|
|
January 18th, 2012 The photographs below show the first photographic submission by the applicant, the latest submission by the applcant (both using a wide angle lens) and our interpretation – the latter using a 50mm lens and more correctly exposed, which is good practice when depicting visual impact. All are taken from approximately the same location. An actual WES turbine, in actual colours is shown in our interpretation) (It should be noted that we believe our interpretation still underestimates the impact, as the baloon, used to centre the turbine was not flying at a vertical height of 30m) Click on the images to see a larger view
At the same time the turbines have been getting quieter with the latest noise assement appears to claim that at 200m a turbine will be 37 dB, rather than the 45dB claimed on the manufacturers website.
To make matters worse, the site is approved for a biomass plant.Having stated “we have had no other option but to shelve this project for the time being”, around the 17 October 2011, within a month work had commenced on the plant.
It is good that people from outside the area are in favour of wind turbines, as are we. It is unlikely that they are aware of the impact of these specific turbines as it has been almost impossible to understand from the data which has been submitted.
Wind turbines are an excellent form of renewable energy. Some people do not like them spoiling the views in the countryside when out for a walk. This is considerably different from having one invading the privacy of your own home, either visually or with noise – particularly relevant to the proposed turbines at Douglas Valley given the topography of the land and the number of people directly affected.
There will be many more applications for turbines in the local area – it is only to be hoped that these will provide accurate and detailed informtion from the outset and that they will not effect so many residents on a personal basis – so that the whole community can embrace this technology.
December 31st, 2011 The latest information on the Douglas Valley Golf Course Turbines, can be found
HERE
December 20th, 2011 Happy Christams and Best Wishes for 2012
“Well there was no condition specifying it could not be illumintated !!!”
December 9th, 2011 Having stated “ we have had no other option but to shelve this project for the time being, around the 17 October 2011, http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/Documents/110598_23.pdf
Within a month the development has commenced – although the information was not available until after the due decision date for the turbines, in which the above statement was made,
http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/Documents/116407_15.pdf
December 8th, 2011 The planning committee are due to visit the site, this morning at 11.20 am
The planning committee is scheduled for 2pm at the Town Hall – the public are invited to attend – however we understand that the planning officer will now be recommending deferment – and it is unclear whether the application will be considered.
“Dear All,
As you may or may not be aware a revised noise assessment was submitted by the applicant late yesterday, as well as various submissions from residents and BHEAG. This amounts to a lot of information which needs to be digested and considered by officers before being presented to the Planning Committee. It is key that the information presented is correct and members make their decision based on this information.
The timescales to consider the amount of information are too tight and therefore officers will recommend the Planning Committee defer the application at this afternoon’s meeting to enable full consideration of the information.
The final decision whether to defer the application will lie with the planning committee, so this email is a precursor to this afternoon’s meeting, but I trust it forewarns you of what may happen.
Please note the site visits planned to the golf club and 38 Nightingale Road will still take place this morning. The planning committee are due to arrive at the golf club at 11.20am.
I appreciate this email will not reach every resident directly, but I would appreciate your co-operation in passing the message onto as many people as possible.
Regards
Andrew”
The meeting was deferred with an incredible amount of informtation included in the late list.suppl
December 6th, 2011 A great number of concerns remain unanswered about the proposed devlopment.
A brief summary, of some of the concerns can be found Douglas Valley Golf Course BHEAG x
December 1st, 2011 The officer is recommending approval.
Apparently ignoring the deficiencies in the noise report regarding the timing of data - which the officer tacitly agrees has ignored guidance, but will be revisted in the next week and the fact that the noise data appears at best unrealistic – in that the noise generated by the turbine appears to be 75% less than the manufacturer states !!
The precise impact on the public footpath is unclear – other than to say it should be diverted.
The proposed conditions seem to ignore guidance regarding end of life and the colour of the turbines.
Almost bizarrely the officer seems to acknowledge that there is a risk of golf balls hitting the blades – either accidently or on purpose – the consequences of which should be considered after the event !!
Pages from Pages from report -22
Pages from Pages from report-22-27
November 25th, 2011 Residents have been confused at how the applicant for the turbines on Douglas Valley golf course, can refer to the turbines as small. How the turbines were originally appeared to be in the wrong scale on the photo montages.
Now residents are bemused with the updated noise statement. Whilst updating the noise statement, the noise source has been reduced from c 104 dB to 97.1 dB. (as of 07/12/2011 the noise source has decreased further to 92dB)
No explanation is given for this reduction of 75% Even the manufacturers own website seems to suggest the figure is wrong.
No explanation is given why one of the turbines (the one closest to Nightingale Road) is missing or why the combined effect, which we estimate would add over 3dB is missing.
The assesment also appears to avoid the noise generated if it gets windy, limiting it to 8m/s (about 2/3 of its top speed)
For the “alternative” analysis of the noise generation see http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/Documents/111580_65.pdf
Meanwhile Prince Phillip slams turbines as a “Fairytale”
The UK currently has a total of 3,421 turbines, with 2,941 onshore and there are proposals in place by the Government to build a further 4,500
October 28th, 2011 The outer tips of the turbine blades will travel at up to 246 miles per hour
- What happens if a golf ball from the driving range hits this moving object ?
The Highways agency consider the issue:-
‘Icing’
9. A further factor that must be considered is the phenomenon of ice being thrown from the turbine blades (‘icing’). In certain meteorological conditions, significant accretionsof ice can build up on wind turbine blades. Surprisingly, moving blades are affected toa far greater extent than stationary blades.
10. Warming or fragmentation may then lead to ice being shed from the rotating blades. Large fragments may be thrown a considerable distance.
11. Again, this is a very rare event and the frequency of occurrence does decrease markedly with distance. Nevertheless, the consequences of an ice projectile hitting a moving vehicle could be severe. Not only would the occupants be at risk but a multivehicle accident could result.
12. Most modern wind turbines will have vibration and/or climate sensitive technology that will shut down the turbine if there is the potential for icing. Where this technology is present there should be no need to consider this issue further. Evidence of this technology on the proposed turbines should be provided.
Quote of the day : “
“The Council and its partners will: Ensure Protected Open Land around Horwich and Blackrod remains undeveloped and will Ensure that new development does not harm the landscape setting and protects views from public areas to the surrounding landscape.
I have to wonder how much power generation will have to be carried out in this area before it is considered too much.”
October 27th, 2011 Our best interpretation of the location of the turbines is given below. (Based on SD references and photograph montages) The height (including rotors ) is approximately the same as the Roscoe tower (to the left of the Millstone). The red dots have a diameter equivelant to approximately 30-40 m. Small is definately not a word you would honestly use to describe them. (The department for transport classes a small turbine as upto 50Kw)
This would appear to contravene guidance http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C245244.pdf
October 26th, 2011  
Note: the above photo has been corrected to a normal lens, rather than wide angle
October 25th, 2011 ” turbines will ‘compromise’ golf”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/05/donald-trump-legal-fight-windfarm
see aslo http://www.golfclubmanagement.net/2011/09/wind-turbines-they-dont-have-to-be-big-but-they-are-clever/
Closer to home,
(http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/Documents/111580_6.pdf) may misrepresent the appearance of the 2 turbines. The location from where the photograph was taken is 149m ASL (above sea level) and the left turbine tip height is 157m ASL (the ground level appears to be 112m ASL). The extract below of the montage highlights Roscoe Lowe (Red box) which is 160m ASL. Therefore the top of the rotor will be in line with this feature.
http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/Documents/111580_17.pdf
- Meanwhile the 45m high, 700m squared sweep (x2) of the turbine blades was represented by a yellow balloon flying on a 30m length (in slight wind). Unsurprisingly this cannot be seen on two of the submitted photographs (even though one is in close proximity) – how strange. http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/Documents/110598_56.pdf
If anyone does spot the balloon perhaps they can let us know (or is that the whole purpose – the agent wants residents to believe nobody is actually going to see the turbines ?) How very bizarre – almost unbelievable
- Then I suppose the high energy use of the golf course, the reason for the biomass plant and two turbines, which will produce 36 GWh of electric per year, enough electric for almost 11,000 houses (each using 3,300Kwh) is also unbelievable
October 20th, 2011 A link to the most recent (draft) report can be found here
Abstract
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby
residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence
takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of
systematically-gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the
seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of
observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data. Proponents of turbines
have sought to deny these problems by making a collection of contradictory claims including that
the evidence does not “count”, the outcomes are not “real” diseases, the outcomes are the victims’
own fault, and that acoustical models cannot explain why there are health problems so the
problems must not exist. These claims appeared to have swayed many non-expert observers,
though they are easily debunked. Moreover, though the failure of models to explain the
observed problems does not deny the problems, it does mean that we do not know what, other
than kilometers of distance, could sufficiently mitigate the effects. There has been no policy
analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the
evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross
incompetence or intentional bias.
A recent Canadian court case concluded “
This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans.The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”
http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/decisions/index.htm
A summary of new evidence can be found here
October 18th, 2011 A big thank you from Blackrod residents to the army of helpers who delivered nearly two thousand leaflets, concerning the Douglas Valley Turbine development today – in wind and hail.
|
Donate
BHEAG relies on public donations. If you would like to donate please click the Donate button.
|
