Author: simon
Island Groups Voice Disappointment Over Cheverton Down Recommendation
Thursday, 26th November, 2009 at 1:06 pm, Isle of Wight
Environment, Green Issues, News, South Wight
Two Island groups have given their reaction to the Isle of Wight planning department recommendation to reject the Cheverton Down wind turbine application. In summary, they’ve not very happy about it.
Jill Wareham, Liberal Democrat Prospective MP for the Isle of Wight, commented “I am extremely disappointed to learn of the recommendation to refuse the wind turbine application. This will be a missed opportunity for the Island to play its part in climate change and to give confidence to Vestas to remain on the Island.”
New turbines have ten-fold increase in output
Jill Wareham continued, “There is already planning permission for three smaller wind turbines on the Cheverton Down site for 52 meter blade tip height which will provide power for an estimated 453 homes.
“This new application takes into account changes in technology and proposes to increase the height to 125 metres which will increase output to supply the equivalent of 4532 homes, a ten-fold increase in output. The new turbines are predicted to save between 14,094 and 15,568 tonnes of CO2 per annum.
Visual impact argument is nonsense
On the visual impact objection, Jill Wareham said, “It is nonsense to refuse the application on grounds of visual impact when close by stands the TV masts at Rowridge (491 ft) and Chillerton which is 228 metres high (almost twice the height of the turbines).”
IW Council “failed dismally” on Eco-Island
Ms Wareham also criticised the IW Council over Eco-Island, “This Council has failed dismally to hit its targets to become an ‘Eco-Island’. They refused to sign up to the 10:10 campaign, they’ve missed their own targets to reduce carbon emission and the final nail in the coffin is this missed opportunity that we on the Island could help to tackle climate change. This Council is all rhetoric and no action – a damning indictment for our future generations.”
Island Turbine Action Group (ITAG) response
Kerri Trickey, founding member of the Island Turbine Action Group (ITAG), said “This recommendation of refusal runs far deeper than simply a refusal of three wind turbines. It is a refusal of Eco-Island, it is a refusal to acknowledge climate change, and it is a refusal to act on behalf of the people of the Isle of Wight. I am in complete shock that any planning officer would disregard every single merit of an application in favour of one, frankly dubious, reason to refuse it.”
IWC reputation “irretrievably dented”
The Island Turbine Action Group obviously feel that a decision like this would have a long term impact, “This decision will be remembered for years to come, and the reputation of the Isle of Wight Council is going to be irretrievably dented if it does not put aside its ridiculous grudge against turbines and start making decisions that will benefit the entire population of the Island.”
“Whatever happened to Eco-Island?”
“My disappointment is beyond words. Whatever happened to Eco-Island? Whatever happened to meeting 2020 targets? It is not difficult to answer these questions – the Isle of Wight Council refused them.”
No word from ThWART
We contacted the anti-turbine group ThWART by phone and email yesterday for comment but haven’t, at time of publishing, heard back from them.
Related posts:
- Turbines on Cheverton Down Regardless of Planning Outcome (podcast)
We speak to Steve Allen of Cornwall Light and Power... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbines: IWEP Show Their Support
The Isle of Wight Economic Partnership have publicly announced today... - More Grassroots Funding For Island Groups
More Grassroots Grants handed out across the Island.... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbine: The Next Stage
When VentnorBlog broke the story of the Cheverton Down Wind... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbines Recommended For Refusal (UPDATE 4)
IW Council Planning recommends a no....
Email This Story To A Friend
Hold yer horses there. The planning department is doing exactly what planning departments should do. It is deciding on local vernacular merit and not on the issue of pending global calamity, which it doesn’t deem itself responsible for. It is now the task of the council to run rough-shod over the planning department and ensure that we achieve something that will not humiliate us in future. Those who are currently against wind turbines will no doubt rearrange their memory in due course to believe that they were not part of the folly of refusal.
On the issue of 52 metre turbines as compared to 125′ers, those who have spent time in a mountainous region will tell you that the human eye is very bad at judging the size of anything over about 10 meters in height and it will be very hard to tell the size of one from the other, even close up. The bottom line is, we are going to get them, so let’s make sure we get the good ones with the high-output.
PS. Did the planning consideration really include a complaint that horses might bolt because of those surprising blades??? It really summarises the pettiness of the nay sayers.
PPS. Just to get in there before the ‘them-nasty-turbines’ folk do, Jill Wareham’s numbers for the height of masts are wrong. She has quoted the height above sea-level. It would be interesting to find out peoples guess regarding the height of local masts. As I say, over a certain height, it’s really difficult to tell.
(Report comment)
Big Ears needs to check his facts. The figures I have quoted for the height of the masts are correct, they are not height above sea level. Check for yourself by searching on google.
(Report comment)
Hot damn, Jill, I stand corrected. Although this does rather serve to underscore my point that it is difficult to judge size.
(Report comment)
Thank you.
(Report comment)
After Cllr Adrian Whittaker’s expulsion today I trust the LibDem group at County Hall will still be represented on the Planning Committee next week…..
(Report comment)
Strange how opposition members get booted out just before key votes
(Report comment)
James Lovelock wrote this in his recent book “The Vanishing Face of Gaia, A Final Warning”
“It is absurd to think that we in the UK can alter the Earth’s response in our favour by using wind and solar voltaic energy. A wind farm of twenty 1 Mega Watt turbines requires over 10,000 tonnes of concrete. It would require 200 of these wind farms covering an area the size of Dartmoor to equal the constant power output of a single coal-fired or nuclear power station. Even more absurd, a full sized nuclear or coal-fired power station would have to be built for each of these monster wind farms to back up the turbines for the 75 percent of time when the wind was either too high or too low. As if this were not enough to damn wind energy, the construction of a 1 Giga Watt wind farm would use a quantity of concrete, 2 million tons, sufficient to build a town for 100,000 people living in 30,000 homes; making and using that quantity of concrete would release about 1 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air…….”
“Wind farms are hopelessly inadequate to the UK as a source of energy and as I have indicated can do little to halt global heating even when used on a global scale; moreover, experience in Western Europe shows them to be costly and inefficient sources of electricity. You will soon discover this when your electricity bills and taxes rise to pay for renewable energy we do not need. Your money will provide easy profits to be taken from the subsidy trough. The bills are imposed upon us so that politicians can appear green and good and some European nations grow richer. It does nothing for The Earth and will only add more stress for our Island Nation and perhaps lead to its final breakdown.”
Thought provoking stuff.
(Report comment)
It is not absurd to think that we can take responsibility for our actions. Our current solutions are indeed inadequate to the problem. Wind generators merely acknowledge our need to respond. But human technology accelerates ahead. A computer that in my lifetime filled a room and needed a cooling plant to run now sits in my pocket and rings when anybody in the world chooses to speak with me. Our solutions will get better as long as we acknowledge the need for them and act on that knowledge – even if it is not the easy path.
Forget the politicians. Forget the money makers. They will ply their trade come what may. Like all problems, we need to start with practical attainable targets. Wind power is our start. It does not denote a solution. It denotes our change of mindset that is in itself a solution.
(Report comment)
James Lovelock writing on Wind Farms http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/29/lovelock-wind-farms
(Report comment)
This Same James Lovelock says
“Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argues that, as a result of global warming, “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable” by the end of the 21st century.[24] He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years.”
He also proposes Nucleur to be the only feasible answer
(Report comment)
Can we have a link to the article? You know I hate unattributed quotes. And also can you point me to peer reviewed articles that support or contradict his hypothesis.The Pol who said that Spain was supplied by Wind Farms is absolutely right. What she failed to point out is that is was for only five hours. Cherry picking facts out of context is so easy to knock down but is great sound bite material.
Thanks.
(Report comment)
Jill Wareham? The Jill Wareham! Wow, I thought having been rejected by the electorate at the recent council elections (again) and having changed her mind on wind turbines, Ms W would be keeping a low profile on this issue?
It may be hard to judge the height when you’re in Newport mate, but I doubt any of us over here would miss them!
(Report comment)
SHOBBA perhaps you should see where we live. From our garden we would get a lovely view of the wind turbines when they are built large or small I DON’T CARE. Shobba someone on Ventnor Blog said you were a Troll can this be true.
(Report comment)
What’s so wrong with changing your mind?
If you realize you’ve got something wrong in the past, then it would be wrong to ‘keep a low profile’ and not admit to past mistakes.
If more people had the the guts to change their minds in public the world would be a better place.
Well done Jill for having the sense to take climate change seriously and speak up for renewable energy. Future generations will appreciate it.
(Report comment)
A lovely view I’m sure, but unlike those closer, not the sound! This isn’t just about visual intrusion and noise. These ugly things are inefficient and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Running power lines to and from them in the hope on some days they actually produce some electricity will further ruin the local environment. If they were somewhere other than an AONB and didn’t attract suge huge subsidy, I’d accept them.
The ’save Vestas jobs’ argument is wrong and surely Ms Wareham knows so? They never made turbines here for the UK nor did they plan to. The simple truth is that the subsidies ran out so they switched to a factory elsewhere – simply to make bigger profits. Looks like the Labour government were duped by a company Ms Wareham is happy to do business with?
I assume Ms W has possibly changed her mind because it’s now national Liberal party policy to encourage wind turbines? Until the recent local election, she surely had to be against them to stand any chance of winning her council seat in Brighstone? Now she’s lost that fight, she’s not got much to lose by sticking to the national party line on the matter.
(Report comment)
‘Tis strange. When will the Council realise that there are votes to be ‘won’ by approving wind turbines ?
As for Shobba: I would like to know who stands to benefit (financially) from all this media-hype about global warming ?
It can’t be the wind-tubine companies because they are insignificant.
Governments get more taxes from massive consumption than from putting the lid on it.
So who IS behind this great conspiracy to brain-wash the ecomentalists ?
(Report comment)
For those who say how little wind power can contribute to a country’s energy requirements it’s interesting to look at Spain generating over 50% of theirs through wind on Nov 9th this year.
See http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news
(Report comment)
Hello That sounds interesting do you have any links to related articles?
Thanks.
(Report comment)
Your absolutely right the Times reported
“High winds across Spain on Sunday meant that for over five hours, over 53 per cent of the country’s power came from wind energy”
5 hours amazing.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6910298.ece
(Report comment)
Thats 5 hours longer than this Island
(Report comment)
HAHAHHAHA You do make me laugh with your nonsense
Ever looked at real figures from real sites….Farmers actually make money from the elctricity they produce, not just in Denmark, but in Cambridgeshire and Cornwall as well
Looks like its not us ecomentalists who have been sold a lie
(Report comment)
Shobba,
You’re really well behind in your homework again.
How do you measure efficiency? Do you use public transport? mebbe you have a car? use the train? a bicycle or even a scooter. None of them are efficient using your criteria. The wind itself is VERY efficient as a natural phenomenon. Nothing which uses engineering ever achieves its maximum efficiency – it’s the law of physics. It’s a question of priorities.
One day the lights may go out. What will be your efficiency quotient then.
As for Jill Wareham – better the sinner who repenteth (and doesn’t wear blinkers, eh Shobba?)
(Report comment)