<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Blackrod and Horwich Environmental Action Group</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk</link>
	<description>Two communities - one cause</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 06:36:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>British Medical Journal Raises Concerns about Wind Turbines</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/british-medical-journal-raises-concerns-about-wind-turbines/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/british-medical-journal-raises-concerns-about-wind-turbines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 17:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1527 March 2012</p> <p>&#8220;UK guidance &#8230;&#8230;.. means that turbines must be set back a minimum of 350-500m </p> <p>&#8230;&#8230;. A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom .. .Sleep disturbance may be <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/british-medical-journal-raises-concerns-about-wind-turbines/">British Medical Journal Raises Concerns about Wind Turbines</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1527" title="BMJ 8 March 2012" target="_blank">http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1527</a>   March 2012</p>
<p>&#8220;UK guidance &#8230;&#8230;.. means that turbines must be set back a minimum of 350-500m  </p>
<p>&#8230;&#8230;. A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom ..  .Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children&#8221;</p>
<p>The full text can be read here <a href='http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/BMJ-editorial-21apr121.pdf'>BMJ editorial March 2012</a></p>
<p>The UK Government is a signatory to the Rio Declaration which requires the Precautionary Principle to be invoked where there is uncertainty about the safety and well being of human kind, animals and plant life</p>
<p>&#8220;We contend that the onus of proving safety falls on those introducing new forms of environmental pollution, including noise pollution, not on those exposed to the pollutant.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;We are firm in our assertion that the evidence for harm at distances and noise levels permitted under current regulations in most jurisdictions is such that regulators should take notice and initiate research. If wind turbines are as benign as Prof Chapman asserts he should have no objection to research being undertaken&#8221;  CD Hanning and Alun Evans  15th March 2012</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/british-medical-journal-raises-concerns-about-wind-turbines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Extra support for BHEAG &#8211; and the Community</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/extra-support-for-bheag-and-the-community/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/extra-support-for-bheag-and-the-community/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 17:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greenbelt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>BHEAG with a small army of helpers, sometimes including the local youth group, have helped maintain and improve the appearance of Blackrod Cemetery, co-operating with Bolton Council, over the last years. Now, after nearly two years of requests the community pay back scheme have added their support. A campaign is also currently in its infancy <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/extra-support-for-bheag-and-the-community/">Extra support for BHEAG &#8211; and the Community</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BHEAG with a small army of helpers, sometimes including the local youth group,  have helped maintain and improve the appearance of Blackrod Cemetery, co-operating with Bolton Council, over the last years. Now, after nearly two years of requests the community pay back scheme have added their support.<br />
A campaign is also currently in its infancy to fully restore the cemetery chapel.<br />
The previously neglected rose garden, near to Vicarage Road has also been replanted &#8211; sponsored by BHEAG , with the support of local residents ( and their spades)  and Age Concern. Polyanthus are currently in bloom, with nearly three dozen new rose bushes, already planted.<br />
In this jubilee year the red, white and blue display of petunias will also add a little colour in the village.</p>
<p>We are often asked how many members are there in BHEAG. There are probably no more than a few dozen people at the core &#8211; all with the wider community at heart. At times when public meetings however, it is not uncommon for several hundred people to attend.</p>
<p>When BHEAG have spoken to local schools about the environment &#8211; it has become abundantly clear that the thing that the children most love about Blackrod and Horwich is the amazing countryside and the openess which surrounds our community. It is this countryside and openess  which often attracts people to this area.</p>
<p>It is also this countryside, with its low population densitity, which can provide very attractive to certain businesses. </p>
<p>Occassionally BHEAG are asked by residents to support them in opposing planning applications, often we decline the invitation. BHEAG do not object to many planning applications. In fact we rarely object, we usually ask for information , which we believe to be omitted or highly misleading to be clarified &#8211; such as 2 meter high walls, in an open plan estate, being &#8220;in-keeping&#8221;. Potentially highly contaminated land being ignored and the cumulative impact of hundreds of HGVs passing through a small town centre, passing within a few feet of local schools being potentially ignored. More recently identifying multiple fraudulent support letters.</p>
<p>Occasionaly we change our view. Such a situation is wind turbines eg Douglas Valley or Chadwicks. What appear to be well located sites actually have a massive impact on a few residents, who we believe  deserve the support of the whole community (and indeed would not be entertained by the councils that have quantifed the impact of wind turbines on distance to residential properties). </p>
<p> The poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)</p>
<p>“First they came for the communists,</p>
<p>          and I did not speak out</p>
<p>         —because I was not a communist;</p>
<p>Then they came for the trade unionists,</p>
<p>          and I did not speak out</p>
<p>         —because I was not a trade unionist;</p>
<p>Then they came for the Jews,</p>
<p>          and I did not speak out</p>
<p>          —because I was not a Jew;</p>
<p>Then they came for me</p>
<p>      —and there was no one left to speak out for me</p>
<p>With millions of pounds at stake,for the applicants  and with various threats of litigation against individuals and the group, we are proud at our 100% record -in dealing with substantiated proven facts. We are also proud that we have been able to improve the appearance of a few areas in our town, whilst protecting others and it is great news that there is now further support from The Community Pay Back scheme</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/05/extra-support-for-bheag-and-the-community/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bolton turbine refused permission</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/04/bolton-turbine-refused-permission/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/04/bolton-turbine-refused-permission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[greenbelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Bolton planning committee yesterday objected to a wind turbine at Matchmoor stables, Horwich. The proposed turbine would have a total height of 32 m , with a 25m mast. The nearest properties were c 200m away. The turbine was significantly smaller that other turbines currently going through the planning system and somewhat less impactful on <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/04/bolton-turbine-refused-permission/">Bolton turbine refused permission</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bolton planning committee yesterday objected to a wind turbine at Matchmoor stables, Horwich. The proposed turbine would have a total height of 32 m , with a 25m mast. The nearest properties were c 200m away.<br />
The turbine was significantly smaller that other turbines currently going through the planning system and somewhat less impactful on neighbouring properties.<br />
In-line with some other authorities which have specific wind turbine policies,preventing a turbine over 25m within 400m (or even 600m) of residential properties the turbine was rejected by both Horwich Town Council and Bolton planning commitee. It is understood that the proposal was objected to by  Lindsey Kell, Blackrod and Horwich Ward Councillor , and the Conservative and Liberal Parties and a few Labour members, making the vote 11 objections to 9 in favour<br />
The reasons for the objection were proximity to residential properties and that the harm to the greenbelt would not be outweighed by the very special circumstances.<br />
Again coucillors asked fo a wind turbine policy.<br />
Bolton Council had been previously asked by planning committee to introduce a wind turbine policy. PPS22 states &#8220;Plans may include criteria that set out the minimum separation distances between different types of renewable energy projects and existing developments&#8221;   New National policy guidlines allow communities to state where renewable energy developments should and should not be located. The local argument has shifted from whether turbines are beautiful or an eye sore , to the over bearing imapct they can have on residential homes if sited too close.<br />
Applications at Birches Road, Turton (66m),  Chadwick Farm, Horwich(66m) , and the pre consultation at Walker Fold Road, north of the Bolton Old Links Golf Course, Horwich (88m ) show an increasing trend of planning applications for bigger and bigger turbines in the area. All are within 400m of residential property.<br />
Given this national concern regarding turbine proximity to habitation it will be a different debate if / when Bolton Council pursue their ambition of erecting several large tubines on the Red Moss SSSI</p>
<p>The Bolton News ran a poll suggesting that 80% of people are in agreement with BHEAG &#8211; that more turbines sould be allowed in the Bolton Borough. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/04/bolton-turbine-refused-permission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Planning Guidlines Published</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/new-planning-guidlines-published/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/new-planning-guidlines-published/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greenbelt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2658</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2115939.pdf</p> <p>&#160;</p> <p>New National Policy Guidlines have been published today. There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development.</p> <p>According to the BBC Council policies&#8221; must encourage brownfield sites to be brought back into use &#8211; and allowed them to protect back gardens, while ensuring that &#8220;playing fields continued to benefit from the same <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/new-planning-guidlines-published/">New Planning Guidlines Published</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="Guidlines" href="http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2115939.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2115939.pdf</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>New National Policy Guidlines have been published today.  There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development.</p>
<p>According to the BBC Council policies&#8221; must encourage brownfield sites to be brought back into use &#8211; and allowed them to protect back gardens, while ensuring that &#8220;playing fields continued to benefit from the same protection that they do currently&#8221;.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>It also allow communities to specify where renewable energy sources such as wind farms should, and should not, be located.</p>
<p>Similarly greenbelt appears to have the same protection previously afforded</p>
<p>Reaction has been mixed</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/new-planning-guidlines-published/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Douglas Valley Turbine Refusal to be Appealed</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-refusal-to-be-appealed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-refusal-to-be-appealed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:12:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2629</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The recently rejected application for a turbine at Douglas VAlley Golf Course is to be appealed by the applicant. The appeal statement can be found appeal statement</p> <p>It is clear however that appelant continues to make multiple factually incorrect and misleading statements. We point out just one:</p> <p>The final paragraph of the appeal statement concludes <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-refusal-to-be-appealed/">Douglas Valley Turbine Refusal to be Appealed</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recently rejected application for a turbine at Douglas VAlley Golf Course is to be appealed by the applicant.<br />
The appeal statement can be found <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/appeal-statement.pdf">appeal statement</a></p>
<p>It is clear however that appelant continues to make multiple factually incorrect and misleading statements.<br />
We point out just one:</p>
<p>The final paragraph of the appeal statement concludes<br />
<strong><br />
&#8220;In an era were localism is given greater prominence the views of locally elected members, who can speak with some democratic legitimacy is relevant&#8221;</strong> (Previously stating the Parish Council did not object to the proposal)</p>
<p><strong>Blackrod Town Council objected to the turbine unanimously</strong> &#8211; the Town Council had previously been concerend about the lack of any robust information regarding the application.</p>
<p><strong>Similarly there were no supporters from Bolton Council&#8217;s Planning Committee</strong> &#8211; with elected members from all sides voicing strong objections</p>
<p>Local ward councillors have made wind turbines a key campaign issue for local elections.</p>
<p>It is good the appelant agrees in the relevence of these democratic views &#8211; it is disappointing they refuse to accept them.</p>
<p>At this time BHEAG will not comment further.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-refusal-to-be-appealed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chadwick Farm &#8211; Ward Councillors Support  Objection or Deferment</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/chadwick-farm-ward-councillors-support-objection-deferrment-of-chadwick-farm/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/chadwick-farm-ward-councillors-support-objection-deferrment-of-chadwick-farm/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:04:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2618</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Following the report from Blackrod and Horwich Environmental Action Group &#8211; the planning committee objected to the Douglas Valley Turbine and proposed Bolton Council introduce a wind turbine policy &#8211; similar to Milton Keynes etc. . This was proposed by Blackrod and Horwich Ward Councillor Lindsey Kell.</p> <p>BHEAG have requested that the Chadwick Farm application <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/chadwick-farm-ward-councillors-support-objection-deferrment-of-chadwick-farm/">Chadwick Farm &#8211; Ward Councillors Support  Objection or Deferment</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following the report from Blackrod and Horwich Environmental Action Group &#8211; the planning committee objected to the Douglas Valley Turbine and proposed Bolton Council introduce a wind turbine policy &#8211; similar to Milton Keynes etc. . This was proposed by Blackrod and Horwich Ward Councillor Lindsey Kell.</p>
<p>BHEAG have requested that the Chadwick Farm application be either refused on the basis of proximity to residential property who are not financially involved or deferred until Bolton Council has disucussed and implemented a wind turbine policy including proximity to residential property.</p>
<p>Blackrod Town Council have raised similar concern, as has Stephen Pickup &#8211; Ward Councillor for Blackrod and Horwich.</p>
<p>It is believed, based on recent campaign literature,  that the Conservative party &#8211; who supported the rejection of the Douglas Valley Turbine and also support the establishment of a Wind Turbine policy for Bolton are similarly minded.</p>
<p>Meanwhile documents posted on-line once again highlight the deficiencies in the noise assesment. At this time there is not believed to be any investigation into television and radio transmissions. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/chadwick-farm-ward-councillors-support-objection-deferrment-of-chadwick-farm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bolton Council Asked to Suspend Considering Turbine Applications</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/bolton-council-asked-to-suspend-considering-turbine-applications/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/bolton-council-asked-to-suspend-considering-turbine-applications/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2610</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Following all party agreement and the planning committee&#8217;s request for Bolton Council to introduce a Wind Turbine Policy, residents close to an application in Bradshaw have requested that Bolton Council suspend considering wind turbine applications until the policy is agreed.</p> <p>Similarly BHEAG have submitted a request to bolton Council to defer the Chadwick Farm Application <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/bolton-council-asked-to-suspend-considering-turbine-applications/">Bolton Council Asked to Suspend Considering Turbine Applications</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following all party agreement and the planning committee&#8217;s request for Bolton Council to introduce a Wind Turbine Policy, residents close to an application in Bradshaw have requested that Bolton Council suspend considering wind turbine applications until the policy is agreed.</p>
<p>Similarly BHEAG have submitted a request to bolton Council to defer the Chadwick Farm Application until the policy is agreed. The letter can be found <a href='http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Chadwick-X.doc'>here</a></p>
<p>Where detailed Wind Turbine policies have been agreed eg Milton Keynes, Cherwell, Torridge it appears that these applications would not be approved. </p>
<p>Anglesey Council recently suspended all turbine applications pending public consultation (Anglesey already had a minimum 400m seperation distance from residential properties, with Welsh guidlines stating 500m as a typical distance)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/bolton-council-asked-to-suspend-considering-turbine-applications/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Association of Greater Manchester Authorities &#8211; and Wind Turbines</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/association-of-greater-manchester-authorities/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/association-of-greater-manchester-authorities/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/chapter_6_future_potential2.pdf</p> <p>The above docuumets expresses a number of considerations relvant to many turbine applications in the area</p> <p>It was prepared in accordance with PPS1 &#8211; to enble the Core Strategies to be fully considerded.</p> <p>Significant implications relating to landscape character &#8212; Wind: Large-scale farms or clusters of 1-3 MWe turbines </p> <p>&#8220;&#8230;. the possible spatial <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/association-of-greater-manchester-authorities/">Association of Greater Manchester Authorities &#8211; and Wind Turbines</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.4nw.org.uk/downloads/documents/nov_08/ps__1225881712_Towards_Broad_Areas_for_Renewa.pdfhttp://" title="here" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/chapter_6_future_potential2.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/chapter_6_future_potential2.pdf</a></p>
<p>The above docuumets expresses a number of considerations relvant to many turbine  applications in the area</p>
<p>It was prepared in accordance with PPS1 &#8211; to enble the Core Strategies to be fully considerded.</p>
<p>Significant implications relating to landscape character  &#8212; Wind: Large-scale farms or clusters of 1-3 MWe turbines </p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;. the possible spatial location of new wind energy sites a series of constraints agreed with statutory stakeholders by Arup for 4NW can be applied in order to begin identifying broad areas for development. These include areas that are:<br />
<br />
‘Constrained’ by protected landscapes, nature conservation areas and related functional<br />
areas, including a buffer zone of 500m for residential areas (this is as a proxy for noise nuisance, &#8220;in accordance with industry standards&#8221;)</p>
<p> ‘Variably constrained’ by heritage features, less sensitive nature conservation areas,<br />
aviation flight path and radar areas, and deep peat sites;</p>
<p> ‘Less constrained’ by the features and designations listed above, but which may be<br />
subject to local designations and/or impact on greenbelt landscape character.</p>
<p>The 500m residential buffer is the most significant constraint, eliminating a significant proportion<br />
of Greater Manchester. This constraint layer warrants further refining as it currently includes nonresidential<br />
locations where siting may or could be possible. </p>
<p>The 4NW appendix idenitifies a residential area as an &#8220;address point&#8221;  <a href="http://www.4nw.org.uk/assets/_files/documents/nov_08/ps__1225881892_Towards_Broad_Areas__Appendix.pdf" title="4nw" target="_blank">4NW</a></p>
<p>The main sustainability reort can be found <a href="http://www.4nw.org.uk/downloads/documents/nov_08/ps__1225881712_Towards_Broad_Areas_for_Renewa.pdf" title="here" target="_blank">here</a>  It refers to large scale wind devlopments</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/association-of-greater-manchester-authorities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Douglas Valley Turbine Rejected</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-rejected/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-rejected/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Douglas Valley Turbine was today rejected by Bolton Planning Committee &#8211; not a single councillor voted for the turbine.</p> <p>The turbine was simply too big and too close to residential property, having an unacceptable effcet on the amenity of the area. It also appears that the JRC / United Utilities objection was still valid. <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-rejected/">Douglas Valley Turbine Rejected</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Douglas Valley Turbine was today rejected by Bolton Planning Committee &#8211; not a single councillor voted for the turbine.</p>
<p>The turbine was simply too big and too close to residential property, having an unacceptable effcet on the amenity of the area.<br />
It also appears that the JRC / United Utilities objection was still valid. No posting for the NERL objection withdrawal has yet been made</p>
<p>The BHEAG objection report can be found  <a href='http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Objection-Report-x1.doc'>Objection Report x</a></p>
<p>There was agreement from all parties that Bolton Council should adopt a turbine policy similar to those in Milton Keynes, Torridge, Cherwell, Anglesey, Northern Ireland etc.etc etc.  A link to these policies can be found under the wind turbine guidance link at the top of this page -supporting evidence is also provided by link to help policy making decision.</p>
<p>Our thank to all those people who have assisted the campaign and to the planning committee for their suport.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine-rejected/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Douglas Valley Turbine</title>
		<link>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 06:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[wind turbines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bheag.co.uk/?p=2579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This application will be considered at 2pm today, at the town hall. The public are invited to attend.</p> <p></p> ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This application will be considered at 2pm today, at the town hall. The public are invited to attend.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/windtoon.gif"><img src="http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/windtoon-1024x785.gif" alt="" title="windtoon" width="640" height="490" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-2430" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bheag.co.uk/2012/03/douglas-valley-turbine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

