Page 290
Minutes 83
Minutes of the Meeting of Hanwell Parish Council
Held on Wednesday, 5th October 2011
Present:
Councillors: John Spratt, Bob Dainty, Giles Dessain, Charles NixonEckersall, Arnold Bailey, Gordon Polson
Jayne Gordon (minutes)
Apologies:
Councillors: John Hart
Others:
Cllr Val Ingram (Chairman, Shotteswell PC), Ian & Lavina Roughley
(Shotteswell), Keith Harrier (Shotteswell), Jill Hart (Hanwell), Cllr Doug
Webb (Cherwell District Council), Cllr George Reynolds (Oxfordshire
County Council), Cllr Ken Atack (Cherwell District Council, Cropredy
Ward), Nigel Hall (Chairman, SHAMWAG), Alan Jones (Hanwell)
Declarations of interest: None
328
Cllr Spratt opened the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the
response to the planning application that has been lodged for the erection of an
anemometer on land between Hanwell and Shotteswell. The Parish Council is
invited to respond to this application by Cherwell District Council (CDC).
This is the first meeting that Hanwell Parish Council has held formally on the
subject of the windfarm and the Parish Council is pleased to see the emergence of
SHAMWAG which is a body representing the 6 affected villages and which has
already issued 2 newsletters and has raised profile, people’s interest, etc.
The Parish Council is extremely grateful to Alan Jones, who is experienced in this
field, for all his help.
The Parish Council needs to consider, with Alan’s help, its response to the
planning application. Based on previous experience with planning issues
concerning Hanwell Fields, the idea would be to encourage individuals in the
village to write their own separate letters in response to the application in order to
achieve maximum effect.
Alan Jones advised the meeting that as the planning application is for an
anemometer, this is what the focus needs to be on. In his opinion, it will be
difficult to oppose this in the light of similar applications in the area, ie Bishops
Itchington – where the application was initially turned down, subsequently there
were 2 appeals and finally it was approved and has now been erected.
… Continued
Page 291
The PC has 5 days to respond to the application and the general public has about 2
weeks.
Cllr Webb advised the meeting that the planning application would be going to the
planning committee as opposed to being delegated. The effect of this is that, when
the application goes to committee, Cllr Webb, on behalf of Hanwell, will be given
an amount of time to get the village’s views across. In addition, the applicant will
have 5 minutes in which to speak if he so wishes and a member of the public will
also have 5 minutes to speak. The committee meeting will be held sometime in
December and the Parish Council should be informed in due course of the date of
the committee meeting.
Cllr Webb informed the meeting that no one had contacted him in favour of the
windfarm. He is currently trying to gather information to prove how inefficient
wind turbines actually are. He reiterated that the planning application is only for
the test mast, not the actual windfarm. Once the tests have been done by the mast,
the company will have to apply for permission for between 5 and 8 wind turbines.
The angle that Cllr Webb will come from is the inefficiency of the turbines and the
noise and interference that the turbines cause, and although a green innovation, it is
a blot on the agricultural landscape.
It was felt that the development of a windfarm would have a much greater impact
than even Hanwell Fields has had and that it would seriously alter the landscape
and the quality of all the villages in the vicinity. Taking the emotion out of the
situation, it was felt that it was totally illogical to consider putting up a windfarm
between the 2 villages.
There is a bill that is currently before parliament to bring about the same law that
applies in other countries regarding the distance of wind turbines from dwellings.
If that bill was enacted, there would be no question of constructing wind turbines
on the land between Hanwell and Shotteswell as at any point they would be too
close to houses. This is an important reason for delay and for circumspection.
Stratford District Council refused an almost identical application twice and then
lost on appeal, however this meant that they had managed to delay it for a couple
of years. Alan Jones pointed out that if the law that was now in force in Scotland
regarding distances was in force in England, it would not be possible to have a
windfarm in the south of England and he feels that the government might not
therefore tolerate this law.
There is also the question of finance. It will cost the planning authorities
considerable time and money to investigate this issue which may well turn out to
be illegal.
As the application is going to committee, instead of detailing all the objections
now, it might be better to supplement the case at a later date as it comes to
committee.
… Continued
Page 292
Nigel Hall from the windfarm action group, SHAMWAG, made 2 points:
-
The immediate objective is to get as many members of the public writing
in objecting to the mast application.
To follow up on the scoping document as this links the mast to the
windfarm. There is a threshold at which a developer needs to have a full
and very expensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out,
which the developer has to pay for. Therefore the local authority is asked
for their scoping opinion on whether it is necessary to prepare an EIA. It is
Alan Jones opinion that an EIA will have to be prepared because of the
scale of the proposal, and the scoping opinion is a step that has to be gone
through to formally to say to the local authority that an EIA is necessary.
The scoping opinion is a very technical document.
SHAMWAG will be looking closely at the scoping document, prepared by
Regeneco, to see if there are any points that could be pulled out to assist the
objection. It is often the case that the authority might not have
much local information about a proposed site and it would therefore be worth
looking at this. It is also possibly the case that the district council may not know a
great deal about windfarms in general and therefore may not understand what the
issues are.
The scoping document needs to be looked at and commented on if necessary
within the next 5 days.
Hanwell PC has not received a copy of the scoping document as yet however
SHAMWAG does have a copy.
Cllr Webb confirmed that the most effective approach to object to the planning
application was for submissions to be put in from the Parish Council, SHAMWAG
and as many individuals as possible – ie the more that respond, the more weight is
added.
Planning reasons have to be found as objections.
Each of the 6 parishes, through their parish councils, ought to write its own letter
representing the view of each of the villages and, in addition, each resident in each
village ought to write their own separate letter expressing their view.
Cllr Ingram informed the meeting that SHAMWAG has already made contact
with all of the parish councils in the area that will be affected, this includes
Banbury town council as traffic will be affected by the construction of the actual
windfarm if it goes ahead.
It was agreed that the Parish Council should write to CDC opposing the mast
application.
… Continued
Page 293
The planning policy context is:
Regeneco have set out what they think are the main planning policies. CDC has a
draft policy, SD3, which was in their draft core strategy about renewables, they
tried to set out the areas they thought should be looked at when they are assessing
proposals for wind turbines, test masts, etc. In turn, these are:
- impact on landscape character and visual impact
- impact on biodiversity
- impact on historic environment
- impact on residential amenity
- impact on aviation activities
- highways and access issues
A lot of these will not apply to the test mast.
Alan’s conclusions are that the strongest reasons for objecting on planning grounds
seem to be:
- adverse impact on landscape character of having an industrialised structure 200
feet high on what is effectively farmland and nothing else.
- adverse visual impact of having that intruding on the landscape. Not only are is
the quality and character of the landscape itself being changed , but the quality and
character of the landscape in terms of people looking at it is affected.
- adverse effect on biodiversity – on this issue SHAMWAG has decided to
withhold most of its objections for the time being and not be too specific.
- hazard to aviation. This argument did not particularly help the Bishops
Itchington objection, but there is a lot of activity in this area and the mast will be
almost invisible against the sky.
The point was made that as there is only 1,800 m between the two villages, it will
be difficult to site the wind turbines and still follow CDC planning guidelines
which recommend that turbines be sited at least 800 m from any dwelling. There
are currently no similar guidelines for Stratford under which Shotteswell comes.
However, the application is only for a test mast and, at present, the windfarm does
not come into the equation.
Cllr Spratt proposed that Alan Jones’ guidance is followed, together with the issues
that SHAMWAG raise, resulting in a letter being written to CDC opposing the
application for the wind mast.
In addition, the Parish Council supports and encourages SHAMWAG in their
efforts in getting individuals to write individual letters to CDC and also supports
and encourages the other local parish councils. After the letter has been submitted,
the Parish Council should take every opportunity to lobby planning committee
members and to try to find and feed in information not in the letter in support of
the objection. In addition, the Parish Council ought to provide someone to stand
up at the committee meeting in order to provide a physical presence.
… Continued
Page 294
Cllr Spratt thanked Nigel Hall, Val Ingram, Alan Jones and others who have
already put in a lot of effort to this cause.
It was felt that the existence of the mast itself will degrade the landscape and
makes a windfarm more possible than it would have been had the landscape
remained virgin. The legal argument against that is that the mast is a temporary
structure and will have to be removed after 24 months and will therefore have no
lasting impact on the landscape.
Nigel Hall informed the meeting that there is a 2nd SHAMWAG meeting to be
held in Hanwell on Saturday, 7th October. At this meeting, it is intended to try and
focus specifically on the met mast application and the letters that need to be
written, as at the moment this is currently what the fight is against. To this end,
everyone will be given a draft response letter – and each element of the letter will
be explained at the meeting so that people understand the situation. It will also be
made clear that all adults can respond, so it is not a per house response, but a per
person response. SHAMWAG intends to collect the letters once written to send to
CDC.
Cllr Webb feels that it will be almost impossible to stop the wind mast on planning
grounds. Although the planning application is for the wind mast alone, he feels
that perhaps it should be mentioned what the mast is leading to, ie a windfarm. He
does not feel that there will be a good enough argument to stop the wind meter
Alan Jones has helped by drafting out some ideas about the sort of letter that the
PC could write to object to the wind meter. It will be necessary to pull out all the
planning policies to help support the PC’s case against the wind meter. Particular
policies should be quoted that will back up the argument.
It is also SHAMWAG’s intention to try and help CDC with ‘best practice’ in terms
of planning rules, with particular reference to the bill already mentioned.
SHAMWAG has established that Cambridgeshire has already taken on the 2 km
rule proposed by the bill.
There does seem to be a growing realisation that windfarms are inefficient and that
they are a big issue in terms of the landscape. SHAMWAG feels that if it can stall
the met mast and give CDC any reasons for stalling, then it would work in
Hanwell’s favour.
Alan Jones pointed out that this tactic is only of limited use and Regeneco would
probably be able to get an appeal within 2 months.
It was agreed that it was not by coincidence that this site has been chosen – it has
already been identified as being a windy area.
Cllr Webb made the point that Regeneco has evidently gone around the area and
worked out how to fit in the windfarm to comply with all the current legislation.
… Continued
Page 295
Although the met mast will have permission for 24 months, there is no indication
in the documentation that it will be up for more than 12 months. Therefore, time is
of the essence.
It would appear that Regeneco has many such applications pending throughout the
country. Nigel Hall confirmed that this was one of the reasons that SHAMWAG
felt it was important to put up a good fight, in the hope that Regeneco would
choose the path of least resistance and use a different site
Nigel Hall said that one of the purposes of SHAMWAG could be to do things that
the PC might not be able to do, for example, make it know that the only people
getting any benefit out of the windfarm will be Regeneco and the land owners,
none of whom live anywhere near Hanwell/Shotteswell.
It was agreed that Alan Jones would draft the response letter outlining the planning
issues for the Parish Council which he would then send to the clerk for submission
to CDC. This does not have to be the last submission that will be made as Alan
will make the point in the letter that the PC reserves the right to add additional
information.
Action: Alan Jones / Clerk
It was agreed that the Parish Council make known its formal decisions from the
meeting. It was agreed that a web page would be created on the village website
about the windfarm, and that this should have the draft letter for people to use.
Action: Alan Jones / Cllr Bailey
Cllr Dainty informed the meeting that Regeneco has arranged a meeting with the
local farmers for Monday of next week. One of the farmers is Cllr Hart. Cllr
Dainty thought that the Regeneco had invited the local farmers and the Parish
Council to attend. The PC has not received an invitation. It was agreed that Cllr
Hart could not attend the Monday meeting as a Parish Council representative, but
rather as a farmer, and that Regeneco would need to be made aware of this fact.
Cllr Dainty volunteered to speak to Cllr Hart about this.
Action: Cllr Dainty
From a compliance point of view, Regeneco should be contacting the Parish
Council at some point. Cllr Ingram felt that it would be better to let Regeneco
initiate this so as not to make things easy for them. Regeneco will need to be able
to say that proper community engagement has been carried out. All that has been
done to date is to distribute an anonymous flier throughout the village. The Parish
Council might be able to use this as a procedural point that has not been carried
out.
It was agreed that:
a.
The initial consultation contact from Regeneco to the village was
contained in an anonymous letter that looked like junk mail
b.
The PC has had no approach whatsoever from Regeneco as a matter of
courtesy to explain their proposals and actions.
… Continued
Page 296
Cllr Webb pointed out that Regeneco will be aware that the building of a windfarm
is not going to be popular and that Regeneco will make it their business to appear
to follow all the guideline rules when in fact perhaps they might not actually have
done so.
The next Parish Council meeting will be on
2nd November 2011 at 7.30 pm
Hanwell Village Hall
… Continued