Monday May 16th 7pm - Wind turbines on the Eye Airfield - Eye Town Hall

[Peter Seaman]

There is a meeting in the Eye town hall at 7pm next Monday, 16th May
to discuss the latest proposal to build two wind turbines on the Eye
airfield. Be sure to attend if you want the town council to take
account of your views.

Peter Seaman
www.wpower.co.uk

[Peter Seaman]

I had prepared a number of points regarding these Turbines and
attended the meeting in order to present them. However, after a short
while I was cut off by the chairman Merlin Carr and not allowed to
finish. He has since invited me to make the points in an email to the
councillors, so here they are:


Planning Application 385/11: two wind turbines near the Eye airfield

Statement by Peter Seaman, local resident

Point 1: I have no connection with any wind farm applicants or
related businesses

Point 2: I live in a listed building nearer the turbines than any
part of the conservation area of Eye and if they are built the effect
on me will be nil. I won't see them I won't hear them and I am
confident they will have no effect on the sale of my house.

Point 3: The Committee on Climate change has said (2009) “Wind power
is a robust, proven technology which can make a significant
contribution to decarbonisation at an acceptable cost, particularly in
the UK” . Last week (May 12th 2011) the committee declared (1)
“Onshore wind schemes are one of the cheapest low-carbon options for
meeting the UK’s carbon targets” and (2) New planning legislation
should be considered to encourage more wind schemes.

Point 4: I believe there are many more local people who are in favour
of wind turbines in Eye than are against. I had no trouble last year
obtaining a list of 100 supporting names, at least 4 out of every 5
people I approached were in favour. For the specific application
being discussed today over 10 people have already sent specific
letters of support for the application and there are only 3 against.
In most cases people consider that modern turbines are definitely not
eyesores, the airfield is an ideal place to locate them and they
enhance the landscape as do old windmills.

Point 5: If the application is refused there is a high probability
that the decision will be appealed and 62% of appeals on wind farms
are won. An appeal whether won or lost will cost the district council
(i.e. us) at least tens of thousands of pounds.

Point 6: The developers will be paying about £40,000 a year in
business rates and in my opinion they should not be burdened with a
requirement to make further contribution to community funds as this
will make their scheme less viable.

Point 7: It is a myth that wind turbines are inefficient. Each one
in its lifetime will produce between 20 and 60 times the amount of
energy used in its construction, installation and maintenance. In any
case this is not a planning consideration.

Point 8: The Dickleborough objectors raised many matters and,
unsurprisingly, the applicants have appealed. It is now stated
common ground between the council and the applicants that most of
these issues are not relevant and will not be considered by the
inspector. These are: noise, ecology, amenity, shadow flicker, impact
on conservation areas, impact on listed buildings and 11 other
matters, "It is agreed that none of these matters constitute any part
of the case of the council against the proposed development". ETC
should not raise such irrelevant matters either.

Therefore. Eye Town Council should enthusiastically support planning
application 385/11 in accordance with both Government policy and the
wishes of the great majority of the local population.

Justifications of statements made above and many references can be
found at www.wpower.co.uk (or contact me: Peter...@BTInternet.com)

[Peter Seaman]

I have just placed the latest news on wind turbines at

http://www.wpower.co.uk

Peter
(Please reply to Eye-Matt...@GoogleGroups.com)

[Peter Seaman]

The response from Natural England has been received by MSDC - here it
is

"Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory
purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved,
enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We have
considered the proposal against the full range of Natural England’s
interests in the natural environment. Based on the information
provided with the application, our comments are as follows:

Natural England has no objection to the application as re-submitted"

[Peter Seaman]

I congratulate Eye Town Council for their good sense in approving by a
large majority the application for 2 further turbines. This followed
the recommendation of the Eye planning sub-committee chaired by Merlin
Carr, who explained in a masterful way and in great detail how each of
the objections they previously made had been addressed. I myself am
particularly pleased because of their willingness to change their
stance in the light of reasoned arguments, and also because, in my
opinion, their vote now reflects not only the great majority of local
opinion but also the opinion of national scientific experts,
particularly those on the Climate Change Committee.

[Peter Seaman]

I am told the plan is that construction of the 2 Wind Direct Turbines
will now start in July or August with generation into the grid
February 2012. Will they make a bothersome noise? Based on wind
farms I have been near I don't think so but we will see.