Core strategy supports renewable energy, outweighs impact on the landscape, but not local amenity.
Noise - likely input, information insufficient.
Shadow flicker - would be intermittent, and significant in Marcia Court.
Safety - access below blades, and most sites usually open land/industrial sites - turbine would be on a major route that local people could not avoid.
BAA - no objections.
New evidence from developer, does not provide any reason for changing recommendation.
New information on noise could be grounds for appeal.
Renewable energy is a good idea, which he is not against in principle, but is opposed to siting the turbine in an urban area, which is the "wrong place".
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act - the right to a peaceful family life.
Turbine (including blade at highest point) would be higher than the London Eye and Big Ben.
No evidence of any site selection process.
No bird/bat or vibration assessment.
site is designed to collapse away from M4 into "safe" landing area - no such point on this site.
Effect on House prices.
This was despite just hearing from the Officer's Report that BAA had no objections.Large petition from local residents/wind rats
Recomended refusal
Cllr ChohanCippenham Meadows - Labour Started off a bit cheeky, speculating on the effect of the potential vibration on the bedrooms of his constituents.
Concerned about an overbearing "huge wind turbine". Did not think it appropriate for a local resident area, and that comparable turbines, eg
Green Park, Reading, are not as close to houses.
Cllr Davis
Cippenham Meadows - LabourBarratt Homes had not done the required research, and not concerned about local people. Suggested that a turbine should be close to the home of "Mr Barratt." Expressed opinion that "Barratt think that because it is Slough, they think they can do anything".
Planning decisions are supposed to assessed on the quality of the application, not the identity of the applicant.
Cllr Dale-GoughLangley St Mary's - Conservative
Declared that wind-turbines are renowned for their ineffectivenees, and that there is no wind for 30% of the time, and have to be turned off in gales.
Whilst crowd-pleasing, this is inapplicable to this decision for 2 reasons:
1) It makes no sense to base a decision on "efficiency" of a turbine, when the fuel is free - http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#efficient.
Conventional coal power-stations are highly inefficient, losing a third of their energy during the process of burning coal to heat steam then cool it down again. Perhaps the councillor is confused with the "load-factor" - the proportion of energy the plant can produce compared to it's theoretical maximum.
2) It is irrelevant to the decision, according to Planning Policy Statement 22 key principle 6 : "Small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally. Planning authorities should not therefore reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small."
He then went on to say that a better site would be in the sewage works across the M4.
Perhaps a councillor for Langley, he could be excused for not knowing the geography of the part of the town he was talking about and making a decision on, but as a map shows, there are still houses close to his proposed site.
Wexham Lea - Independent / BILLD Group
All for "Green Energy", but not in housing estates
Central - Labour
Is a full supporter of Renewable Energy, but "have to sensible".
It should be somewhere it doesn't affect people, and this site would cause a lot of problems.
Have to balance the benefits with the effects.
This would cause hazards to M4 users
As noted by several other committee members, the Green Park turbine in Reading is right next to the M4, with no obvious ill-effects.
Cippenham Green - Labour
Has no problem in principle with a turbine, and was quite excited when he first heard of the proposal, both as a landmark and the contribution to renewable energy it would make.
Believes these plans poorly executed, this is not the right site.
Believes that Barratt with their close working relationship with Eton College (who sold them the land) could have come up with a better site.
Believes that Barratt are using this as a way of milking more money out of the sports-pitches which they were required to provide as Section 106 benefits, and the turbine would reduce the usage of the sports pitches
Applications are supposed to be decided upon their merits, not by speculation on the motives of the applicant
Is concerned about the structure collapsing.
Believes the idea has potential, but suffers from "shoddy execution"
Renewable energy is valid, but should be elsewhere.
Could be interesting, is a blight
Then spoke about the
Slough Heat and Power power station, on the Trading Estate. Described it as using "good fuel", and expressed desire for it to supply more power. Declared that SHP currently supply power for 7-8,000 homes, and that this was the best route for renewable energy expansion in Slough.
Up to a point - SHP use both wood and FibreFuel, which according to the front page of their website is "Materials which are non-recyclable and would otherwise be sent to landfill are thus turned into a valuable resource", but according to their "Raw Material s" page is made up of "mixed papers, magazines & junk mail, coated papers, laminates, adhesive labels, photographic paper, hygiene product rejects and pre-consumer packaging (not an exhaustive list)." So it's an incinerator, which is burning recyclable materials. But it's also a Community Heat and Power (CHP) power station, which reuse the heat produced in electricity generation for heating local homes. So sort of "renewable", as it's not using fossil fuels, but perhaps not sustainable in the long-term as it depends upon a supply of a large amount of waste material, some of which could be recycled. Perhaps Cllr Swindlehurst was referring to the forthcoming Grundon Incinerator in Colnbrook, which was the focus of so much protest a few years ago.
Foxborough - Liberal Democrats/BILLD Group
Asked if the council has any
microgeneration strategy, as the officers haven't specified any details in the report?
strictly speaking, a 3MW turbine isn't really "micro", but it's a good question.
Officer Albertini replied that there is "broad support" for Renewable Energy, but there are no fixed standards
Cllr Plimmer considered that this kind of application is going to be coming up more often in the future, and that standards should be set now to avoid the committee having to make decisions on an undecided policy.
Officer Scourfield replied that there cannot be specific policies for everything, but the recommendation for refusal was based on general policies on amenity, safety etc. He suggested that policies may be formulated in more detail later.
Britwell - Independent Britwellian Residents / BILLD Group
Was amazed that the electricity produced will not go to Slough.
Whilst it would be nice to have an entirely local grid, this isn't how any power station in the UK works - they all link to the national grid, which then supplies homes through their own suppliers. I'm not really sure what difference it really makes, above the losses in transmission - it's not the same as buying local strawberries - "these electrons were made in Slough, see how the light burns brighter ...". That's not really how electricity works.
He then continued to talk about Barratts and their motivations for applying, to the point where Officer Wild had to intervene to remind him that applications are decided on their own merits, not the identity of the applicant.
Cllr Pantelic did not take the opportunity to speak, though as she was sat next to Cllr Swindlehurst, may have drawn breath in preparation before he spoke again
Cllr Swindlehurst reaffirmed his view that he wants local power for local people, and that it is better to use the Slough Heat and Power for local renewable energy needs.
As the SHP website makes clear, they have not built the infrastructure for a local electricity grid, but feed into the National Grid as "Electricity output is sold under a Non Fossil Fuel Obligation contract.". Exactly how the Barratt turbine would have. So Cllr Swindlehurst opposes the turbine on the way it redistributes its electricity output, in favour of another system that works in exactly the same way, but with less sustainable fuel and more emissions. That does seem a little odd.
Cippenham Meadows - Labour
Wanted to know how deep the foundations were going to be. Concerned about safety, the disabled day centre, playing fields and changing rooms.
Was pleased when she first heard at first that 1,500 homes were going to be built, which is approximately the amount of homes to be supplied by the turbine, so too was very surprised to find out the power was going to be fed into the National Grid.
Again, this is how all such systems work. No power station of any kind is able to maintain a constant supply of energy to meet the fluctuating demands of a single community, this is one of the design principles of the National Grid. By having a wide diversity of both sources and loads, the National Grid is able to "smooth out" any local fluctuations by a maintaining a much larger pool of electricity.
Wanted to know why solar panels couldn't be installed instead.
Good point, but no one solution is inherently better than another. Solar panels have a much lower output, are more expensive and so have a longer "payback" time. Of course, they do not work at night and are less effective in the winter when there is less sun available, and are not suitable for every house. There are very few, if any, installed in Slough apart from some very oddly positioned traffic ones. They're less intrusive, though this may not be the policy of the planning department - there does not appear to have ever been an application to install one in Slough. The long-term solution has to be a mix of solar, wind and other renewables, along with better insulation and energy efficiency in general.
VoteThe application was unanimously refused.
