CPRE Cornwall
Main Menu
Alerts
Home
News
Events
Campaigns
Notices
Editorial Comment
Join us
Contact Us
Links
Wind Farm Alert
Saturday, 02 August 2008
 

The Government is determined to ruin the environment with Wind Farms

 

 

Recent reports have revealed the Government's determination to force through unwanted objectives for renewable energy that will change the face of the British countryside for ever.  This is despite the ever increasing financial cost of wind turbines and with a complete disregard for the inefficiency of wind energy.

 

Planning laws are being changed to make it easier for wind turbines and wind farms to be given the go-ahead.  Clause S151 of the Planning Bill just before Parliament seeks to exclude any redress against noise or physical damage caused by any development, works or operations that have been authorised by an order granting planning consent.

 

A report in The Daily Telegraph on July 26th revealed that Council Tax bandings had been reduced due to the close proximity of wind turbines - effectively reducing the value of the properties concerned.

 

With the Government determined to construct 4000 wind turbines off-shore by 2020 and site another 3000 around Britain during the same period, it seems as if political considerations have outweighed any consideration of cost-effectiveness or the possible effects on the UK's rural environment.  These damaging effects include loss of land for food production, loss of recreational land and the loss of a rural environment that is beneficial to the health of the nation.  Furthermore, the attractiveness of the land will deteriorate to such an extent that the tourist industry could be fatally harmed - and not just by wind turbines, but by transmission lines and electricity substations, too!

 

The Government backs its pledge to increase the supply of renewable energy by providing taxpayers' money to encourage the construction of wind turbines and wind farms, and insisting that the National Grid purchases most of the electricity produced.  Despite the many wind turbines or wind farms envisaged, it will still be necessary to provide an alternative source of power generation, as the wind is not a constant factor.  Even Denmark, Europe's most intensive user of wind power, still has to provide 81% of its electricity from other sources such as coal.  It also has to be noted that even with over 6000 wind turbines electricity in Denmark costs more than elsewhere in Europe, which suggests that wind energy is not at all satisfactory, as it is expensive and inefficient.

 

In Cornwall, there are currently seven major wind farms in existence.  These are at:

 

                  Delabole (NW of Camelford) - 10 turbines from 1991

                  Carland Cross (NE of Truro) - 15 turbines from 1992

                  Cold Northcott (W of Launceston) - 21 turbines from 1993

                  Goonhilly Downs (SE of Helston) - 14 turbines from 1993

                  St Breock (SW of Wadebridge) - 11 turbines from 1994

                  Four Burrows (NW of Truro) - 15 turbines from 1995

                 

Nine more wind farms are proposed for Cornwall in the next few years.  These will be at:

 

                  Trerulefoot WW1 (SE Cornwall) - 2 turbines

                  Trerulefoot WW2 - (SE Cornwall) - 3 turbines

                  Penpell (Lanlivery) - 2 turbines

                  Otterham A (Camelford) - 5 turbines

                  Otterham (Boscastle) - 5 turbines

                  Penpell Farm WWR (St Blazey) - 2 turbines

                  Crimp (Kilkhampton) - 3 turbines

                  Davidstow Community Windfarm (Bodmin Moor) - 20 turbines

                  Goonhilly Repowering (SE of Helston) - 6 turbines

 

Source of existing and proposed wind farms in Cornwall: http://www.yes2wind.com/

 

In addition to those listed above, two wind turbines were recently erected north west of Falmouth at Roskrow, as well as four on the waterfront at Jubilee Wharf in Penryn.      

 

We must remain alert to constant attempts by the Government to impose unwanted wind turbines on the country, and particularly those planned for Cornwall.   Even though isolated turbines are leading the way and giving encouragement to larger wind farms, all need not be lost as these plans can be successfully challenged.  Remember that the 189 wind turbines proposed by the Government for the northern part of Lewis, in the Outer Hebrides, was rejected by the Scottish Parliament.

 

Ted Venn

1st August 2008

 
Health and Safety Threat to Trees
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
   

NEW SAFETY GUIDELINES POSE UNNECESSARY THREAT TO TREES

 

CPRE is today (Wednesday, July 30th) urging the British Standards Institution (BSI) to change their plans for guidelines on tree safety [1].

 

‘The BSI has generated anxiety and confusion with proposals which could threaten the future of trees valued for their public amenity,' said Tom Oliver, Head of Rural Policy at CPRE. 

 

‘There is a real risk that members of the public will worry about costs and liabilities arising from trees in their gardens near public rights of way, pavements or other houses. They may be encouraged to take unnecessary pre-emptive action and fell trees to avoid inspection costs and liabilities,' Tom Oliver continued.

 

CPRE is concerned that the loss to the quality of towns and villages as well as the immediate surroundings of public rights of way could be severe for reasons that are avoidable.

 

‘The BSI should act swiftly to dispel these fears and prevent the unnecessary loss of trees,' Tom Oliver declared.

 

Neither the Health and Safety Executive nor the Government's independent advisers on risk support the proposals [2]. The BSI has also acted before knowing the conclusions of important research due to be commissioned by the Tree Safety Group [3].

 

‘Public safety is vital, but great care needs to be taken to avoid unnecessary actions which would damage the character of our towns and villages, their resilience to extreme weather and the wildlife and heritage associated with them. It is encouraging that, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn MP, seems to agree,' Tom Oliver concluded [4].

 

NOTES

 

 

1    The draft guidelines BS 8516 Recommendations for Tree Safety Inspection can be viewed on the BSI website (you will need to register first): http://drafts.bsigroup.com/?d=127  The consultation closes on 31 July 2008.

 

Summary of proposals:

 

 

•·         All trees should have a ‘walk by' inspection by their owners at least once a year, followed by a ‘trained person' tree inspection every three years and an expert inspection every 5 years.  The guidelines are not clear whether this is only in places where there is public access and the three and five year inspections could have cost implications for the tree owner;

 

•·         The details of each inspection should be recorded in varying detail for each time band. 

 

2    Both the Health and Safety Executive and the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council have condemned the BSI proposals:  http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46699.pdf  Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment supported this view in a speech on the natural environment on 21 July 2008 and said ‘or planting more trees in our streets - and celebrating them as the green lungs they are rather than inspecting them as health and safety hazards'.

 

3    The Tree Safety Group recently held a stakeholder conference about ‘Tree Management for Public Safety' and a research project is due to commence. 

 

http://www.treeworks.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/06/08/the-tree-safety-group-tree-management-for-public-safety/ 

 

4    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, gave a speech on the natural environment on 21 July 2008, on the tree safety inspections he said:

 

‘There is one other thing we must value too. And that is the means by which we can do all this - and more - things which cannot be achieved by Government alone.

 

Whether it is a thriving, environmentally sustainable farming industry, or more parks, and woodlands and forests, or creating marine conservation zones, or more children having the chance to visit farms or national parks to learn about the natural world, or every family having a pleasant green space to exercise in and enjoy, or planning decisions taken with sustainability in mind, or planting more trees in our streets - and celebrating them as the green lungs they are rather than inspecting them as health and safety hazards - we depend on one another.'

 

 

Editorial Comment:

 

It must be remembered that the felling or pruning of most trees will require planning consent first.

 

Ted Venn

30th July 2008

 
Higher Standards for Eco-Towns
Thursday, 24 July 2008
 

HIGHER STANDARDS FOR ECO TOWNS - A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

 

CPRE has welcomed the publication today (Thursday, July 24th) of two reports setting out the Government's latest thinking on eco-towns. They describe standards eco-towns should achieve, the planning process and timetable [1].

 

Kate Gordon CPRE's senior planner said:

 

‘The signs are that the Government is starting to listen to people's concerns about eco-towns.  We are delighted that the Government has decided to delay publishing a Planning Policy Statement on eco-towns until September and to consult stakeholders about what it should contain in the meantime. Ultimately, we would prefer a statement explaining how statutory planning procedures should be followed, rather than yet another PPS.' 

 

‘We welcome some of the standards announced today, such as a minimum of one job provided per house and locating homes within ten minutes walk of services. Some standards need to be made more challenging. For example:

 

  • if transport plans are to reflect the very best European examples they should aim for significantly less than 50% of trips by car;
  • homes should achieve Sustainable Code Level Six, rather than Four [2], given that Level Six will be mandatory for all new development by 2016;
  • a measure of zero carbon should apply to the whole settlement, covering transport as well as buildings.'

 

 

CPRE remains concerned, however, about the planning process for agreeing where eco-towns are built.  It is calling on the Government to ensure that decisions on eco-towns do not ride roughshod over normal planning procedures.  

 

Kate Gordon concluded:

 

‘Many people are rightly concerned about a programme that has been pursued outside the planning system [3].  Local and regional plans enable proposals to be tested in the light of their effects on the environment and local communities who agree where and how development should take place. The Government should make it clear how these arrangements will be safeguarded.'

 

 

NOTES

 

 

1    Eco-towns living a greener future: progress report and Eco-towns: Sustainability appraisal - Scoping report for the Planning Policy Statement on Eco-towns, published by Communities and Local Government are available from:

 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/publications/all/

 

2    The Code measures the sustainability of a new home against categories of sustainable design, rating the ‘whole home' as a complete package.  The Code uses a 1 to 6 star rating system to measure the sustainability performance of a new home.  The Code sets minimum standards for energy and water use at each level and, within England, replaces the EcoHomes scheme, developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). On the 27 February 2008 the Government announced a mandatory rating against the Code would be required for new homes from 1 May 2008.  Further information is available from:

 

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314116927.html

 

3    A legal opinion by counsel for the Local Government Association casts doubt on the legality of the eco-towns process and suggests grounds on which a legal challenge may be made. Key concerns raised in the opinion are the conflict between identifying and promoting specific eco-towns in a Planning Policy Statement and the plan led-process and questions over whether the Government's approach will fulfil requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment under the EU Directive. CPRE shares the LGA's concerns.

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 25 - 28 of 52