cycle Route 7) which is the Gelston to Kirkcudbright road, between Nether Linkins and Whinnieliggate and is adjacent to the proposed Barcloy Hill development.

 

The site is not ‘up in the hills’ and away from people as there are 26 properties within 2km.

 

The development would be located in a very complex landscape which is unique in Dumfries and Galloway.  On the cusp of coastal granite uplands and peninsula landscape character types, turbines of this height would dominate the iconic ridgeline of Screel, Bengairn/Barcloy contravening local policy.

 

Dumfries & Galloway Council's responsibility is to ensure a balance between turbine development and the amenity value of local landscapes. These landscape types have been assessed for local Council policy as NOT being suitable for turbines over 50 – 55m to tip.  If these turbines (or any turbines over 55m) are approved it will set a precedent for this area.  This would render the council’s latest planning policy ineffective for any other turbine developments  – wasting a great deal of public money. More importantly there would be no effective means of protecting valuable local landscapes against the industrialising effects of very big turbine development.

 

 

Barcloy Ridge

 

The Barcloy Ridge – photo taken from B727 near Sypland.  Note the 80m mast to the right that towers above the Barcloy ridge line.  The foreground is the Chapman's Howe site and the turbines would be approximately the same tip height as the mast tip!

Barcloy mast


TW312 firmly believes that this development is inappropriate for the location and is contrary to Council poilcy.


 

Below are 2 specimen objection letters that you may copy and paste into your own document

 

It is better to rewrite the objection in your own words but we know people don’t always have time.  Every objection submitted is important.

 

If more than one person from your household wants to object please send an objection in from each person.  One objection letter signed by several people still only counts as a single objection!

 

Remember to include your name, address and date for validity (posted objections must also be signed)

Email to: PlanningRepresentations@dumgal.gov.uk

 

Or post to:       

Head of Planning and Building Standards

Dumfries and Galloway Council

Kirkbank

English Street

Dumfries

DG1 2HS

 

Objections must be submitted by 5pm Thursday 15th August 2013

 

If you object via email or letter and don't intend to use  one of the objection cards received through your letterbox, please pass the card onto someone you think may be prepared to object.

 

Thank you!

 


[version1]

 

[Address]

 

[Date]

 

Head of Planning and Building Standards

Dumfries and Galloway Council

Kirkbank

English Street

Dumfries

DG1 2HS

 

Dear Planning Officer,

 

Planning Application    13/P/2/0189

Erection of 3 x 100m wind turbines and associated infrastructure

at Chapman's Howe, Hartburn Farm, Kirkcudbright

 

I object to this application on the following grounds:-

 

Approval of this scheme would set a precedent and open the area to further large scale turbines.

 

The proposed size of turbine is contrary to the guidance detailed in the Dumfries and Galloway Wind Farm Landscape Capacity Study, which identifies turbines of 50-55m to tip as being more appropriate for this site.

 

The height of these turbines will diminish the scale of the landmark hills and ridge line of Screel, Bengairn and Barcloy. Scottish Natural Heritage advises turbines should not be more than one third of the height of key landmarks (such as these coastal granite hills).

 

The turbines would be too close to several properties but one in particular will experience an over-bearing presence with all 3 turbines located within 750m.  Local people face a potential adverse impact on their quality of life and property values.  Emerging evidence indicates that wind turbines can impact indirectly on health due to stress and annoyance from noise, which are known to cause problems such as disrupted sleep, tinnitus, loss of concentration and cardiovascular problems.

 

Excessive amounts of construction traffic and abnormal loads will travel through Gelston and along minor roads over a six month period.

 

The site supports a variety of wildlife which could suffer through loss of foraging/disturbance of habitat and many wintering birds pass through the site on their way to and from feeding grounds.

 

There will be a significant adverse impact on the setting of archaeological features such as Kirkbride Settlement and Dungarry Fort.

 

This proposal breaches SPP 127, 187 and local policies S21, E3, E6, GP7, GP24, D36 and the IPP.

 

I do not believe the benefits of this development will outweigh the negative impacts and hope you refuse this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

[Name & Signature]

 


[Version 2 – more detailed]

 

[Address]

 

[Date]

 

Head of Planning and Building Standards

Dumfries and Galloway Council

Kirkbank

English Street

Dumfries

DG1 2HS

 

Dear Planning Officer,

 

Planning Application    13/P/2/0189

Erection of 3 x 100m wind turbines and associated infrastructure

at Chapman's Howe, Hartburn Farm, Kirkcudbright

 

I object to this application on the following grounds:-

 

Setting a precedent

 

Approval of this scheme would set a precedent and open the area to further large scale turbines which would prove difficult to stop.  SNH have raised concerns in their scoping response for the adjacent Barcloy Hill “that permitting the use of large turbines in this location would set a precedent for their widespread use in this area”.

 

Size of turbines

 

The site sits on the boundaries of 2 landscape character types (peninsula and coastal granite uplands).  The Dumfries and Galloway Wind Farm Landscape Capacity Study (LCS) indicates that neither landscape type is suitable for turbines of this size by stating that:-

 

“There is no scope for the larger typologies to be located within the Dundrennan peninsula without significant adverse effects occurring on a number of key sensitivity criteria.”

 

“There is no scope for the large typology to be located within the Bengairn unit of the Coastal Granite Uplands without significant adverse effects occurring across a wide range of sensitivities.”

 

The Landscape Capacity Study classification for Coastal Granite Uplands, identifies turbines at the lower end of medium typology (50-55m to tip) as being more appropriate for this site.

 

“Scale and openness:-   there may be some limited opportunity to locate turbines towards the lower height band of this typology (and limited numbers of turbines) to avoid dominating the vertical scale of key hills.”

 

“Landform and shape:-   There may be some limited scope to locate lower (height) turbines on slacker lower hill slopes and less complex undulating moorland in the north-west and west of this unit to minimise effects on adjacent more dramatic rugged hills”.

 

“Landscape context:-   there may be some increased scope to locate turbines towards the lower height band of this typology in areas where the landmark hills are less pronounced”

 

"Landscape values:-   This typology may also affect the setting of the landmark hills if located in undesignated parts of this landscape unit of the Coastal Granite Uplands."

 

However, the applicant fails to make a convincing case that the locality is appropriate for 100m turbines to tip.  They completely fail to address the issue of the scale of the turbines in relation to the height of the landmark hills of Bengairn, Barcloy and Suie Hill.

 

Guidance from SNH 2009, states that wind farms of good design are typically “Of minor vertical scale in relation to the key features of the landscape (typically less than one third)”

 

This proposal is for  turbines to be  sited approximately 135m below the Barcloy ridgeline. SNH's guidance (above) would mean limiting the height of  turbines to no more than 50m.  This guidance backs the advice in the LCS, which is further supported by the fact that, to date, there are no approved turbines over 55m in the area with several proposals ranging from 74m to 130m being refused by the council and/or the Scottish Government.

 

Turbines of 100m to tip will have the effect of diminishing the scale of this iconic ridge and in many views the turbines will be visible on the skyline.  Views to and from these hills will be disrupted by the moving blades.

 

The landscape around the site is unique and complex and the introduction of large industrial generators will detract from these rare, special qualities as they would appear out of scale with the surrounding landscape and the small landscape features of gorse, hedgerows and mature trees. The applicant tries to down-grade the landscape sensitivity of the site and this tactic should not be entertained.

 

 

Impacts on National Scenic Area (NSA) and Regional Scenic Area (RSA)

 

There is a tendency for wind developers to devalue the inland setting of the coastal granite uplands.  The Screel/Bengairn/Barcloy ridge performs an important function as the background setting for Castle Douglas and for views across the wider area.

 

The LCS identifies that uninterrupted views to and from Bengairn are important.  This does not only mean out to the coastal views but as a 360 ° experience.  The piecemeal erosion of parts of the NSA and RSA should not be tolerated.  At just over 3km distance from Bengairn these turbines will introduce large, vertical, moving, man made structures which will detract significantly from the vistas.

 

The RSA is just 400m away and actually extends towards the site beyond the NSA boundary.  This whole area is worthy of National Park status and the small scale of our NSA’s and RSA’s should be fiercely protected.

 

 

Impacts on Residential Amenity

       

The turbines would be far too close to nearby properties with all 3 turbines ranging from approximately 650 – 750m for one property.  This would have an overbearing effect on the residents.  Local people face a reduction in their quality of life and property values due to significant visual impact and/or noise.

 

The developer gives assurances that the permitted noise levels will be met but adhering to these levels does not guarantee that local people won’t suffer noise problems.  Guidance (ETSU-R-97) was written in 1996 at a time when turbines were half the height planned for Chapman’s Howe and is considered by many acousticians to be outdated and unfit for purpose.

 

If Barcloy Hill is approved, the applicant requests that the permitted noise levels be raised from 35 dB during the daytime to 37.5dB.  This should not be allowed – it is evident that trying to cram too many turbines in-between properties is an identied problem so why should local residents suffer higher noise levels?

 

Emerging evidence indicates that wind turbines can impact indirectly on health due to stress and annoyance, which are known to cause problems such as disrupted sleep, tinnitus, loss of concentration and cardiovascular problems.

 

In view of this, the ‘Precautionary Principle’ should be invoked and setback distances of 2km enforced between properties and turbines.

 

 

Other issues

 

Excessive amounts of construction traffic and abnormal loads will travel through Gelston and along minor roads over a six month period.  Local property owners are concerned about structural damage heavy traffic could cause to their roadside dwellings

 

The site supports a variety of wildlife which could suffer through loss of foraging/disturbance of habitat and many wintering birds pass through the site on their way to and from feeding grounds.  The numbers of over-wintering birds quoted are low compared to the numbers witnessed by locals in the area.  One of the problems with the bird surveys is that the bird surveyors do not attain a true picture of the large numbers of over-wintering birds that fly over the site on days when they are not present.

 

There will be a significant adverse impact on the setting of archaeological features such as Kirkbride Settlement and Dungarry Fort.

 

The Chapman's Howe Wind Farm would in effect be adjacent to the Barcloy Hill 5 x 115 metre wind turbine development for which the application has been submitted but not yet decided.  If Barcloy were consented, this development would have a cumulative negative impact due to the differing heights of turbines and rotational speeds of the blades which would make for a confusing picture and would ‘clutter’ the locality.  The impact on the landscape character would be significant and adverse and the requested increase in permitted noise levels to 37.5dB should not be allowed for what in effect would be an 8 turbine wind farm.

 

The applicant admits in their application that this development will bring little economic benefit to the area, however, it will have long term economic consequences for households as the ‘subsidies’ gained by the development are levied via consumers’ electricity bills for the 25-year operational life of the wind farm.

 

This proposal breaches SPP 127, 187 and local policies S21, E3, E6, GP7, GP24, D36 and the IPP

 

I do not believe the benefits of this development will outweigh the negative impacts and urge you you refuse this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

[Name & Signature]

 

NEWS UPDATE

 

MAYFIELD   A Reporter visited the site on Tuesday 7th May.  A decision is expected by 7th June which is next Friday!

 

BARCLOY HILL      RES and D & G council have agreed an extension to the decision date which is now the 2nd September 2013.

 

RES are trying to change the noise conditions and are in discussion with the Environmental Health Officer.  RES also applied recently to change the noise conditions for the Glenchamber wind farm but as these had been set by a Reporter at the appeal stage the D & G councillors decided not to allow RES's requested alterations.

 

CHAPMAN'S HOWE   is expected to be submitted sometime this month if REG Windpower are on course!

 

KNOCKENDURRICK (IRELANDTON)   The council's scoping response indicates that the proposed scale of this development is not suitable for the site

 

LITTLE SYPLAND (1 x 74m)   has been refused by the Planning Application Committee due to the adverse impact on the landscape and the objection by the National Air Traffic Services.

 

Ingleston Lodge, Gelston – who already have permission for a 21m turbine, have submitted a scoping request for a 32m to tip turbine. (13/E/2/0017)

 

Other scoping applications recently submitted include:-

Merkland Farm   1 x 67m (13/E/2/0013)

Holehouse Farm Kirkpatrick Durham   1 x 42m  (13/E/2/0016)

Braidenoch Farm, CD   1 x 21.5m  (13/E/2/0019)

 

OPEN FOR OBJECTION until Thursday 6th June

 

13/P/2/0129   PLASCOW FARM  DALBEATTIE   3 x 74m

 

This application is very similar to a previous proposal for 3 x 84m turbines which was refused due to the proximity of nearby houses.  The new application has moved the turbines 150m further away but the people nearby are extremely worried about this development.

 

You can email an objection to PlanningRepresentations@dumgal.gov.uk by 5pm on 6th June.

 

As cracks appear in the UK Government over the issue of wind farms it seems Alex Salmond is taking a different stance.

 

On the day dissent emerged within the Coalition government, Alex Salmond was addressing a renewable energy conference in Glasgow.  What he said should be a warning to all rural communities across Scotland:-

 

"When I became First Minister in 2007, I inherited a target for 50 per cent of Scotland’s electricity to be produced by renewable sources by 2020.

 

We now know that we can achieve much more than that, more quickly – having already exceeded our 2011 target.

 

In the light of that progress, I can announce that we have set a new interim target. By 2015, the equivalent of 50 per cent of Scotland’s electricity demand will be met by renewable sources."

 

Which in a nutshell means more wind turbine planning applications being submitted for inappropriate locationss, more division in more rural communities, more pressure put on our councils, more over-riding of local democracy, more decisions being referred to the Scottish Government for decisions, more people condemned to noise nuisance and health impacts from more turbines placed closer to homes.

 

To read more:-

 

Left swinging in the wind

 

Energy secretary slaps down minister who called for end to wind farm sprawl

 

 

 

 

A new ‘good practice guide’ has been developed as part of a Scottish Government-led project, containing tips about how to overcome opposition to wind farm schemes. Ministers say the guidance is designed to ‘make planning applications for wind energy developments run more smoothly’. (Michael Blackley,   Scottish Daily Mail)

 

The new guidelines can be read here, but I quickly looked up the guidance on noise which states:-

 

AVOIDING, MINIMISING AND MANAGING NOISE IMPACTS OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
 

 Reviewing continually the methodology, standards and policy for wind farm design and noise thresholds.

Applying up to date methodology, standards, policy as well as technology is key to minimising the noise impacts of the wind farms.

 

This so called 'Good Practice Guidance' has failed before it's even published because the specific advice for this recommendation is to follow the findings of the;-

 

"Report from the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines -UK
This Report (England) provides guidelines on the measurement on noise from wind farms and indicative noise levels to protect neighbours while not unduly restricting the development of wind farms."

 

These are the ETSU-R-97 guidelines produced in 1996 when turbines were just 50-60m to tip on average.  Turbines are now over double that height and the guidelines are longer overdue the review that was recommended in the document.

 

An article in The Buteman quotes Conservative MEP Struan Stevenson talking about the potential health impacts from living near wind turbines.  The application discussed is for 3 turbines on the isle of Bute, but it is the first time we have seen/heard politicians start to acknowledge the possible impacts on the health of local residents.

 

“If constructed, the turbines will intrude on many of Bute’s tourist attractions, but the potentially hazardous impacts of the turbines on local residents’ health are most worrying. The health impact of wind farms has recently become a hot topic in the media and independent biomedical experts have shown that living close to a turbine can cause headaches, dizziness, sleep deprivation, unsteadiness, nausea, exhaustion, mood-swings and the inability to concentrate.

 

“The low-frequency noise emitted by a turbine travels easily and varies according to the wind. This constitutes a permanent risk to people exposed to it. There is even military weaponry that relies on low-frequency sound for crowd control purposes.

 

“At high intensities it creates discrepancies in the brain, producing disorientation in the body and resulting in what is called ‘simulated sickness’. The Israeli army uses this technology to cause instability, nausea and headaches. It is great for crowd control as it has no adverse effects…unless you are exposed to it for hours, as you would be if you lived beside a turbine."

Credit:    Dr Sarah Laurie     Waubra Foundation      (28/05/12)

 

 

Recent acoustic surveys in and around the homes of sick people living near large wind turbines in Australia and the US conducted by acousticians independently of the wind industry have confirmed that infrasound and low frequency noise are indeed being emitted by wind turbines, and are now being measured inside the homes of sick people, the emissions correlating with symptom occurrence and severity.

 

The long term effect of chronic exposure to these frequencies from wind turbines specifically has not been extensively studied, but there is relevant research on the known effects of infrasound and low frequency noise from other sources which is highly relevant, but has been largely “forgotten”.

 

One relevant credible literature review from 2003 relates specifically to the known effects of exposure to low frequency noise, in a report by British Acoustician Professor Geoffrey Leventhall, for the UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). This review detailed symptoms and a pattern of their occurrence, which the author has subsequently publicly admitted is identical with “wind turbine syndrome”

 

Click here to read more

 

We hear that Burcote Wind will be appealing the refusal of the Pattiesthorn met mast and have now applied to the council for a scoping opinion for the proposed wind farm.

 

A scoping opinion will detail the issues that need to be addressed within the Environmental Statement which is submitted with the planning application.  These are likely to include landscape and visual impacts, noise, residential amenity, effects on birds and other wildlife, archaeology and hydrology to name just a few.

 

Read Stuart Gillespie's article in The Galloway News here

STOP PRESS

Post Categories

Post Archives