Posted By: CWatters‘oh no, not again’

The serial compensation seekers should move to a city centre then.

Couldn't agree more. This is the very reason I am heavily involved now. Seeing the state of despair people who are (not maybe) affected has made me re-visit all my previously held values about wind farms.

Seeing and hearing the noise effects myself, experiencing the pain of those living nearby, seeing and hearing how the developers react to complaints, and studying the travesty that is ETSU-R-97 have all made me see things in a very different light over the past few months.

Nick, for chrissake. The Davies's were there for the best part of a generation. Mike Hulme (of Den Brook) was there for 35 years. The example I gave was of a person who originally supported the "need" for wind farms and totally accepted the developer's assurances that noise would not be a problem.

Like Ted, I went from being a wind farm agnostic to atheist after seeing the way wind farm developers lied and bullied their way through the planning process.

It is obscene what they do and what they are allowed to get away with. Our relatively small scheme is being promoted by people who make a big deal of their green credentials, who write off those affected by their "dream" as collateral damage. They live MILES away from the site (the closest eight miles) yet react with contempt to those in opposition, even those just seeking reassurance that mitigation of the acknowledged risk of noise is possible, as enemies of the planet not worthy of consideration. The arrogance is staggering. And yet they call the objectors NIMBY's. Get real! It's OK because it isn't in THEIR backyard.

How many times do I have to repeat that the stories now aren't about people objecting to wind farms, they're about people COMPLAINING about wind farms they'd previously supported because of assurances from the wind farm developers that there wouldn't be a problem.

As either 'windy' or 'gusty' said, the wind farms developers can often be their own worst enemies. But they're still the ones laughing all the way to the bank.

"Take a scientific approach and they stand a chance of changing the legislation"

In your dreams.

Have you not read Ted's links to the recent ETSU demolitions?

And as for gathering objective data with which to refute the claims of wind farm developers, remember the case of Malcolm Hayes, the acoustician of the Hayes McKenzie Partnership who gave evidence at the Davies hearing? He withheld information that would have been favourable to the Davies family. He withheld that information because it wasn't in the interest of his clients the wind farm developers.

I hate mentioning the RES "study" that "found" that AM noise could be detected even when turbines weren't present. Totally independent report by one of their department managers, by the way. I'm sure Rachel Ruffle would defend that "study" with the full force of her impeccable engineering qualifications.

If anything, objectors and complainers are too honest, which is why they stand no chance when the wind farm PROFESSIONALS subject them to the kind of cross-examination that a judge would stop as too aggressive in a murder trial.

These same wind farm professionals present themselves as "fellow professionals" to the planning "professionals" in order to make the process one as between people of the business world who can't be bothered with all the petty distractions that stop "professionals" doing business together. Too many planners allow themselves to get too cosy with people presenting applications that should be subject to far closer scrutiny, it's what the BWEA (and its renamed successor) were all about as the chief lobbying body of the wind industry, making available to planners "information" seminars to ensure that planners and councillors knew what the technology (for which read 'industry') was all about, at a cost of many, many tens of thousands of pounds, the sort of sums those against the inappropriate siting of wind farms could never hope to raise - because their income doesn't come from the operating profits funded by the taxpaper through their energy bills.

Friends of mine actually live in France but are now looking to return to the UK because, post-Fukishima, their beautiful countryside is now under threat from wind industry-initiatives capitalising on the Japanese events to push turbines.

The turbines of Cornwall are just one of the reasons I stay away from the place, despite having a son who lives there. The turbines of Scotland are the main reason I'll not be heading that far north except to visit friends who live there and who are, incidentally, also now talking of moving back to England because of Scotland's onshore wind policy.

You have no choice except to like the things unless you're thinking of moving elsewhere, presumably to somewhere with turbines close by so that you can avail yourself of the devalued property?

I hate to say it, yet again, but if the standards are wrong, that is where the campaign should be targeted. Not against companies goign about their legitimate business.
I am no fan for 'under the counter deals', false claims, etc, but by claiming that a business is flouting the rules when they are not

Posted By: tedOne family had noise monitoring equipment installed for 13 months. All that happens is confirmation that ETSU-R-97 limits are not being broken. I have their data but it is already LA90 averaged in 10 minute bins and has no corresponding wind or rainfall data to go with it so is of very limited use as it stands

leads to the conclusion, to me anyway, that the standards are wrong, not the developer.

I have had run ins with RES, and have never been impressed by their lack of professionalism and the very close ties to the trade body, but they are doing what they are meant to be doing, I don't believe they are changing data to suit their case.

If to fight a case costs more money that the case is worth, a wise person realises that and walks away (or moves anyway).
Large windfarms are under so much scrutiny these days I cannot see how they can get them built without being compliant with the rules, regardless of any cosy relationship they have with planning offices/other officials.

If the rules are wrong, get them changed, probably easier and cheaper for everyone.

Personally I really do not have a problem with any type of generations and am willing to allow the elected bodies, that we elect, to make those decision on my behalf. But then I am the bloke that tells everyone that they could build a nuclear power station next to St Ives and their property would be worthless.

So the AECB argument that money could better be spent elsewhere (and get more wattage for your buck) falls on deaf ears?

Likewise the argument that if that AECB philosophy was followed through it is doubtful we'd need any of the onshore generation, improvements to the energy efficiency of our houses having rendered it unnecessary?

Reduction in demand instead of increased supply in anticipation of the expected decrease in FF/nuclear-generation to maintain 'business as usual'?

Reduction in demand instead of increased supply in anticipation of the expected decrease in FF/nuclear-generationto to meet the reduced demand of a more energy efficient society?

We don't need the things to keep the lights on, a reduction in the hysteria levels over nuclear would do that many times over.

Likewise giving the engineers something to get their teeth into in order to work on those (better) solutions that are there to be found, and in some instances already exist in well-founded theory. But the further research and development of those technologies doesn't get the funding because their long-term prospects don't fit into short-term policies.

RWE seem hell-bent on building a wind farm that is virtually guaranteed to be embroiled in a torrent of noise complaints as soon as it goes operational. I don't know why really - maybe it's something to do with the money?

RES have supported RWE in trying to ensure that no AM conditions are attached to the planning consent. I don't know why really - maybe it's something to do with the money?

I can't see the problem being sorted until someone takes court action and refuse to settle. They will need to be v. rich. Once a court agrees that a certain noise level measured in a certain way amounts to nusiance then it's game over. Anyone else subject to worse noise levels will know they stand a good chance of winning in court.

I will not comment as I am familiar with the Davis's case. I will just say that some people are very clever and leave it at that. Just so you all know the Davis's property is not the only house close to the site.........

Joiner- I totally agree with you but I also stand by my post.

Article from The Times..

http://www.windaction.org/news/35500

Photo trickery makes wind farms smaller

"Wind Farm developers have been accused of deceiving local councils and the public by using computer-generated images in planning applications that make the turbines seem smaller than they are in reality. The claim is contained in a new book, Windfarm Visualisation: Perspective or Perception, by the architect Alan Macdonald, whose company, Architech, specialises in computer- generated images."

and

"A separate study by the University of Stirling found serious flaws in the images that are presented as part of a visual impact assessment in the planning process. "

Which is a valid point Damon and one I keep hammering home to the local campaigners - "Stick to the bloody facts and leave the lies and exagerations to them!"

As an exercise, I did produce an image that superimposed the type of turbine proposed for the local site against my wife photographed at the site of one of the turbines whilst holding my camera monopod extended to exactly one metre to give me the precise scale. I thought I'd given myself enough sky to get the turbine in, but on the photograph below the actual hub height is to the top of the image (= 40m), I couldn't scale the turbine enough to fit it in exactly in Photoshop. Also, the rotors are shown much shorter than they will be in real life (taking the height to tip to 74m). Despite all that, with the turbine represented as shorter than it will actually be, the image still renders people speechless because until the things are put into some kind of human perspective you simply cannot get your head around the size of the things within the landscape.

[IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/2rm38m8.jpg[/IMG]

"Some local councils won't accept montages from locals unless done or at least checked by an architect or similar professional. That costs several £thousands just to get a few done".
I was lucky then! I submitted a couple of dozen photomontages re my Gaia 11kW (done by me) - planner sent them back saying they didn't show the turbine; Exactly. Told him to look more closely and he might be able to pick it out. Probably got distracted by the 9 x 2mW turbines on the next hill! Again, it's all about appropriately sized turbines in appropriate locations. Whether noise, visual amenity, aircraft safety etc that's what it boils down to- but many developers only see the pound signs and forget the bigger picture. Big turbines off shore then no-one could legitimately complain about noise, house prices etc but put one of those turbines on a hill and plenty of people will have legitimate concerns.
My neighbours all supported my 11kW turbine- it's a different story when someone proposes a 800kW one!

Yes, Steamy, I used to do photo-montages, double, triple exposures with 35mm in the dark room. It would take several days then to do what takes a minute or two now. Technology ah.

"Officials declared that the sound - which Mr Munday says is 'the same pitch as a dishwasher and quieter than birdsong'"

That's a really poor choice of example. Birdsong is pretty loud. I certainly wouldn't want a dishwasher as loud as seagulls anywhere near me.