Pinewood response to PfR Planning Application.
Stuart McAdam ref Planning Application B/13/01476
This submission from Pinewood Parish Council is in addition to the joint submission from
Pinewood, Belstead and Wherstead Parish Councils and SIT Action Group from our Planning
Consultant, Mike Barnard with its accompanying documents.
The following objections are those which we wish to emphasise as we believe they are particularly
pertinent to the residents of Pinewood and Thorington Park.
1. Residential Amenity
Pinewood Parish Council is not against wind power but we believe that siting this proposed wind
turbine so close to thousands of homes means that it will be in a totally inappropriate place. We
acknowledge the need for sustainable forms of energy and that the UK has renewable energy targets
to meet, but the EU has recently relaxed those targets and the building of off-shore wind farms
means that East Anglia has already made a sizeable contribution to the UK targets.
The building of the proposed 130m wind turbine will totally dominate our neighbourhood. It will
be 5 times higher than the neighbouring electricity pylons and the blades will span the equivalent
space of 1 acre. Residents from many parts of the parish will not be able to escape the sight of this
huge structure and its supporting concrete base built on farmland.
It will not be built on a flat plain, our landscape forms an amphitheatre so the sight and sound of it
is greatly emphasised. Wherever we move in our neighbourhood, it will dominate the landscape,
whether in the garden or driving or walking down the road.
It is not a case of motorists driving past and having it in their line of vision for a short time, but of
many people seeing it from a number of viewpoints every time they step out of their house.
Included in residential amenity is the problem of noise.
The developers of wind turbines, including Partnerships for Renewables (PfR) claim to be able to
mitigate the effects of noise from turbines. Mitigation does not mean the removal of noise; it merely
means conforming to ETSU-R-97
PFR claim in Planning Statement para. 5:6, that the design proposals have fully considered the
potential effect on residents and that the plan for the turbine means that it has been located
sufficiently far away from houses to protect residential amenity in respect of noise. It concludes that
the operational noise levels from the development fall within national guidelines, ETSU -R-97.
This guidance has been shown not to be fit for purpose in the context of turbines of this size in
densely populated areas. Scottish Guidelines state that there has to be justification for turbines be
within 2 Km of neighbouring houses. Most of Pinewood including Thorington Park falls within
this distance.
We have heard first hand of the continuing experience of residents in the Kessingland area, many of
whom are suffering real distress and disturbed sleep from the noise at night of the turbines near
their homes. Many of these residents were in favour of the turbines before they were built, but
consequently have suffered from the effects and have changed their minds and are desperate to have
them turned off. Many more residents in Pinewood including Thorington Park than in Kessingland
will be affected if this proposal goes ahead.
As already stated, turbine developers claim they can provide mitigation in respect of noise levels
but this does not mean that the noise problem is solved. The noise cannot and will not be
switched off.
Pinewood response to PfR Planning Application.
PfR seem to have taken the somewhat unsympathetic attitude that as we already experience noise
from the A 14, then more noise from a wind turbine will make no difference to us. The A14 can be
very quiet in the early hours of the morning and the sound of traffic goes away. The sound of a
turbine is regular and continual when the wind is blowing. Residents of Kessingland have
described the sound as whirring, droning or even like a helicopter overhead.
The Highways Agency is likely to adopt road surface quietening measures such as those at
Sproughton and Trimley so noise from the A14 in the future is likely to be reduced.
We do not believe therefore that PfR can realistically state in Planning Statement para 6:5 that, “No
adverse effects will be caused to residential amenity.”
2. Landscape
The proposed turbine will have an unacceptable effect on our landscape. The footpaths and area
surrounding it are an important rural escape and amenity for many of us living in the town. It serves
as our ‘green lung’ and is used by many ramblers and dog walkers all year round. PfR mention
planting and foliage hiding some of the infrastructure but no amount of planting or spring/summer
foliage can possibly disguise a huge structure such as a 130metre wind turbine, despite PfR’s
attempt to hide it behind a bush by taking a photograph down in a dip at the Asda car park.
We are extremely concerned that if permission is given for one turbine then it will be very difficult
for Babergh District Council to refuse permission for others in the area. As connection to the
National Grid of the initial turbine is part of the most expensive aspect of the venture, then it is
likely that there could be requests for others despite what PFR say now. This has been the pattern in
other places. If that happens then our green and pleasant landscape will be transformed into an
industrial zone.
3. Claims of Benefits to the area.
PFR claim that the local area will enjoy economic benefits from the provision of jobs in the local
construction industry and then that local B&Bs will benefit from increased occupancy rates by
construction workers. Surely one statement contradicts the other. The envisaged construction
period is only 4-6months and by specialised trades which are likely to be from outside our
immediate area.
This case seems to be greatly overstated.
4. Consultation
PfR paint a very rosy picture of their consultation process in the planning literature.
Section 4 .1.5 in the Statement of Community Involvement says the company is “committed to
promoting an open and honest dialogue with the local community throughout the development
process.” Section 4. 1. 6 maintains that the company undertakes “that local communities and
stakeholders are consulted and kept informed throughout the development process and that only
appropriate developments go on to become full planning applications.”
This has not been our experience.
Pinewood Parish Council was initially contacted by PfR on 21. 02. 11 to inform it that wind
investigations for the possible siting of wind turbines were to take place and 13 months later
Pinewood response to PfR Planning Application.
residents were invited to visit the village of Kessingland where a turbine was already in operation.
No further direct contact was made by PfR until 31 October 2012, when a request was made to
attend a Parish Council Meeting.
In the interval members of the council had attended a public meeting at Belstead Village hall where
we heard testimonies from affected residents of Kessingland. After this meeting we felt compelled
to produce a newsletter for Pinewood residents informing them of what we had learned. In July
2012, we aimed to deliver it to all houses in our parish, something which as far as we are aware,
PfR had not done with its literature.
For reasons we have never had clearly explained, on 7th August 2012, PfR contacted a District
Councillor. In this e-mail, Alice Gill for PfR demanded that our leaflet be withdrawn, and implied
that the parish council had produced literature which was “not legal, decent, honest or truthful”.
There was a veiled threat to report us to the ASA if we did not withdraw it.
We had been very careful with the wording of the leaflet and it largely consisted of the first hand
experience of those living with wind turbines.
In a later paragraph we are accused of being involved in an activity designed to “make people angry
and frightened.” This is untrue. We regarded this as an attempt to silence us and prevent us from
giving our residents relevant information.
This e-mail also accused Pinewood and Belstead Parish Councils of funding campaign materials for
SIT (Stop Ipswich Turbines action group). This was something we had not done. In fact at that
stage as a parish council we had had no formal contact with SIT.
Everything we did then and have done since has been in good faith; if we had not taken steps to
inform our residents then we would not have been doing our duty as parish councillors.
We took legal advice and were assured that nothing in our leaflet could be considered to be
libellous or breached the CAP code and that we need not take any further action. We heard no more
on the matter from PfR.
After this PfR contacted us and requested an opportunity to attend a parish council meeting. The
council replied that a meeting initially with councillors was preferred, followed by attendance at a
full Pinewood Parish Council Meeting.
On 26. 11. 12 the councillors met with representatives of PfR to discuss the proposed turbine.
When we asked them what we could say to bring about a change of mind, we were told
nothing would! This was supposed to be during the consultation period.
The usual Pinewood Parish Council Meeting which Representatives of PfR attended was held on
11.02.13 after the “Surgery” at Belstead Brook Hotel. A number of us were concerned about the
accuracy of a number of PfR’S photographs at this event. The angles at which some were taken
were at a very flattering angle to the turbine to minimise the effect on the landscape. None showed
the proximity to houses in various parts of the locality though there was one of the A 14 and at least
one of the Orwell Estuary. When asked about the photographs, Susannah Miller replied that
“pertinent” photographs had been taken and when questioned further about this she said it was to
show what drivers would see as they travelled along the road. Obviously this was more important to
PfR than the effect on local residents
It was only after this that PfR produced any photographs showing images of the turbine in more
built-up areas.
Information leaflets produced by PfR have not shown locations in this area so have not given a
realistic impression of the effect the turbines could have.
This parish has been involved in organising two public meetings to inform and consult with about
residents the on- going situation. More than 300 people attended each meeting, far outnumbering
Pinewood response to PfR Planning Application.
the attendance at any PfR event.
For nearly 3 years the project has been known as the “Thorington Barns Wind Turbines.” Suddenly
in September 2013 because the plans for 2 turbines had been withdrawn, the name was changed to
“Pannington Farm Wind Turbine.”
This change of name seems to have had an effect on local people’s understanding of the project.
Many thought that the threat had gone. Thorington Barns had become well known during the past 3
years and the Met Mast which had been removed some months previously gave us all a good idea of
where the turbines would be located. The name “Pannington Farm” is not well known in the locality
so many people had no idea where the remaining turbine would be located even though it is only
700 metres away from the original site. Previously the emphasis had been on Thorington Barns.
This is a rather disingenuous act by PfR because as already stated, the change of name gave the
impression it was in a completely different place. There has been no meaningful consultation on
this particular individual site and it should be viewed as a new project and have its own full
consultation process. It is not good enough for PfR to claim that as they are only asking for
permission for one turbine then that is proof they have listened to our concerns.
The final exhibition in Pinewood was the actual day that the planning application was submitted
when some of the planning materials were available for residents to see. Very few people were able
to attend and as far as we know PfR only leafleted a few residents in Marbled White Drive. This
exhibition should not be included in the consultation phase because the application had already been
made so it was too late for any of our views to be considered.
We do not feel our questions have been met with full and open answers, in fact when asked at two
local council meetings how many houses were in the area which could be affected by the turbine the
answer was on both occasions that they did not know, couldn’t even give an estimate. In fact when
a ‘tricky’ question was asked the stock reply seemed to be that the questioner would be contacted
individually at a later date with the answer.
As this turbine will have an impact on the parishes of Pinewood, Belstead and Wherstead and the
SW Ipswich and Sprites Wards in Ipswich then this figure surely should have been known as it
totals more than 3 thousand homes.
PfR seem consider information giving surgeries and exhibitions as consultation. We consider
consultation to be a two -way process. We do not believe the developers have taken our concerns
for the residents of Pinewood including Thorington Park seriously.
5. House prices
The Valuation Office Agency has allowed some reductions in Council Tax Bands because the value
of houses has dropped because of proximity to wind turbines. There are more than two thousand
homes in our parish that could be under the threat of de-valuation.
6. Safety
A number of helicopters fly regularly across our area, in particular the police helicopter close to the
A14. In February 2012 an Army ‘Appache’ helicopter crashed into 80 ft pylon wires in the area
where the proposed turbine would be built. It was very fortunate that it crashed straight down. If a
similar aircraft collided with a 130m high turbine the result could be much more catastrophic over a
wider area, particularly for residents in Thorington Park. Such an incident could also be a hazard for
traffic on the A 14 which as you know is the main route to Felixstowe.
Pinewood response to PfR Planning Application.
Conclusion
We hope that the points we have raised will convince the Planning Officer and the Planning
Committee that to approve this planning application will result in a hugely detrimental effect upon
the lives and wellbeing of many residents in Pinewood and Thorington Park.
The Design and Access Statement Conclusion para. 8:3 states, “The benefits of the development
will outweigh any possible effects.” PFR have not provided any conclusive evidence to support this
assertion.
We wholeheartedly disagree that benefits will outweigh the negative effects. The UK contributes
only 2% of global emissions and the provision of electricity for only 1,280 homes certainly does not
outweigh the effects on our community for the next 25 years while an absentee landowning trust
reaps a significant financial benefit for each of those years.