Friday, October 17, 2008

Refusal recommended for Cippenham windfarm

The Cippenham wind turbine has been recommended for refusal of planning permission, at the forthcoming planning committee meeting on Oct 22nd:
16.0 PART D: LIST OF REFUSAL REASON(S)
Reason(s)1. Visual Amenity
The residential amenity of nearby existing homes will be adversely
affected by the size of the turbine and its proximity to those homes in
terms of visual amenity and sense of it being overbearing.
Consequently the proposal is not in accordance with The Adopted
Local Plan for Slough 2004 Policy EN1 (Design) and Policy 9 (Built
Environment) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy
(Submission) November 2007 (confirmed sound August 2008).

2. Noise
The noise assessment is inadequate to judge the impact of noise on
residential property. Consequently it is unclear if Planning Policy
Guidance 24 (Noise) and policy 8 (Sustainability and the
Environment) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy
(Submission) November 2007 (confirmed sound August 2008) can be
complied with.

3. Shadow Flicker
The assessed shadow flicker will have an adverse affect on residential
amenity such that the proposal does not comply with policy 8
(Sustainability and the Environment) of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (Submission) November 2007 (confirmed
sound August 2008) in terms of quality of design.

4. Safety
The rotor blades oversailling of a public highway, proposed public
building/car park and public recreation area is considered to be a
potential safety hazard or perceived hazard which is poor design and
will hinder use of these public recreation and transport facilities.
Consequently the proposal does not comply with The Adopted Local
Plan for Slough 2004 Policy EN 1 (Design) nor Policy 8
(Sustainability and the Environment) of the Local Development
Framework Core Strategy (Submission) November 2007 (confirmed
sound August 2008) in terms of quality of design.

5. TV reception
The need for mitigation measures to ensure television reception for
homes west of the site is not affected has not been fully agreed nor
secured such that the proposal is unacceptable. Consequently the
proposal does not comply with Planning Policy Statement 22
Renewable Energy companion guide.

It's a difficult one - it's a big turbine, and the proposed site is pretty close to the nearest houses- but there's an energy crisis looming, and we need to maximise all our opportunities for alternatives to dwindling and polluting fossil fuels. Turbines are still new and relatively unknown, it'll be interesting to see if and how public opinion changes.

The recommendation seems mainly on grounds of "amenity", but that does seem to miss the bigger picture - increasing numbers of people in fuel poverty, and the potential catastrophic effects of climate change, both of which would be allieviated by projects such of this. They don't seem to have been considered at all. Where is the 80% cut in carbon dioxide emissions going to come from if we don't start making some hard decisions?

But the meeting still hasn't happened, so lets see ...

2 comments:

mark said...

Sorry I think you have got it all wrong. You obviously dont live near this proposed turbine and don't no all the facts. You could build houses that require less energy in the first place but these cost money like turbines with no income generation. Perhaps you work for an energy supplier?

Toby said...

Hi there,

what facts am I missing? As I see it, the officers report rightly detailed lots of the *local* issues, such as noise, shadow-flicker and generally looming, but didn't take into account the wider issues, such as climate change, fuel scarcity, fuel poverty - the list goes on. Many of the arguments put forward by WindRats and repeated by some of the councillors just don't hold water.


I don't work for an energy supplier, alas (except for the solar panel on the roof of my van), but I do live nearby the turbine site. I think that the plan was wrong for the particular site, but right for the town. On the other side of the motorway would be much better.

You're right about having houses use less energy, though I would say it's *people* that use energy, not houses. There's no point generating electricity just to waste it ...