Have read more of the application and it seems they propose to leave the connection to the DNO saying the preferred route is 2km underground in the highway.

CW - seems very unlikely that the DNO will choose to run a cable underground along the highway - why would they choose the most expensive option? It may be the wind farm developers' preferred route but sure as hell won't be the DNO's- they are just saying that to make it sound better than the reality.
Ted - Yes, I understood that both the CCW and the County Council were a bit "disappointed" about the lack of detail about the grid connection. Don't blame them!

Are we talking tip height? What part of the country? What company is developing the site?
That range of turbine power output would allow almost all manufacturers to provide a turbine. Have you got any more details?
Gusty.

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/wales/brechfa-forest-west-wind-farm/?ipcsection=hearings

The latest CCW response is even more terse. Not surprising considering they were accused of trespass by the RWE solicitor at the last hearing.

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010008/2.%20Post-Submission/Hearings/120628_N%20Phillips%20on%20behalf%20of%20Countryside%20Council%20for%20Wales.pdf

Things will come to a head next week when we have open hearings on Wednesday and the final DCO hearing on Thursday. Everyone will be bringing their own barristers this time.

So how can you apply for planning for a wind turbine without specifying the make and model? I know I couldn't - the planners told me that I would have to specify the type as each would have a different noise signature etc, etc.
My neighbour across the valley had planning for 2 Proven 35s but had to reapply for two Gaias (completely new application) after Proven went bust. One rule for individuals another for big corporations?

Wow! The only thing more incredible than their expecting anyone to believe that, is anyone expecting them to do anything about it if the 'guarantee' proves worthless.

The planning app for that 20kW turbine I spoke about a while back was accompanied by an acoustic report based on 'standards' provided by the BWEA (as was). So totally independent then!!

Windy, the problem is that ETSU-R-97 only has to be rolled out as "the national standard" to silence any opposing claims. Turbine installers don't have your motivation to avoid nuisance to neighbours so will go with whatever standard best meets their needs, not the particular situation.

I'll look more closely at BS4142. It might have been mentioned before, but I can't remember it so will read it with interest. Thanks for that.

Someone just sent me this...Sounds serious. they describe some call as “bordered on harassment”....

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/9800530.print/

Wind turbine company accused of ‘bribery’

11:31am Thursday 5th July 2012

A wind turbine company has been accused of “bribery” in its fight to build a wind farm near Gargrave.

It is claimed Energie- kontor UK offered the owners of the farm at the centre of the proposed site at Brightenber Hill £275,000 if they wrote a letter of support and the development went ahead.

The offer, made in May last year before the company began its pre-application public consultation for a second scheme, came after an earlier offer of a grass cutting contract worth £5,000 per annum.

Ian and Eileen Coates, owners of Ash Tree Farm, claim there were also frequent unannounced visits and telephone calls, some late at night, which they claimed “bordered on harassment”.

Mr and Mrs Coates were tenants of Ash Tree Farm when original proposals for five turbines were refused three years ago.

The plans were first refused by Craven District Council and then on appeal by a government inspector who ruled the lives of the occupants of the farm would be blighted.

After the scheme was refused by the council, but before the appeal, the Coates’ went ahead and bought the farm, believing they were safe from any future wind farm development.

In their letter to Craven District Council objecting to the new application for three 100m high turbines, they say they relaxed after the inspector’s decision and “for a short time believed that the threat of being condemned to live in a wind farm landscape had gone for good”.

But then the approaches came from the company ending in the £250,000 offer, which they say although tempting, they turned it down. They remain firmly opposed to the scheme.

The couple, who say they sought legal advice and have kept correspondence from the company relating to the offers, add they would have been asked to sign a confidentiality clause had they accepted.

In their letter, Mr and Mrs Coates say: “We have had numerous visits, mostly unannounced, and telephone calls, some late at night from Energiekontor executives who have been attempting to buy our support for their development.

“At times, their attentions have been close to harassment. The bribes that we have been offered over the 12 months or so prior to the submission of their latest application have steadily escalated.

“Their opening bid was an offer to pay us £5,000 per year to mow the grass around the base of the turbines and various other incentives have been offered to us.”

Mr and Mrs Coates say the latest offer came in May last year in the form of a (perfectly legal) pre-contractural agreement where Energiekontor offered £250,000.

The money was dependent on planning consent being given and the Coates writing “a letter to the local planning authority in support of the wind farm”.

The correspondence included a draft letter of support for the Coates to sign and a confidentiality clause.

“Seemingly, Energie- kontor did not want it to be known that they bought off our objections,” said Mr and Mrs Coates.

Mr and Mrs Coates continue in their objection letter to the council that they have reported what they considered the “bullying tactics” of the company to Skipton MP Julian Smith.

“Tempting though it first appeared, we declined to accept their bribe and our opposition to the development remains resolute,” said Mr and Mrs Coates.

Justin Reid, of Energiekontor, said the company believed the removal of the turbine closest to Ash Tree Farm would mean approval of the scheme.

“To further ensure that the Coates family amenities were protected we offered commercial terms which would have allowed mitigation works to be undertaken at this property at no expense to Mr Coates. We sought a standard commercial arrangement which, like all other such agreements, remain confidential.

“Mr Coates was receptive to negotiate and we sought to conclude matters amicably. As a farmer, it has been tremendously difficult to maintain contact with him exemplified by having to resort to text messaging as a means of communication,” said Mr Reid. “Ultimately we were unable to reach agreement, due in part, to restrictive covenants on the land.”

Mr Reid added that the nearest turbine to Ash Tree Farm was now more than half a mile away.

“At this height we are not aware of any commercial scale wind farm project in England, which has been rejected at planning appeal on account of residential amenity at this distance,” he said.

The application is expected to go before Craven District Council’s Planning Committee on Monday, July 30.

More light reading for you Ted...

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb-13584-windfarm-noise-statutory-nuisance.pdf

Ted you're right, that ETSU is rubbish for protecting residents from wind farm noise (that's been said a good few times on this forum) and just because something complies with it or a planning condition doesn't mean it's not a statutory nuisance - although it would be a brave EHO that said so.
I find it utterly bizarre, if not idiotic, for an EHO to use the same levels as ETSU to establish nuisance - this goes against 40 years of experience of BS4142 which was designed to show whether nuisance would be likely or not. Use the same procedure to measure the noise as ETSU but not the noise levels - any EHO will tell you that if you put a machine in an environment where the background noise is say 27dba (as measured outside a dwelling) which then increases those noise levels by 8db, to 35 db as allowed in ETSU, then complaints will be inevitable = BS4142 conclusion.
So what we are saying is that wind farms are given a far more relaxed standard for noise than any factory or commercial development even though the wind farms are in, usually, more sensitive areas by way of noise than those other developments. Well that's why they "designed" ETSU then isn't it! Bunch of ******ers!

This turned up in a search for a transcript of the Davies court case...

http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/255/ref%20info%20note%20120403%20IoA%20Shear%20Methodology.pdf

Anyone know of a link to the testimony of Malcolm Hayes, the acoustician of the Hayes McKenzie Partnership who gave evidence at the Davies hearing? Just been told of a report circulating that he withheld information favourable to the Davies family but deleterious to his clients the wind farm developers.

Windy, it appears that everyone but the wind turbine industry agrees that ETSU is a crock of the proverbial. But as long as the LibDems are entrenched in their unelected position of power even parliamentary initiatives will get nowhere.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/195we34.htm

Not to mention impossibly expensive and risky.

Posted By: tedA new report on ETSU-R-97, focussing on its deficiencies, has been published today.

Apparently has been sent to all MP's.