Latest News:

Blimp demonstrates true height of proposed turbines.

http://www.itvlocal.com/border/news/?player=BOR_News_26&void=117199

Coldingham STAG launched a blimp into the skies over Coldingham Moor today (Fri 9 November) to give visitors a true picture of the way turbines would affect the view.

Wednesday 31 October 2007

Coldingham Moor Community claims Drone Hill Windfarm would violate human rights

The community of Coldingham Moor is invoking the Human Rights Act to argue that Drone Hill is an unsuitable site for a wind farm.

There are at least 18 properties or groups of properties closer than 2km to the proposed development, with more currently being built. Residents are arguing that their right to enjoy their homes peacefully, enshrined in article 8 of the Act, would be infringed by the 22-turbine site. Research shows that residents within this distance of other windfarms in the UK are already suffering symptoms of sleep deprivation, headaches, dizziness, unsteadiness, nausea, exhaustion, mood problems, and inability to concentrate due to audible and inaudible noise effects.

Scottish Ministers already support a buffer zone of 2km between wind farms and the edges of settlements.1

Members of the moorland community closest to the windfarm have written to Scottish Borders Council to urge them to turn down the plans. Their concerns are shared by many more who fall just outside the 2km zone, as well as the owners of the 132 static homes at Highview Caravan Park who will be 0.7-1km from the turbines, without the benefit of sound insulation provided by a conventional house.

Margery Robinson, whose home is just 885 metres from the closest turbine proposed said: ‘The wind industry has proved woefully inadequate at accurately predicting the noise levels which will be generated by their turbines. Unfortunately they commission reports from acoustical engineers who understand noise but not the effect it has on human beings. They claim that the noise has minimal consequence on humans and that infrasound is not a human health risk. However, experts in biomedical research have drawn different conclusions, supported by the experience of people who have been forced to live alongside these farms, with doctors in the UK, Portugal, Germany, The USA, Australia and New Zealand all observing the symptoms described above.’

Peter Haddon and Barbara Frey, authors of a report looking into noise radiation and the effects of wind turbines near homes on health say: ‘The evidence strongly supports those who complain of adverse health effects when living within close proximity of wind turbines, particularly the impacts from noise and shodow flicker/strobe effects. Various noise characters, low frequency noise, infrasound, and shadow flicker, all delivered with a pulsating character over a prolonged period, pose health risks when developers site wind turbines too close to homes.’

They conclude: ‘A safe buffer zone of at least 2km should exist between family dwellings and industrial wind turbines. It is not necessarily only the loudness of the noise; is is also the character of the noise that is disturbing. The wind turbine noise is periodic; intermittent; whooshing or swishing; it interferes with outdoor activities at one’s home and with sleep or studying, ie it severely disrupts normal family life.’2

Earlier this year the Berwickshire News printed a letter from Jane Davis who lives just 930 metres from a windfarm in Lincolnshire. She said: ‘Within 3 days we started having problems with the noise and hum emanating from the windfarm. We have had constant issues with loud noises and low frequency sounds that create a hum in the house all the time. Many times last summer we were woken by loud “WHOOSHING” noises, that stopped us sleeping. We now know that we suffer from a phenomenon known as aerodynamic or amplitude modulation (AM). We have abandoned our home as a place to live, relax and sleep in and have rented a house 5 miles away so that we can sleep every night for 7 hours instead of 3 or 4.’
Jane has also seen her home plummet in value. She says: ‘Our house which would previously have been worth about £180,000K is now likely to have a value of just the land –35K to 50K - and would not be marketable as a home for people to live in any longer.’ 3

Her experience echoed by many interviewees in the Hadden/Frey report, one of whom, Barry Moon, won damages against the people who sold him a property in Cumbria without warning him of an impending windfarm on a nearby hill in 2003. The former owners were ordered to repay him 20 per cent of the value of the property, establishing for the first time in law that a wind farm can lower the value of a home. 4

A spokesperson for Coldingham STAG (Stop the Turbines Action Group) said: ‘We fully support the residents of the Moor in this battle. Apart from the visual impact the turbines would have on such close properties, there is a growing body of evidence available showing that wind farms too close to homes cause environmental pollution and have a detrimental effect on the health of their residents. The State, landowners and developers could potentially all find themselves held responsible under the Human Rights Act, article 8 which gives people the right to enjoy their home peacefully.’

‘Affecting people’s health and wiping out their life’s investment in property is simply unacceptable. There is a risk that the wind farm applied for on Coldingham Moor could do just that. There is not enough research available to claim with confidence that noise will not affect the properties very close to this windfarm. Likewise, developers argue that although there is an initial dip in property prices they do eventually recover, but this will not be the case if the occupants are so close to the site that they are affected by constant noise and ill health.

‘Scottish Planning Policy 6 says ‘broad criteria should be used to set out the considerations that developers should address in relation to local communities. These should ensure that proposals are not permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby’, while policy H2 regarding protection of residential amenity in the Scottish Borders Local Plan states ‘development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted’.

‘We believe that this application directly contravenes these policies and that the homes and family lives of all of these people on the moor could be destroyed if the development is allowed to proceed. We very much hope that councillors will think of the residents of Coldingham Moor when they take their decision on this wind farm.’

1 Scottish Planning Policy 6, Renewable Energy, March 2007s
2 Barbara J Frey, BA, MA and Peter J Hadden, BSc, FRICS, Noise radiation from wind turbines installed near homes: effects on health, February 2007, www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com
3 Noise issues with windfarms, Berwickshire News, July 12 2007
4 Giant blades are slicing prices, Sunday Telegraph, House and Home, 17 October 2004

Developers pay naive activists to lobby on their behalf - 23 September 2007

Coldingham STAG has rejected the claim last week by P M Renewables that the majority of local people are in favour of a wind farm on Coldingham Moor. In fact the group can reveal that far from having local support, P M Renewables have been paying green activists from England to travel to the area and try to drum up support for their plans.
A spokesperson for the group said: ‘We are hardly surprised at the tactics of the developers – after all, this windfarm is worth millions of pounds in profits. Of course P M Renewables will claim that objectors are in the minority – but the facts simply do not bear out their arguments! Coldingham STAG is far from alone in objecting to this proposal. We are joined by the Community Council and Scottish National Heritage in saying the submitted plans are unacceptable, and we have been told by Scottish Borders Council that objections from local people are still arriving on their desks. None of these objections are financially motivated.
P M Renewables has sited a focus group held a year ago as proof that they have wide backing for their plans. However, the STAG spokesperson said: ‘The focus group they talk about actually took place when people knew very little about the site proposed. Attendance was by invitation only, effectively barring some of those who would have liked to be there, and the developers actually paid those they had chosen to take part!’
Coldingham resident Mike Carlile was one of those invited – though he refused to take the money on offer.
He said: ‘I went along fully believing the invitation which said it had been designed ‘to allow participants to engage in an informed and in depth debate’. However, it was in fact mostly hard sell – films and talks about how wonderful wind energy is and nothing at all about the actual site in question. In depth questions were not allowed and were put to one side.
‘I had many questions for the developers but they didn’t answer any of them and I was made to feel like a trouble-maker. In the end I handed the developers a list of my questions and asked them to put the answers on their website. I’m still waiting for a response. Interestingly, people could only claim their £20 ‘expenses’ at the end of the event – ie after they’d given their response. I turned down the money and I feel results obtained that day should be disregarded – if you invite selected people, give them food and pay them to attend, you obviously increase your chances of hearing what you want to.’
More recently the developers have given financial backing to members of the lobby group ‘Yes2Wind’, who set up a stall in Eyemouth last week and asked passers-by to sign letters in favour of renewable energy. These are to be sent to Scottish Borders Council as letters in favour of the wind farm.
A spokesperson for STAG said: ‘The difficulty is that of course people will say they are in favour of renewable energy – we all know we need to do something to save the planet. However, unless people are told details of the site in question they are simply not making an informed choice. I myself was approached and of course said that I was against the development, mainly due to the detrimental effects on wildlife, the fact that the proposed farm would be so close to people’s homes, and on grounds of access. However, I got chatting with the two men, and they happily admitted that they had no particular interest in the windfarm on Coldingham Moor, but that they travelled all over the UK being paid ‘expenses’ by various developers to lobby on their behalf. Another shopper told me that he’d been offered a pint of beer in exchange for signing a letter – when he refused the offer was upped to two pints! Needless to say he didn’t think it was worth sacrificing his principles for.’
The activists were also due to lobby Coldingham residents, however after listening to many shoppers in Eyemouth voice their concerns over the site they did not arrive in the village.
The STAG spokesperson said: ‘These seemed like very decent guys but they simply did not know the facts of this particular proposal. They hadn’t even been to the site and I think once things were explained to them they did the decent thing. The crucial thing is if PMR have so much local support, why are they having to pay naïve outsiders to come in and lobby for them?
‘Ultimately we have to put our faith in the councillors who will make the decision on whether or not to allow these plans to proceed, and we are hopeful that they will see that Coldingham Moor is simply the wrong site for a wind farm.’

 

Press release - Coldingham windfarm could threaten air safety - Monday 23 July

Coldingham STAG (Stop the Turbines Action Group) says building a wind farm on Coldingham Moor could put lives at risk due to the threat to aviation safety.

It is calling on Scottish Borders Council to reject a planning application by PM Renewables to build 22 wind turbines due to the possible radar interference and also the risk to low flying planes. 

A spokesperson for STAG says: ‘NATS En-Route Ltd, (NERL), the body which safeguards aeronautical radio stations and is responsible for the St Abbs DVOR/DMA at Cross Law to the north east of the proposed wind farm site, has produced maps of the UK to help developers identify safe spots for wind farms. Their maps clearly show that even developments of 20 metres high in this area could be a threat to air safety.1 The proposed wind turbines would be far in excess of this at 76 metres.’

The original plan for 16 wind turbines submitted by PMR caused some concern to NERL. In a statement to Scottish Borders Council they said: ‘Development within the proposed site at Drone Hill is likely to be objected to due to the proximity of the navigational beacon. The installation of wind turbines as described in the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the navigational service provided by the beacon.’ 2 PM Renewables have since revised their proposal and increased the amount of wind turbines to 22.

Coldingham Moor falls within one of only three Ministry of Defence tactical training areas specially designated for low flying in the UK. These areas are used to give pilots experience of flying low to the ground.

George Matthews of Burnside Cottage on Coldingham Moor said: ‘The Borders region has fast jets and Hercules aircraft which operate at 250-100ft. These regularly fly over Coldingham Moor. The wind turbines at the proposed site will be 250ft and could cause radar interference and be highly dangerous.’

Dr Lewis Moonie made reference to the area when Defence Minister. Asked the likely effects of siting wind turbines in tactical training areas, he said: ‘Within these areas military fast jet and Hercules aircraft may operate at heights between 250 ft and 100 ft. In addition, units make use of these specifically surveyed areas to conduct specialised night training.

‘Conclusions of a study conducted by the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment into the effects of wind generators on radar performance were that wind turbines cause interference to primary surveillance radar and harm the ability to detect and track aircraft flying over wind farms. Moreover, the presence of unlit constructions of significant size would be highly dangerous to aircraft flying down to 100 ft.

‘In the interests of flight safety, the safety of aircrew and members of the public, it is vital that any hazards to low flying aircraft are minimised. Any extraneous distractions or possible reduction in external support capabilities, such as that provided by ground radar, can have a deleterious effect upon aircraft safety, and thus the safety of aircrew as well as those on the ground.

‘It is, therefore, MOD opinion that obstacles in excess of 100 ft in height, unlit by night and with the ability to cause interference to radar, have the potential to create an acute safety hazard to aircraft engaged in operational low flying training, tactical radar avoidance training, specialised night flying and test and evaluation flying.’3

The risks have also been recognised by the Department of Trade and Industry. A report on windfarm impact4 set out to provide a detailed understanding of the interactions between wind farms and radar systems. It said: ‘A common source of objection from the Royal Air Force is that the wind turbine, being a tall object, is a threat to the safety of low-flying military aircraft on training flights. Another source of objections is that the wind turbine will appear as an echo on the display of radar used in air traffic control. This echo distracts the air traffic controller from the aircraft echoes which are his main interest, and can reduce the effectiveness of the radar by masking genuine aircraft returns. This is considered as a threat to the safety of air traffic, both civil and military.’

The report goes on to say that in some cases the presence of a wind farm causes problems with air traffic control, while in other cases there is little or no problem. It says: ‘The reasons for this apparent inconsistency are not well understood. This lack of understanding makes it hard for the aviation safety authorities to give clear and well-founded decisions on whether a particular proposed wind farm presents a safety issue or not.’

The report says that design of the tower and nacelle could have some impact, as could the spacing of turbines. However, it finds that: ‘Decisions made regarding the likely impact that a wind farm may have upon radar operations are currently based upon assumptions. The electromagnetic interactions between a wind turbine and a radar signal are complex and there is currently limited understanding in this area and no accepted method for quantifying this potential impact.’ 

The STAG spokesperson said: ‘Where there is any doubt as to the safety of a project such as this, we should err on the side of caution. ‘Limited understanding’ simply is not good enough - either for the people in the aircraft or those of us on the ground. Given this area’s special designation for low flying aircraft, and that some months up to 88 low flying military sorties have been carried out in the area, there is simply no way that this wind farm should be given approval. We urge Scottish Borders Council to ensure that safety is given the highest priority and the application is turned down.’

Coldingham STAG is calling on more people to make their views known to the council before the application goes before the planning committee. Letters should be sent to Alasdair Maclean at Development & Planning, Scottish Borders Council, 8 Newtown St, Duns, TD11 3DT or e-mailed to amaclean@scotborders.gov.uk


1 www.bwea.com/aviation/nats.html
2 NERL response to Scottish Borders Council, September 2005, quoted in Drone Hill Environmental Statement Addendum, P M Renewables, February 2007
3 Hansard, 22 March 2001,http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/
cmhansrd/vo010322/text/10322w05.htm#10322w05.html_spnew3
4 Windfarm impact on radar aviation interests’ , Department of Trade and Industry/QinetiQ Radar Study, September 2003

Ends

Return to Top of Page

back to home page