Planning & Transportation Services
Hyndburn B C
Scaitcliffe House
Ormerod Street
Accrington
Lancs
BB5 0PF
Dated 6 th January 2012
Dear Sirs
Re TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
Proposed Development- land off Redshell Lane.
Mr S Kaufman
Whetstone Edge Farm
Redshell Lane
Hyndburn
BB1 2PH
Application no. 11/11/0504
Objection (on behalf of myself, my wife and two sons aged 10 and 16).
The evidence to be adduced herein will demonstrate that this wind farm proposal is not the right way of providing renewable energy as it would adversely affect the quality of life in the rural community around it in a hugely significant way. It is the wrong proposal in the wrong location.
All the articles referred to are to be included as part of my objection against this application and require consideration and to be read to obtain all the points I wish to make. They are a resource for the officers to advert to.
The proposed wind farm is contrary to the Local Plan, The Core Strategy, and The North
West Regional Spatial Strategy and to national planning policy in PPS22(landscape),
PPG7(farm diversification), PPG79 (surface water pollution), and PPG24 (noise).
There is nothing in PPS22 or PPS1 that suggests that the approach under S70 (2) Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 and S38 (6) of the 2004 Act should be disapplied in the case of a wind farm.
Moreover the precautionary principle should be applied. European Union environmental policy is based on its application (EU Treaty Art 174).This is further enshrined in The
Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment. Further, PPS1 (sustainable development) states (para 24) that where outcomes are uncertain in environmental impact appraisal a precautionary approach may be necessary. It is necessary to apply such an approach here.
Appendix 7 of the Local Plan makes special reference to wind farms and provides:
“Proposals for wind turbine developments will be assessed against the following criteria: a.
The visual impact of the proposal on the landscape b.
The impact of the proposal on wildlife habitats c.
The impact of the proposal on historical and archaeological features d.
The degree of nuisance caused by the proposal (including noise and shadow flicker)

e.
The degree of interference with electromagnetic signals f.
The potential health and safety risk g.
The proximity of the proposals to dwellings public highways railways airports overhead power lines and recreational sites h.
The design colour layout and scale of turbines and ancillary structures (including access roads) i.
The degree of disturbance caused by the constructional phase j.
The restoration and after use of the site k.
Conformity with other provisions in this plan”.
Moreover Policy 3 specifically states that “Wind turbines should not normally be located on ridge top or summit locations where they would form prominent features when viewed from the surrounding area.”
The justification also talks of “their particular prominence against the skyline and their long range visibility” and that they would “diminish the landscape character of the upland hills and reduce their intrinsic qualities of wilderness and isolation”. In so far as this application auguments the existing granted application (11/09/0512) on
Oswaldtwistle Moor it is too much for the area to accommodate.
These criteria seem to me to be subversive of the proposed wind farm in a variety of ways.
Taking the criteria seriatim as follows: a.
On my barn is an Ordinance Survey marker of 1000 feet. It is just about as high as you can get in this part of Lancashire. To the rear of my house there is a clear view of Pendle Hill in the foreground whilst behind you can see the
Three Peaks of Inlgeborough, Pen-Y-Ghent, and Great Whernside. I am told that the further crags to the North West are actually in The Lake District
National Park. From the brow of the hill above The Grey Mare you can see
The Ribble Estuary and even Blackpool Tower. The turbines are 78 metres in height which will have a significant visual impact of something between 10-
15 Kilometres but less so much further away. It would not be in keeping with the Lancashire public Joint Local Structure Plan Report (2004). There should be “no net loss of value” (10.21 p. 113) a phrase taken from RPG13. The
Report ruled out such a development saying (10.35) “The Moorland Plateau landscape character was ruled out for wind development in the criteria following the Proposed Changes Version of Policy 25”. They drew attention to the Landscape and Heritage SPG para.2.22. b.
The Moor is designated as a Biological Heritage site possibly because it has not been contaminated with herbicides and pesticides etc and has been grazed by sheep and cattle for centuries. No restoration after decommissioning can repair the damage that will have been done. A variety of species live there including lapwings, larks, moles, stoats, foxes, badgers, deer, shrews, and field mice. I cannot claim to be an expert but the immediate effect of such industrial structures will be likely to have an adverse effect on the environment for all species by drying out the peat moor, by creating hazardous moving blades, and by creating disturbing levels of noise to animals which will affect their reproductive capacity. There are bio-diversity implications.

c.
The structures in the vicinity are of stone which was usually quarried in the immediate neighbourhood. Indeed the quarry for Whetstone Edge Farm comes from less than three hundred metres away. Such turbines as are proposed will adversely affect the character of the whole area affecting tourism which is based partially on the desire to escape industrial features.
Moreover Grane Road itself has a name which is a vestige of the village that once existed and the reservoirs that now occupy the site and the area around
Clough Head will be lowered over by these turbines. d.
My initial concern over the wind farm when it was first mooted was over potential noise. I hadn’t even heard of so-called infrasound or Vibroacoustic disease. The more I have read about it the more concerned I have become.
PPS 22 explains that “local planning authorities should ensure that local renewable energy projects have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels.... the 1997 Report by ETSU for
The Department and Trade and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development” (para 22).
PPG24 (para 10) makes it perfectly clear that noise from a development should not cause an unacceptable level of disturbance.
The Local plan makes several references to the prevention of noise disturbance to neighbouring properties. Notably Policy E10 (F); Policy I.6; and
Appendix 4 Policy 3 make specific provision that unreasonable increases in noise disturbance should be prevented. Policy 3 states “The proposal should be unlikely to lead to a loss of amenity to residents of adjoining property or to residents of the proposed flats by reason of noise and disturbance” and whilst this is in the context of a different type of development the principle running through the Local Plan of preventing noise disturbance is reiterated.
PPS22 requires ETSU-R-97 to be used to assess and rate noise from wind farms (para22). The Local Plan policies referred to above must be interpreted as requiring assessment on this basis also in order for them to be consistent with PPS22. It follows that if the assessment of noise impact does not accord with ETSU and where the approach advocated in that document is not utilised there is an immediate and significant conflict with national and Local
Plan policy.
It is important to note that ETSU does not prescribe a method for predicting the noise propagation from the turbines to receptor properties and is also silent as to how the effects of wind shear should be assessed. ETSU was developed at a time when the importance of the relationship between noise propagation from wind farms and wind shear was not so well understood as it is now. ETSU was also developed at a time when turbines were of considerably smaller scale than those proposed in this case.
I do not believe that any conditions could be imposed by the planning authority to protect my family in my property from the effects of noise because ETSU seems to have been intent up to a point on creating more wind

farm sites despite the noise levels. This becomes apparent from considering the three draft Hayes McKenzie Reports referred to below.
ETSU recognises that a person should be able to enjoy their garden or patio at their home by being able to fall asleep in it. If that were used as a threshold a limit of 33dBALA90 would be adopted but ETSU considered that this would place a material constraint on the ability to find wind farm sites
(CD61 ETSU p62). In order to allow wind farm development it set a range of
35-40 dBA. It is crucial to understand that even adopting that limit already involves the adoption of a threshold that is above the level that would protect amenity.
The basic approach of ETSU is not to permit 5 dBA above background adopting a dose response level from BS4142 (CD61 ETSU p60).
It doesn’t require expert advice to accept that the closer a turbine of 78 metres is to a residence the greater will be the effect of the noise and vibration. These turbines are located within a few hundred metres of several residences. If they are built, those residences will experience the worst effects of noise. My home is one such receptor property. By contrast the
Energie Kontor application promised that they would not site a turbine any closer than 600 metres whereas this proposal has them 330 metres from my house.
BS4142 identified 10dBLAeq above background as a threshold where complaint is likely. As an L90 this becomes only 8dB. It is inevitable that those properties will be adversely affected by noise. ETSU specifically recognises that this is the case as it examines the range of data in order to draw conclusions about the extent of time that properties will experience high levels of turbine noise above background. What cannot be predicted are wind direction and speed and wind shear at any particular point. Thus sometimes complaint levels of noise will be experienced at night and sleep will be disturbed with the consequent effects on health that is implicit in sleep deprivation.
A report on wind farms from the Prefecture of Charente Maritime in France
(2005) pp22-23 talks about increasing the distance from receptor properties from 750-900 metres. I surmise that the taller the turbine the greater the distance should be. The report actually says “The impact study, even with these new requirements, should examine the technical conditions of operation of the wind farm ensuring the absence of effect on health due to noise within a radius of at least twice this distance” (i.e. 1800 metres!).
An article from Journal Live “The noise that drives us mad” as an example of one family’s experience of a wind farm built near their home in 2006. In their case the turbines were about 92 metres in height whereas this proposal is 78

metres and the nearest turbine was 900 metres away. Their sleep was so badly disturbed that they had to abandon their home.
Sometimes an anecdotal account expresses more effectively the reality than mere graphs and statistics or the opinions of experts. We are enjoined to trust scientists and the Government but I’m afraid that whatever the applicants a scientific assessment says, based upon their calculations, they will not persuade me that this wind farm is not too close to my home.
The individual anecdotal accounts are too legion to ignore. But so too is the accumulating scientific evidence. There was a report in the Journal of Sound and
Vibration in 2004 by GP van den Berg from the University of Groningen which criticised the methodology and existing criteria for measuring wind turbine sound saying that they underestimate the effects of such noise and that problems occur within 1900 metres. The French Academy of Medicine called for a halt in the construction of 2.5MW turbines within 1.5 Kms of habitation.
The report “Simple Guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks” by
Kamperman & James (2008) makes the observation that health damage is caused up to 3 miles away.
An online article in the Telegraph (16/4/2007) “Wind Turbines are ruining our
Quality of Life” makes the point anecdotally again. It refers to a report by Dr.
Amanda Harry who doubted that wind turbines should be situated closer than 1.5 Kms to homes because of the effects on human health. Her report was emtitled “Wind
Turbines, Noise and Health” (February 2007). In that report she lists symptoms found and the actual results of her inquiry. She refers to the WHO definition of health and explains how turbines affect health. She appends numerous anecdotal accounts.
Curiously the last one at Appendix 13 of her report refers to a wind farm operated by
Energie Kontor in Devon the nearest turbine being 650 metres away from the home of the complainant. Doubtless the turbines were smaller and older and equally they paid the local community a sum to assist in gaining planning permission (nothing more than a “legalised bribe” in my view) and said that residents wouldn’t be affected by noise. I urge Hyndburn Council to take a precautionary approach.
If Dr Harry were on her own in her cautionary advice the wind farm developers could have dismissed her concerns but There Was a further report by Frey and Hadden
“Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed near Homes: Effects on Health”
(2007). They refer to a wide number of proper scientific studies and recommend “an immediate minimum 2Km zone placed between people’s homes and wind turbines”
(p56). Interestingly in Section 6 which deals with Human Rights they make the point that noise can be an infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights and refer to case law. ETSU may in fact be non-compliant with the Convention in setting the standards referred to above. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force the year after ETSU was published but actually the Government was still obliged under the
Treaty to comply. The difference now is that instead of having to go to the ECHR the domestic courts may declare a law, regulation, or statutory instrument as breaching the Convention. That aside I refer to p95 of their report which cites case law dealing with noise pollution.

NAA Catelo Branco and M Alves-Pereira in their work “Vibroacoustic Disease”
(2004) have contributed to the debate on the basis of 27 years research. The effects of sub-audible noise are real and deleterious to health.
Frey and Hadden’s recommendation (p105) “The Government would be prudent to institute an immediate and mandatory minimum buffer of 2 Kms between a dwelling and an industrial wind turbine and with greater separation from a dwelling for a wind turbine with greater than 2MW installed capacity”. Needless to say my home (and that of my wife and 2 sons aged 10 and 16) is well within the hostile ambience of the current proposal.
I also refer to an Ontario Community based health survey (April 2009) which shows the sort of symptoms caused by proximity to wind turbines which we could expect to suffer if this additional development is passed.
Even the Hayes McKenzie Report commissioned by the Government recommends in its third draft that a revision of ETSU-R-97 should be done. The precautionary approach would thus be to reject the application.
In all this I have not addressed so-called “shadow-flicker”. This would depend on the time of day and the intensity of the Sun at that time. I cannot visualise from the plans how the turbines will actually interpose between the sun and my house. It is possible that in the winter months the flicker would combine with the noise to wake us from nocturnal sleep through bedroom windows. They infer that the effects would only be in the Winter but the low Winter Sun argument only applies to a plain or plateau and not where the turbines stand in close proximity to and high above a receptor property.
Even a child playing shadow games knows that the closer the impediment is to the receptor (a wall) the more effective is the shadow. I anticipate summer flicker too. It is certain that it would occasionally be a distraction in the use of our external land as well as through windows and I deem over a greater part of the year than they misleadingly suggest.
Etherington (below) also deals with noise.
All the above applies to other properties in the vicinity. I am aware that planning permission has been granted for a chicken farm just over the brow of the hill at the back of my house. From a report on the BBC website in 2009 (goats) I get the impression that turbine noise is as deleterious to animal heath as well as humans and would affect not only that attempt at farm diversification contrary to PPG7 but also the sheep and cattle currently farmed in the immediate proximity of this site. e.
The report “The Case against Wind Farms” by Dr. JR Etherington part 15 illustrates the potential problems. f.
There are several comments I have to make:
Firstly Etherington in the above document refers to the danger of blades weighing several tons breaking off and being hurled several hundred metres.
There have been instances where this has happened. There is a web-site entitled
“Why 1.2 and 1000ft will not Protect Public Health and Safety”.

It deals with numerous instances pertaining to turbine safety including Blade
Throw and Icing, Setbacks, Noise, Flicker, and Fire. Few people seem to realise that each turbine has a reservoir of oil which is why if it catches fire (as apparently happens sometimes) the blaze is greater than would be anticipated from an apparently concrete structure. Add this to desiccated peat moorland in a dry period and a wider safety issue arises.
Secondly icicles can develop when the turbines are not in motion and be hurled in a similar manner when the turbines start to rotate. The Severn Bridge was closed in late 2009 whilst icicles were removed for safety reasons. The proximity of the wind farm to my and other properties “within range” causes me concern.
Thirdly Grane Road is quite dangerous enough without the potential distraction as a driver turns a bend to be confronted by a large moving object just out of his field of vision. More crashes are predictable.
Moreover landslides can sometimes be caused by turbine installation. I refer to the detailed report on the Derrybrien bog slide “Wind Farms and Blanket Peat” by Richard Lindsay and Olivia Bragg which may be viewed on the internet. g.
The last made point about Grane Road applies here too. h.
I cannot see any real aesthetic difference between one wind turbine and the next. I cannot envisage any way they can be hidden or made to blend into the natural landscape. To aver that they can is meretricious persiflage. i.
The constructional phase will operate apparently from the other side of the hill and thus won’t directly affect me but I can envisage that users of that road may be inconvenienced. The period of construction was estimated by Energie Kontor as 9 months for its project. To the period of construction of this application must be added the “inconvenience times” of the adjacent proposal on Oswaldtwistle
Moor. A period of decommissioning and restoration should be inferred. Let us say 12 months (vegetation establishment takes at least a year and planting may have to be repeated). This means that for the life of the project at least 15% of the time will be spent in construction or decommissioning. I suppose further time delivering oil and performing repairs could be anticipated. j.
Decommissioning will not leave the land as it was. You only have to visit Scout
Moor to observe that once the damage to an eco-system has been done it cannot be repaired. If the applicant has gone into liquidation no one will pick up the cost of restoring the moor to its original state and I doubt if the Council will have funding to do so. k.
It would contradict several of the aims of Chapter 5 of the Local Plan. In particular farm diversification. A BBC website report (“Wind farm kills Taiwanese goats”) illustrates this point, which I have referred to above, and also tourism.
Chapter 5 of the Local Plan (1.4) specifically mentions the adjacent
Oswaldtwistle Moor in this context. An industrial structure on a dried out peat moor, consequently eroded, devoid of wild life is not what a walk in the country is supposed to be about. Etherington deals with this in the above document (at
11) and concludes, citing a survey, that tourists are unlikely to revisit a
“turbinised” landscape. Goodbye Goal 6 of the Local Plan. Moreover Policy E.4 and E.5 are scarcely likely to be promoted by sterile moorland in which ground nesting birds are banished. Etherington deals with these matters in his Section
12. Bats (often seen on summer nights in our garden) are a protected BAP

species and may have their lungs ripped out by pressure changes near the blades and may be killed by collision (evidence to this effect was given at the Judicial
Review of the planning decision at Den Brook in 2009). Further, Policy S5 (use of local materials) is not exactly what we have here. Nor is the proposed development in keeping with Goal 7 (vii). Policy E.13 is particularly relevant to me. Our water supply is from a bore hole and there have been occasions when the digging of the foundations for turbines has cracked the bed-rock and diverted water away from natural water-courses. Our water supply depends on water percolating down to where it is accessed. There is a real danger that this may be materially harmed particularly as the turbines are so close. Also the building materials and concrete may leech into the supply. In their project description
Energie Kontor actually implicitly acknowledged this as they say that they dropped the proposal for putting the other turbines originally planned to protect the water supply to Calf Hey! In the above the proposal contradicts the aims of
PPS7 specifically with regard to farm diversification and PPS2 with regard to nature conservation. Moreover PPS9 (biodiversity) is impugned. Under PPS21
Policy CTY 14 this development is “unduly prominent in the landscape” and the
“impact of ancillary works.....would damage the rural character”.
In planning law it is well established that where a development will have significant impacts or gives rise to significant policy conflict (the Government says we need such things to prevent global warming but also we need to prevent pollution and protect the environment etc.), the weight that can be given to benefits on the basis of the claimed need falls to be assessed by reference to whether that need could be met on alternative sites which would give rise to less harm or less policy conflict. In Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment & Another (1987) 53 P & CR 293 Simon Brown J. explained
“Where there are clear planning objections to development upon a particular site then it may well be relevant and indeed necessary to consider whether there is a more appropriate alternative site elsewhere. This is particularly so when the development is bound to have significant adverse effects and where the major argument advanced in support of the application is that the need for the development outweighs the planning disadvantages inherent in it”. I would suggest that offshore is the place to put these structures or at uninhabited sites not within a few hundred metres of homes especially as Hyndburn BC has don’t its bit for carbon free energy by permitting the wind farm on Oswaldtwistle
Moor.
Etherington deals with the supposed social need in his sceptical paper.
Essentially the argument is that the world is getting warmer and that this is caused by carbon emissions. Therefore those emissions need to be reduced if we are to maintain sufficient supplies of electricity for our needs by using non-fossil sources such as wind farms. The case against this type of solution to this global putatively anthropogenic problem is set out in his paper. The saving in CO2 is ludicrously minute. Even if huge numbers of turbines were erected all over the
British countryside it would make scarcely any impact on the problem whilst irreparably damaging the environment their raison d’être purports to protect.

Additional observations:
The Introduction to PPS22 makes it quite clear that the local planning authority has discretion within PPS22 to ignore aspects of PPS22 within individual planning decisions. Whilst it says that it will need to “be taken into account” in the preparation of regional and local strategies it does not say “shall also be material” but “may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications”. It also says “national policies set out in other planning policy statements or PPGs may also be relevant to consideration of planning for renewable energy”. In other words it cannot be treated as mandatory regarding an individual application.
Moreover under Para 6 it confirms that “Planning applications for renewable energy projects should be assessed against the specific criteria set out in regional spatial strategies and local development documents”. This is reiterated in para. 15.
Just as the decision and recommendation has to be based (in the qualified way described above)on PPS22 and ETSU-R-97 so too does it have to comply with existing planning policies. It is no more correct to say that because technology has improved turbine design to eliminate the noise problems that we can ignore local planning policy than to say that health and amenity considerations referred to above can be ignored by PPS22 or ETSU-R-97. The Society for Wind Vigilance in North America where health problems are disclosed
(http://www.windvigilance.com/awea_media.aspx).
Para.45 of the Technical Annex to PPS22 claims that “There is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health”. It is patently clear, and I put the council on notice, that this is incorrect. Para 44 says that ETSU-R-97 offers “a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development”. ETSU-R97 is certainly out of date and evidence is mounting to suggest that the protection of receptor properties and health is not being achieved.
There are numerous articles published online and peer reviewed by The Lancet documenting the ways in which sleep deprivation and noise can induce a deterioration of health. I put the Council on notice that the damage to local residents is foreseeable, not remote, and that a duty of care is present. SSP22 and ETSU-R-97 will not absolve liability.
As PPS22 observes (para 39) “The planning system exists to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The material question is whether the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the locality generally, and on amenities that ought in the public interest, to be protected”. I have absolutely no doubt that health is one of the amenities required to be protected. It is irrational and unreasonable when confronted by unequivocal evidence that the assumptions in PPS22 and ETSU-R97 are wrong to proceed as if they are in some way mandatory (which they are not). It could give rise to a Wednesbury point

SSP22 talks (para 41) of “acceptable levels with relation to existing background noise” and allowing sufficient distance between the turbines and any existing noise – sensitive development so that noise from the turbines will not normally be significant“. It suggests that turbine noise would be completely masked by “wind generated background noise”. No assessment on my property has been done but it would show no adverse current noise sufficient to disturb sleep. The Council are therefore enjoined to take a precautionary approach.
Referring to site location and the alleged need to provide renewable energy to offset
CO2 emissions I would point out that para 38 suggests that owing to technological improvements upland locations are no longer the only option. Given the Lancashire
Joint Local Structure Plan Report cited in my previous letter this Moorland Plateau location would not be suitable at all. Although para 20 envisages decommissioning and that the impact may be temporary, it reminds us “in assessing planning applications, local authorities should recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved”. These turbines are amongst the largest, and when added to the others are 14 in number, and are on Moorland Plateau at 1000 feet.
PPS22 in para 54(Technical Annex) dismisses road safety.
To claim that road users have to pay “due care and attention” anyway is hardly the point. HGVs were banned from Grane Road because it is a dangerous road despite the legal requirement that HGV drivers are supposed to pay attention and drive safely at all times. Planners are supposed to remove conditions that make roads more hazardous. I repeat my assertion that these turbines will distract drivers even momentarily causing more accidents as the moving turbines suddenly loom into view.
In fact I would go so far as to say that a driver who doesn’t glance at a sudden movement is not driving with due care as he would be neglecting an event happening which may impact upon his driving. Some primitive species cannot see without movement. Humans don’t need this facility but movement is hard-wired to attract attention and thus distract.
This is a radioactive mineshaft within 1 Km of the development site. We know that there are 724 tonnes of radio-active waste deposited there including at least one ton of uranium. It was deposited between 1948-1952 the very time when Britain was developing its bomb programme and such was the secrecy that members of Atlee’s
Cabinet were excluded from the process. No assessment of the effects by the
Applicant has been done either regarding vibration or electromagnetism or on water supplies. Nor has the network of coal mining tunnels and shafts been assessed. This is not an exhaustive list and frankly I am bound to say that this deposit is an issue in itself that needs further investigation and enquiry from the Environment Agency irrespective of the outcome of the wind farm application. We know that surface levels of radioactivity are low/safe now but don’t know exactly what is down there or how it is encased, how deep it is, or what is likely to happen to it. Nor do we know what other shafts and tunnels may be connected to it or how it may leach into water

supplies. The fact that it is monitored suggests uncertainty. If lethal particles find their way into the atmosphere to be inhaled or ingested there is foreseeable risk of damage.
The Edgeworth Inspection Report
I am aware of the Inspector’s Decision regarding an application at Edgeworth
(APP/M2372/A/05/1174985) and would aver that the reasoning there applies equally here in this application if not more so.
Para 28 observes “The massive structures would be substantially higher than the highest point of the moorland tops here and so dwarf the surrounding landscape diminishing its apparent scale and grandeur. The huge rotors would draw attention to the machines and interrupt the still silhouette of the ridge. Such damage would critically undermine the crucial contrast between the open moorland and the confined clutter of the busy valleys below”. In this instance Accrington and Oswaldtwistle nestle in valleys overlooked by this development. Parts of Rossendale would be similarly affected.
That paragraph goes on to say “The impact would be especially intrusive here because almost the whole length of this ridge is devoid of conspicuous man-made features”. Ib id.
Paragraph 30 speaks of that development as “part of a prominent ridge separating adjacent valleys and different landscapes......that topography must fundamentally affect the capacity of the place to accommodate large scale development.” That could equally apply here bearing in mind that the development at Edgeworth was far smaller. “Part of what makes the place remarkable.....is its proximity to the towns and roads in the adjacent valleys and the juxtaposition of the open moors to the bustle in the crowded valleys. Seen in that context, the proposed turbines would intrude into a largely unspoilt sky line, the moving rotors contrasting with the still and silent hills, so emphasising the incongruity and dominance of these large structures”.
The turbines in that case would have stood in a Biological Heritage Site (Para. 31). It was actually worse on Oswaldtwistle Moor because there was a pending application with Natural England to make this area an SSSI. The nearest dwelling was only 400 metres, a grid connection of 6 Kms would have been required and new sections of track up the hillside (1 Km) similar to this application, and the turbines would stand in
“a conspicuous ridge top position”.
Again the Turbines in that case affected 5000m2 of a Biological Heritage Site but the remedial measures were rejected by the Inspector as the project offended the principle in Policy 21 of the Lancashire’s Landscape Strategy that mitigation “should ameliorate unavoidable damage so that no loss of heritage value would occur”. It also offends the “no net loss approach”. Here extensive damage cannot be avoided as set out elsewhere. Nor can any measures proposed by the developer mitigate the damage when combined with the existing wind farm damage. In many other cases despite the best efforts the repair has been desultory and inadequate. PPS9 says “if that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, the planning permission should be refused”. It thus subverts Policy 20 too.

The loss of habitat to various species of mammal, bird, and reptile will diminish biodiversity. To admit this form of renewable energy at this location would offend every other planning consideration. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
Reference is made in paragraph 35 to the noise issue whereby the turbines would have disturbing effects particularly at night to receptor properties such that they would have to be shut down. I refer to yet another report in that regard by Derek Bowdler entitled
“ETSU-R-97 –Why it is Wrong” emphasising its weakness and just how dishonest it is to advert to it. What is clear from the report is that ETSU-R-97 is not to be trusted in planning matters. To do so in the face of all the evidence would be “Wednesbury unreasonable.”
I Paragraph 37 the Inspector refers to the cumulative effects of neighbouring wind farms. At Scout Moor the Inspector in that appeal noted “the absence of any significant cumulative impact with other wind farms as important”. If this development proceeds then between Belthorn and Haslingden the skyline in both directions would be compromised when 2 Turbines are added to all 12 others.
His overall conclusion refers to PPS22 saying it would fail to reflect the guidance in
“breaching the capacity of the environment to accommodate such projects”. So too does this application.
While, the decisions made elsewhere are of limited relevance under PPS22, they cannot be completely discounted. Otherwise every planning decision on renewables would have to be assessed as if planning had just been invented. The Edgworth application was only a few kilometres from the present application, was less intrusive, and is a part of the same landscape. The contiguous landscape invites contiguous reasoning.
I have also had sight of a letter to the Council regarding radioactive waste deposited in “Belthorne Mineshaft” dated 25 th
January 2010.
There is a stream that flows through the mine that was visible from the surface until it was concreted over (local knowledge). Water from that area feeds the United Utilities
(are they aware of either the radioactive hazard or the concerns regarding collapse?)Reservoir further down that supplies Blackburn Hospital. Monitoring implies hazard but the extent of monitoring (which has now ceased) is not disclosed.
Was it continuous with an instrument left in situ? Or was it a periodic visit by an operative? Were they monitoring at the right location? If particles escape on a day they are not monitoring or in another location (a concealed ventilation shaft) their results will be anodyne when they should be concerning.

They say that the waste “is believed to be low level radioactive waste”. “Belief” is an unscientific word and is not as reassuring as “certainty”. From the date it was deposited and the amount it is abundantly clear that it stems from Britain’s nascent nuclear bomb programme. Such was the secrecy that members of the Cabinet were not informed (Aneurin Bevin famously resigned over this). I therefore do not trust the records or their assertion that the waste was indeed low-level. They say they
“believe” not that they “know” what is down there. For all we know the protective suits that may have been put there contain particles of Plutonium.
Moreover they have not answered Professor Dean’s argument that vibrations could cause collapse and scientifically assessed the consequences of vibrations on the structure of the shaft or upon its contents. They do not indicate whether the Uranium is 235 or 238 the half-life of which is considerably longer than the monitoring time disclosed. Even depleted Uranium is suspected of causing serious illness. Any exposure can be fatal. Nor do they indicate whether the Uranium has been encased in anything. If it had been encased in lead-lined concrete then emissions might well be acceptably low for a time but if the casing is smashed in a collapse or the containers decay the readings could change. At the time the deposits were made old oil drums were used. What happens when they fail? The modern practice for storage is far more robust.
They suggest a referral to The Health and Safety Executive which rather seems like passing the buck to me. Nevertheless I suppose their opinion should also be sought although I suspect that since the waste is radioactive they will suggest that an opinion should be sought elsewhere.
Further a FOIA request should be made to ascertain precisely what is there and how it was contained.
No opinion can be relied upon unless all these assessments are done on the basis of certain knowledge of the contents, how they are contained, the mine’s structure, the effect of vibration through the geological structure (of the turbines in operation as well as putting them in place), and the mine working network. The Environment
Agency’s response is ignorant of all these issues and savours more of reassuring spin by their customer services department than well researched expert opinion.
Even if the radioactive aspect can be satisfactorily answered the effect of vibration on the mine workings throughout the location needs to be considered if Professor Dean is correct (he has seen the findings of Dr Crowe who is continuing her research). No assessment has been done. PPS22 is silent on this point but there is a duty of care anyway (the cautionary principle). I have examined NCB plans of the mines in the area. Not only do they extend as far as White Syke but they go into Guide, Belthorn, and under my home. It is difficult to gauge how deep the tunnels are. Apparently the radioactive waste was carried in rather than tipped which would suggest that they are not that far from the surface.
I have had sight of the report of Lancashire County Council’s ecologist on
Oswaldtwistle Moor Wind Farm proposal and endorse his reservations. The “EIA in that application undervalues the site for its breeding bird interest as well as for its habitat quality”. Consequently the remedial measures proposed are misconceived and

probably inadequate and futile (he is sceptical on attempts at mitigation). The damage to the ecology is unavoidable and the mitigation ineffective. He cites PPS9 “if that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, the planning permission should be refused.”
The BHS site is really important enough to receive a recommendation for SSSI status which would have excluded the location ab initio. He too refers to Regional Spatial
Strategy Policy EM1. As he says, quoting the Lancashire Landscape and Heritage
SPG such a site “should be considered in terms of their level of importance rather than their designation”. It would derogate from the cautionary principle on this ground too to ignore his reservations.
If monitoring and strict conditions are imposed in the event of permission being granted, the cost of monitoring will have to be weighed in the balance. In the same way that no latitude should be conceded for mitigation only “if possible”, so too the
S106 Agreement should require resource based rather than financial based compensation as the cost will increase over the life of the wind farm and supplementary mitigation will be required. He also draws attention to the payback time in CO2 released by the development -something I have commented on above.
PPS23 and its advocacy of the “precautionary principal”.
In the Introduction (para 2) it advises that “any consideration of the quality of land, air, or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material Planning consideration in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use”. Given what I have said previously regarding the effect of wind turbine noise and the radioactive waste down
Belthorn Mineshaft the relevance is absolute.
Paragraph 6 says that the Government is committed to using the Precautionary
Principle. This states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing costeffective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. It goes on to say that the principle should be invoked when:
“There is good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or plant health, or to the environment; and the level of scientific uncertainty about the consequences or likelihood of the risk is such that the best available scientific advice cannot assess the risk with sufficient confidence to inform decision making”. I don’t believe that any such measures will prevent the harm that is foreseen.
Needless to say this applies to potential noise effects now that ETSU-R-97 has been undermined and the radioactive waste in the mineshaft which could be disturbed by vibration according to Professor Dean and Dr. Crowe. The same applies to the devastating effects on the BHS (SSSI pending) and the irreparable damage caused to the moor and the visual impact as detailed elsewhere.
In Paragraph 10 it remarks “The planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impacts of those uses,

rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves”. I say that no conditions can be imposed that would mitigate the deleterious effects of this wind farm.
Paragraphs 16-20 refer to contaminated land and the potential for removing as opposed to exposing or facilitating the escape of contamination such as the 724 tonnes of radioactive waste in the mines. As paragraph 20 says “Land contamination or the possibility of it is therefore a material planning consideration..........in taking decisions on individual planning applications”.
Paragraph 24 goes onto say “In such cases, it should normally require at least a desk study of the readily available records assessing the previous uses of the site and their potential for contamination in relation to the proposed development. If the potential for contamination is confirmed, further studies by the proposed developer to assess the risks and identify and appraise the options for remediation should be required”.
There are no readily available records as the contamination was done secretly and prior to any planning regime. There has been no such desk study. We know that radioactive waste in the form of uranium powder is stored somewhere in the complex of mine tunnels which stretch from Belthorn to Guide and Haslingden Road (White
Syke) and the Grey Mare on Grane Road. Nobody knows exactly where it is, or how it is encased, or how deep it is. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4,500,000,000 years!
Research by Dr. Crowe suggests that mine shafts and tunnels may collapse through vibration.
Nobody can categorically assure local residents that vibration from the turbines or their installation will not in some way cause the exposure of the powdered uranium referred to and the lethal consequences of such exposure. There has been no EIA by the developer on this issue. The science is uncertain and therefore the Precautionary
Principle must be applied. It would be extremely expensive (it requires permission merely to inspect such waste) to achieve the aim of Paragraph 25 “As a minimum, after carrying out the development and commencement of its use, the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the
EPA1990”.
Appendix A emphasises inter alia the effects on “health, the natural environment or general amenity” and specifically refers to SSSIs in being potentially sensitive to adverse effects. Whilst it refers to reducing carbon emissions it also tells planners to consider “the possibility that the development might present a Major Accident Hazard under the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1999”. That possibility is present here as the release of uranium powder from a shaft or tunnel close to one of the turbines would be such an accident and would be the equivalent of a terrorist dirty bomb!
PPS23 has as high a status as PPS 24 (which in its own words is discretionary) in planning law and may not be ignored. All the potential effects of environmental degradation referred to in previous correspondence including wind shear and other noise that may cause health problems are to be considered as subject to the
Precautionary Principle.
Yours faithfully,

Stuart Kaufman
Whetstone Edge Farm,
Redshell Lane,
Hyndburn,
BB1 2PH