Serving West Park Homes, West Park Drive, West Park Terrace
THE WESTFIELD LANE WIND FARM PROJECT
PROJECT DEVELOPER: BANKS RENEWABLES TOW LAW COUNTY DURHAM
Windfarm not answer
IN answer to Judith Randall's letter regarding Westfield Lane giant (near Blackpool Tower height) turbine Windfarm proposal. I live at West Park adjacent to the proposed site.
Much turbine noise or night time amplitude modulation thumping effects are incalculable; 200 hours of shadow flicker will occur.
Planners accept single subjects per letter from objectors and supporters. Supporters obtain signatures ignoring our circumstances.
Professor Mariana Alves-Periera and Lisbon University have established a strong probability of irreversible physiological cell damage (vibro acoustic disease or VAD) affecting nearby residents. Thickening arteries may occur.
The DBERR who formulate turbine set back distances are reluctant to take account of this research carried out over 27 years with "valid and robust scientific data".
Turbines burn owing to lightning or worn parts. They are too high for fire authorities to extinguish. They blow over uprooting giant foundations. Brakes fail causing rotors to clip towers and turbines to disintegrate.
A smaller fallen turbine shook the earth in Weatherford, Oklahoma, three to four kilometres away. Turbines may leak hydraulic oil, shed ice blocks or sheared 45 metre 12 tonne rotors which could blow across the A1. Three motorists in Germany have died owing to distraction.
Britain's carbon footprint is two per cent of the world's. Turbines produce half to one per cent of our electricity. Much less carbon reduction is achieved.
Revolutionary solar technology from Silicone Valley are: printed aluminium foil; flexible, light and five times more efficient than conventional panels; much cheaper to purchase; producing much cheaper electricity.
Government should re-direct subsidies accordingly.
Much turbine noise or night time amplitude modulation thumping effects are incalculable; 200 hours of shadow flicker will occur.
Planners accept single subjects per letter from objectors and supporters. Supporters obtain signatures ignoring our circumstances.
Professor Mariana Alves-Periera and Lisbon University have established a strong probability of irreversible physiological cell damage (vibro acoustic disease or VAD) affecting nearby residents. Thickening arteries may occur.
The DBERR who formulate turbine set back distances are reluctant to take account of this research carried out over 27 years with "valid and robust scientific data".
Turbines burn owing to lightning or worn parts. They are too high for fire authorities to extinguish. They blow over uprooting giant foundations. Brakes fail causing rotors to clip towers and turbines to disintegrate.
A smaller fallen turbine shook the earth in Weatherford, Oklahoma, three to four kilometres away. Turbines may leak hydraulic oil, shed ice blocks or sheared 45 metre 12 tonne rotors which could blow across the A1. Three motorists in Germany have died owing to distraction.
Britain's carbon footprint is two per cent of the world's. Turbines produce half to one per cent of our electricity. Much less carbon reduction is achieved.
Revolutionary solar technology from Silicone Valley are: printed aluminium foil; flexible, light and five times more efficient than conventional panels; much cheaper to purchase; producing much cheaper electricity.
Government should re-direct subsidies accordingly.
JOHN DENISON: Darrington
Issue new guidelines
WHEN a contractor applies to build a windfarm the only criteria that council planning departments apply are existing government guidelines and planning law.
No consideration of a financial feasibility is used, but it is our money in the form of large subsidies and the renewable price levy on our electricity bills that will pay for it.
Who polices this money to see that it is used efficiently and not squandered among developers intent on making large profits, with little consideration for people who will have to live underneath these large industrial machines? No one.
We don't begrudge a company making an honest buck, the economy depends on it as well as our jobs. But there has to be a balance that protects the public.
The government needs to step in and issue new guidelines designed to protect the people it serves – us. Guidelines from 1993 were put in when turbines were small and need to take into account the massive size of the new generation of turbines now being deployed.
Extensive research from Portugal has found that the low frequency noise emitted by turbines can physically harm people living, or working, near a windfarm.
We need to tell the government change is needed now before irreparable harm is done to towns, villages, countryside and people as well as our wallets.
Write to your MP, sign up on the Downing Street "e" petitions on the PWAG and DATED websites, lobby your local councils and make your friends do the same.
No consideration of a financial feasibility is used, but it is our money in the form of large subsidies and the renewable price levy on our electricity bills that will pay for it.
Who polices this money to see that it is used efficiently and not squandered among developers intent on making large profits, with little consideration for people who will have to live underneath these large industrial machines? No one.
We don't begrudge a company making an honest buck, the economy depends on it as well as our jobs. But there has to be a balance that protects the public.
The government needs to step in and issue new guidelines designed to protect the people it serves – us. Guidelines from 1993 were put in when turbines were small and need to take into account the massive size of the new generation of turbines now being deployed.
Extensive research from Portugal has found that the low frequency noise emitted by turbines can physically harm people living, or working, near a windfarm.
We need to tell the government change is needed now before irreparable harm is done to towns, villages, countryside and people as well as our wallets.
Write to your MP, sign up on the Downing Street "e" petitions on the PWAG and DATED websites, lobby your local councils and make your friends do the same.
PETER DRIFFIELD: Darrington Road, East Hardwick
If you have not already registered your concerns about this proposal with WMDC planning department or our MP, please do so as soon as you can.
We all must feel responsible for looking into and considering various forms of energy. However, there has to be much analysis and consultation involved and not merely "band wagon jumping".
This proposal could cause severe distress and hardship amongst the people living in the hamlet of West Park. It could also greatly affect the quality of life of residents of the neighbouring villages. (I, myself, live half-a-mile from one of the proposed turbines in the Went Valley).
I am firmly against this proposal and will fight it "all the way". In my opinion, it is based on selfishness and greed.
The proposal directly contravenes, in my opinion, the Council's policy of 'Healthy Sustainable Communities'.
Wakefield Council's Planning Committee rejected even the Wind Monitoring Mast in a unanimous decision. This decision should have closed the door on such a proposal.
The Government's Minister should have endorsed this democratic decision, not unpick it!
I await with interest public and Ministry reaction to the new proposal for some huge turbines located around Ferrybridge Station, including one with a proposed siting six hundred metres east of the Ferry Fryston estate.
This proposal could cause severe distress and hardship amongst the people living in the hamlet of West Park. It could also greatly affect the quality of life of residents of the neighbouring villages. (I, myself, live half-a-mile from one of the proposed turbines in the Went Valley).
I am firmly against this proposal and will fight it "all the way". In my opinion, it is based on selfishness and greed.
The proposal directly contravenes, in my opinion, the Council's policy of 'Healthy Sustainable Communities'.
Wakefield Council's Planning Committee rejected even the Wind Monitoring Mast in a unanimous decision. This decision should have closed the door on such a proposal.
The Government's Minister should have endorsed this democratic decision, not unpick it!
I await with interest public and Ministry reaction to the new proposal for some huge turbines located around Ferrybridge Station, including one with a proposed siting six hundred metres east of the Ferry Fryston estate.
Trevor Izon
(Councillor for South Pontefract)
(Councillor for South Pontefract)
Most right-minded people would accept that harnessing the Earth’s natural wind resource to produce electricity, is a useful tool in the continued search for low Carbon Emission power resources.
Whilst siting them off-shore makes the most sense, inland Windfarms are perhaps more economical to build, but their location will almost always raise local issues if they are too near to a rural population and communities or in an Area of Outstanding natural beauty.
In Scotland, where Windfarms have been prevalent for some time now, after careful study and analysis of the affects of existing Windfarms, it is now mandatory that they are positioned no nearer than 2kms from villages and urban areas. This seems to make sense, and allows the technology to be introduced without delay, but within a set of acceptable ground rules for everyone.
In Europe, most countries have also adopted this same minimum distance, while others do allow a 1.5km distance, but no less. So why is Wakefield Metropolitan District Council allowing Bank’s Development to erect them 500 metres from residential properties at West Park?
In Scotland, where Windfarms have been prevalent for some time now, after careful study and analysis of the affects of existing Windfarms, it is now mandatory that they are positioned no nearer than 2kms from villages and urban areas. This seems to make sense, and allows the technology to be introduced without delay, but within a set of acceptable ground rules for everyone.
In Europe, most countries have also adopted this same minimum distance, while others do allow a 1.5km distance, but no less. So why is Wakefield Metropolitan District Council allowing Bank’s Development to erect them 500 metres from residential properties at West Park?
JON BOLDERSON: West Park Hamlet, Darrington
Debate Continues
SINCE the publication of my last letter about the speculative development proposal for Went Edge I have been made aware of a troubling possibility I need to bring to public attention.
Should the Banks’ proposal be passed and the wind farm be established, clearly part of it’s viability will link to support funding as a generator of spasmodic renewable energy. If the funding regime were th change because of some more effective renewable source or another initiative then the project could fail on site.
However, I am told that if the 125 metre high wind turbines have been installed, that would render this area of greenbelt as brownfield industrial status and it could then be open for any sort of development. The scheme is likely to be marginal at best and I urge readers to support the campaign to save our skyline by writing in objection to the initial measuring mast proposal to:
The Director of Planning
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 2TX
quoting 07/00212/FUL
Please also write to:
Yvette Cooper MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1 2QW
As in addition to being our MP, she is also Minister of Housing and Planning. Your objections count. Please help by making them heard.
Should the Banks’ proposal be passed and the wind farm be established, clearly part of it’s viability will link to support funding as a generator of spasmodic renewable energy. If the funding regime were th change because of some more effective renewable source or another initiative then the project could fail on site.
However, I am told that if the 125 metre high wind turbines have been installed, that would render this area of greenbelt as brownfield industrial status and it could then be open for any sort of development. The scheme is likely to be marginal at best and I urge readers to support the campaign to save our skyline by writing in objection to the initial measuring mast proposal to:
The Director of Planning
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 2TX
quoting 07/00212/FUL
Please also write to:
Yvette Cooper MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1 2QW
As in addition to being our MP, she is also Minister of Housing and Planning. Your objections count. Please help by making them heard.
Solidarity in opposition
THE Banks Development Company’s proposal for a wind turbine site has stirred up the tremendous community spirit that can emerge when peoples quality of life is threatened.
This spirit has been magnified by the solidarity shown by the rural communities of Carleton, Darrington, East Hardwick and Wentbridge in condemning the proposal.
Putting the energy debate to one side for the time being, let me highlight just two aspects how such a proposal would affect people’s lives: The wind turbine site would be located within one mile of the villages listed above. With the nearest turbine within 200 metres of houses in the West Park Homes site. Imagine having a 125 metre high “monster” some 200 metres away from your front room.
Drivers on the A1 northern carriageway will negotiate a wide bend on which the B6474 road forms a junction just beyond a lay-by. Another lay-by further up the road contains a bus stop. If the proposals go ahead, drivers coming out of this bend will be suddenly confronted with turbines starting 150 metre from the road side..
If this proposal is allowed to go ahead some homes will become valueless, others will suffer a loss in value. The quality of life of hundreds of residents will be affected; severely in some cases.
Also has anyone thought about the casualties and families of the people who would be killed or injured in the accidents which are bound to be caused by such a potential distraction?
In response to people’s concerns about Banks Developments’ plans to put in a speculative bid for up to eight 125 metre high wind turbines at Westfield Lane Darrington, I would like to make the following comments.
I am hugely concerned about this speculative proposal’s impact on the amenity of the people and communities of South Pontefract, the broader district and the economy, ecology, heritage, and quality of life across the area and I will contest it for the following reasons:
Abutted by the communities of Carleton, Darrington, East Hardwick, Wentbridge, and West Park (the latter within 100 metres of the application footprint), at 125 metres in height (11 metres higher than the cooling towers of the nearby power station) they cannot be masked. These devices will have significant visual intrusion and loss of visual amenity on communities within the district and neighbouring districts as far as Womersley, the Smeetons and Selby in the east and Thorpe Audlin, Ackworth and Badsworth in the west and will negatively impact quality of life for people in those areas.
The villages of Wentbridge and Darrington and the smaller community of West Park already live with significant background noise caused by the flow of traffic on the A1/A1M which runs alongside the proposed location.
These generators will add further low frequency sound to the noise spectrum adding wind-related low frequency and strobe effects that will have particular impact on the residents’ sleep patterns as other noises drop away through the night.
The location adjacent to the A1 would also offer significant road safety risk, particularly by the distraction of motorists through a section of the A1 with several exits and access points where driver concentration is critical.
This linked to Banks’ own comment about strobing effect and shadow flicker will create a significant danger especially on bright sunny days or at sunset and dusk.
The construction phase if this speculative proposal were to be granted would lead to significant disruption to local traffic and on local roads. Where materials or plant are delivered via the A1 these will cause major hazards to traffic flows and risks to public safety over an extended period.
There are a number of designated archaeological sites within the proposed site boundaries which are likely to be impacted by construction activity should the subsequent application be successful.
The impact on ecology remains to be determined, but as the largest of their kind it is likely that the birds other wildlife and the bats in Bluebell wood are likely to be impacted by a development of this nature.
There are already examples being quoted about the impact on local housing sales and values and as such until this application is resolved this will also have a negative impact blighting the local economy.
Viability, this application is purely based on government subsidised measures linked to relaxation of planning process and there is no indication given of how this would be removed if in the light of new HM Treasury policies causing the development to be viable.
The proposed developments 20 megawatts of output when wind conditions permit will be a patchy provision at best.
Nearby Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station currently can supply 2,000 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day 365 days a year, sufficient to meet the total domestic/industrial needs of two million people or almost the entire population of West Yorkshire, so this is not needed as a local resource.
If allowed to continue this speculative application is likely to result in significant costs to ratepayers as associated costs are incurred by WMDC.
Bearing in mind the above points and the fact that this proposed location is in green belt we need to fight this application as a community and stop it
This spirit has been magnified by the solidarity shown by the rural communities of Carleton, Darrington, East Hardwick and Wentbridge in condemning the proposal.
Putting the energy debate to one side for the time being, let me highlight just two aspects how such a proposal would affect people’s lives: The wind turbine site would be located within one mile of the villages listed above. With the nearest turbine within 200 metres of houses in the West Park Homes site. Imagine having a 125 metre high “monster” some 200 metres away from your front room.
Drivers on the A1 northern carriageway will negotiate a wide bend on which the B6474 road forms a junction just beyond a lay-by. Another lay-by further up the road contains a bus stop. If the proposals go ahead, drivers coming out of this bend will be suddenly confronted with turbines starting 150 metre from the road side..
If this proposal is allowed to go ahead some homes will become valueless, others will suffer a loss in value. The quality of life of hundreds of residents will be affected; severely in some cases.
Also has anyone thought about the casualties and families of the people who would be killed or injured in the accidents which are bound to be caused by such a potential distraction?
In response to people’s concerns about Banks Developments’ plans to put in a speculative bid for up to eight 125 metre high wind turbines at Westfield Lane Darrington, I would like to make the following comments.
I am hugely concerned about this speculative proposal’s impact on the amenity of the people and communities of South Pontefract, the broader district and the economy, ecology, heritage, and quality of life across the area and I will contest it for the following reasons:
Abutted by the communities of Carleton, Darrington, East Hardwick, Wentbridge, and West Park (the latter within 100 metres of the application footprint), at 125 metres in height (11 metres higher than the cooling towers of the nearby power station) they cannot be masked. These devices will have significant visual intrusion and loss of visual amenity on communities within the district and neighbouring districts as far as Womersley, the Smeetons and Selby in the east and Thorpe Audlin, Ackworth and Badsworth in the west and will negatively impact quality of life for people in those areas.
The villages of Wentbridge and Darrington and the smaller community of West Park already live with significant background noise caused by the flow of traffic on the A1/A1M which runs alongside the proposed location.
These generators will add further low frequency sound to the noise spectrum adding wind-related low frequency and strobe effects that will have particular impact on the residents’ sleep patterns as other noises drop away through the night.
The location adjacent to the A1 would also offer significant road safety risk, particularly by the distraction of motorists through a section of the A1 with several exits and access points where driver concentration is critical.
This linked to Banks’ own comment about strobing effect and shadow flicker will create a significant danger especially on bright sunny days or at sunset and dusk.
The construction phase if this speculative proposal were to be granted would lead to significant disruption to local traffic and on local roads. Where materials or plant are delivered via the A1 these will cause major hazards to traffic flows and risks to public safety over an extended period.
There are a number of designated archaeological sites within the proposed site boundaries which are likely to be impacted by construction activity should the subsequent application be successful.
The impact on ecology remains to be determined, but as the largest of their kind it is likely that the birds other wildlife and the bats in Bluebell wood are likely to be impacted by a development of this nature.
There are already examples being quoted about the impact on local housing sales and values and as such until this application is resolved this will also have a negative impact blighting the local economy.
Viability, this application is purely based on government subsidised measures linked to relaxation of planning process and there is no indication given of how this would be removed if in the light of new HM Treasury policies causing the development to be viable.
The proposed developments 20 megawatts of output when wind conditions permit will be a patchy provision at best.
Nearby Ferrybridge ‘C’ power station currently can supply 2,000 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day 365 days a year, sufficient to meet the total domestic/industrial needs of two million people or almost the entire population of West Yorkshire, so this is not needed as a local resource.
If allowed to continue this speculative application is likely to result in significant costs to ratepayers as associated costs are incurred by WMDC.
Bearing in mind the above points and the fact that this proposed location is in green belt we need to fight this application as a community and stop it
Coun GEOFF WALSH
Pontefract South
Pontefract South
How much CO2 is saved by wind turbines?
How much CO2 is saved by wind turbines? What is happening to the furnaces at coal or gas-fired stations when the wind is blowing, and the wind turbines are generating?
Are they shut down or are they still firing, albeit at a lower rate?
How stable is the supply from these systems? Perhaps someone with experience of power generation can answer the question. If they are still being fired, then all the carbon emissions and the other obnoxious gases that are discharged into the atmosphere when the stations are generating, will continue to be discharged, so no benefits, however small, are gained from wind turbines.
Finally, also offset against any benefits, are the carbon emissions etc that are generated in the manufacture and installation of the turbines themselves. Hence the question. How much do they save?
Are they shut down or are they still firing, albeit at a lower rate?
How stable is the supply from these systems? Perhaps someone with experience of power generation can answer the question. If they are still being fired, then all the carbon emissions and the other obnoxious gases that are discharged into the atmosphere when the stations are generating, will continue to be discharged, so no benefits, however small, are gained from wind turbines.
Finally, also offset against any benefits, are the carbon emissions etc that are generated in the manufacture and installation of the turbines themselves. Hence the question. How much do they save?
R.M.WHITAKER: Pontefract