FELLS Newsletter 14, Spring 2007 Home
THE ENERGY WHITE PAPER
FELLS has always taken a neutral stance on the issue of nuclear power because we recognised seven years ago that it was a topic that generated mixed feelings in our membership. But the world has moved on—fossil fuels are recognised as finite resources, climate change is with us, and we remain as energy hungry as ever.
The Government also has appeared neutral on this issue but the recently published EWP seems to signal a change of position. Four years ago, the nuclear option was effectively ruled out but more recently we have seen the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management’s report (which offers an acceptable way forward via rewarding communities prepared to host waste facilities) and now an EWP that envisages nuclear as an important part of the mix. In truth the Government had little choice and are now accepting that nuclear is the only currently viable base load technology that can give a major reduction of carbon emissions.
Doubtless green groups will be critical. But the radioactive waste from the first generation of power stations is already here, and future generations will contribute comparatively little to this: we will not be creating a new problem. As for safety, the consequences of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - the most serious incidents in the history of nuclear energy – were far less drastic than we may have been led to believe. Many more coal miners have died (and continue to do so) than were affected by Chernobyl and many more people continue to suffer from aerial pollution from burning wood or coal in the third world than have been harmed by radioactivity. Nevertheless, we must recognise the nuclear ‘dread factors’ lodged in the public mind: the long half-lives of the waste and the invisible nature of radiation itself. But, as with so many things, the reality is much less worrying than the perception.
The alternatives for power generation are not attractive. Wind power, whatever its advocates say, cannot realistically provide more than a minor part of our power requirements. Even that will be on an intermittent and unpredictable basis and conventional generating capacity must be held on standby until needed thus at least partly offsetting CO2 gains from the wind power itself Wind has its supporters, but also encounters intense opposition. Solar power is considerably more expensive and also intermittent, though more predictable. The Severn tidal barrage, if ever built, will generate a significant power output, but also have a huge environmental impact.
Carbon sequestration is in its infancy, and carries an energy cost: more coal must be burnt for the same output. Micro-generation is simply not going to be a significant contributor to overall needs, even for the few people who are prepared to foot the installation bill. Ask David Cameron what effect his wind turbine has had on his electricity bills in a few months time.
Energy saving in itself, though laudable, is not going to save the output of several decommissioned power stations. Hopefully we will invest in Combined Heat and Power plants where appropriate, make greater use of biomass and continue to drive down the cost of solar power. But for the next few decades wind offers no solutions:
we simply have no realistic alternative for base load power than nuclear fission, though the recent elections in Scotland and Wales have set the scene for a battle royal when it comes to site selection.
FELLS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST WIND FARMS
FELLS began its fight to protect the countryside of Cumbria and North Lanes from inappropriately sited wind farms at its inaugural meeting in June 2000. Now entering our eighth year, perhaps it is time to consider just what has been achieved.
Clearly our high-point was the victory at the Whinash Public Inquiry announced in March 2006 but we believe we have had a impact on a much wider front than that. This is because we are generally respected as a well informed group who take a real and perceptive interest in this controversial area of planning.
As a voluntary committee, though, we have serious time constraints and have to limit what we can do. In recent meetings we have agonised over what our policy should be with regard to the western coastal strip of Cumbria. This area from Whitehaven right up to the Solway Firth is under constant pressure from wind farm developments. There are already some 11 wind farms operating or under construction (including the two offshore sites off Barrow and Robin Rigg) with several others in the planning process.
However, this area does not strictly fall within our remit because it is neither the Eden Valley, the Lune Valley or Lakeland - though clearly coastal developments could impact on the western part of the National Park. Nevertheless, because of our reputation we are often asked for help.
After much debate we have decided that we will not get directly involved in wind farm application in the west coast area but will continue to provide speakers for public meetings and give out information if specifically requested. In this way we can help to set up, and educate local opposition groups who will then be in a better position to make their own arguments.
We have already done this in the cases of Brownrigg Hall (Allonby), Tallentire Hill and Oughterside and in each case a dynamic local group was created. As a result, Brownrigg Hall wind farm has been rejected twice by the Allerdale Planning Committee, and anemometer mast applications have been rejected at Tallentire by both the council and the Planning Inspectorate.
For other applications FELLS have played a smaller role. For example we have advised the residents near Pica, inland from Whitehaven and Workington and have provided support and information to action groups opposing the Lamonby and Grise wind farms near Penrith. These last two are still with the planning authority awaiting further studies due to inadequacies in the environmental statements. Pica has been refused by Copeland Council despite an Officer recommendation to approve. In a few cases we have played no part at all, for example the proposals by NPower at Hellrigg near Silloth where there may be a risk to the RAF low flying aircraft. In this case both the County Council and the local council objected and of the 652 letters received only 5 were in support.
Within our own area we have been more active. Public meetings in Old Hutton, Melling, Arkholme, Hornby and Tebay led to the formation of well informed action groups to fight the Barkin Lot proposal on the Kirkby Lonsdale to Kendal road, the Cragg Lot windfarm south of Whittington and Whinash. Other meetings have been held in Appleby, Brookhouse, Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale. Near Orton, the Hoff Moor application has been turned down by the Eden Valley District council twice despite being recommended by the planning officers. But our greatest involvement this year has been at Shap. Two meetings helped get the opposition group (COLT, Community Opposed to Shap Turbines) up and running and established excellent links with Georgina Perkins who is spearheading that group. We supported her at a public meeting in Crosby Ravensworth as well but failed to persuade residents of the merits of our case. This large application for 10 turbines straddling the M6 motorway is due any day now.
FELLS committee members have also responded to various public consultations, including a detailed reply to the important Cumbna County Council Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (see update opposite). Of great importance was the publication by us of a map of Cumbria showing the encroachment of over 50 windfarms. Over 500 copies were sent out which had a material impact on many decisions. We have also been significantly involved elsewhere — notably Northumberland, Durham, and Scotland, and have continued to liaise with groups such as Country Guardian and the Renewable Energy Foundation with whom we are affiliated.
The outcome of all this activity has been very encouraging. No new windfarms have been approved in South Lakeland, Eden District or North Lancashire in recent years (though the repowered Caton wind farm began operating in the new year) and several applications have been turned down in the Allerdale and Copeland areas. We clearly will not stop all windfarms but the FELLS campaign has already helped significantly to reduce the adverse impact of these schemes in our precious landscapes. We hope you agree and will continue to give us your moral (and practical) support.
THE NATIONAL SCENE
The British Wind Energy Association issued a press release on March 2nd deploring the poor record of wind farm approvals. Since the publication of the Stem Report in October 2006 (see last Newsletter) it stated that 12 out of 18 applications for onshore wind farms had been refused (a 33% approval rate) while only 2 out of 7 adjudicated upon by the Planning Inspectorate were approved.
Of course they keep restating the arguments about climate change and the importance (in their view) of wind farms in the fight to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They consistently fail to acknowledge the proven facts that (a) wind farms make little contribution to emission reduction because of the need fur back-up by fossil fuel power stations and the degradation of peat on upland sites and (b) the opinion of the National Audit Committee who found that wind power was one of the most expensive and least efficient methods of reducing CO2 anyway. Notably the EU Union for the Coordination of the Transmission of Electricity report (2007) said, ‘...other back-up generation capacity will negate a substantial port! on of the CO2 saving by wind power’. So there you have it!
Of course the real downsides of wind farms are that any potential benefits from them are vastly outweighed by their divisive nature and the manner in which they are imposed on communities when the clear motive is profits—mostly to foreign-owned companies. The BWEA also keep stating that it is only NIMBYs who oppose windfarms but Alistair Darling said recently s... there are as many people who object to wind farms as there are objecting to nuclear power plants’. That can hardly be classed as a vocal minority, can it?
UPDATE ON CUMBRIA’s WIND ENERGY SPD
Our lead article in the last newsletter dealt with this important Supplementary Planning Document, out for consultation from Cumbria County Council. FELLS put in a detailed response to this request.
Since then all has been silent. We have recently checked with Jenny Warn (Principal Planning Officer) what the status of the SPD is. She has replied that the responses to the consultation were much greater and much more detailed than the CC expected. In some cases further work has had to be commissioned from landscape consultants. Consequently, it will not be ready to place before the local authorities until September. Subject to their approval the adopted SPD will then be published. There is no provision for any further consultation, so we will have to wait and see what changes have appeared in the final version.
THE SHAP RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK
Garnesa Energy expected to submit their plan for a 10 turbine wind farm before Christmas 2006 but as of the date of writing nothing has happened.
FELLS are giving every possible assistance to the local opposition group (COST) as this is a remarkably prominent site. The ridge above Shap is highly visible from High Street in the Lakes as well as from the Howgill Fells and Whinash and the Pennine Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The turbines are expected to be even taller than those which were rejected a Whinash and are only 5miles up the road. Lt also seems strange that anyone should propose a wind farm which sits either side of a motorway and even has 3 turbines between the carriageway. Driver distraction will be inevitable and risks from ice throw or debris will be ever present.
We hope you will support us in our opposition to this proposal. We will inform members when the application is made so that you can to write to Eden District Council.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PLANNING IN THE ENERGY WHITE PAPER
A commentary from the Scientific Alliance Newsletter, May 2007
A proposed simplification of the planning rules was announced at the same time as the EWP. This will allow many homeowners to make modest changes to their houses - such as adding a conservatory - without the need to apply for planning permission as at present. This will please individuals, but the more important changes - which will certainly not please people living nearby - relate to major developments (including nuclear power stations). While France seems to be able to plan and build its major infrastructure with little or no dissent or delay, similar projects in the UK can be bogged down for years in public enquiries.
Its really about balance. Residents who may be affected by a proposal have a right to object; but the planning system currently allows long drawn-out battles fought by national lobbying organisations. Their objections are often to the very principle of the proposal, rather than its site or finer details. Although the government should not be able just to force the building of anything without debate, the need for power generation or increasing capacity of an existing busy road or airport is arguably something which is of national interest and importance and should therefore take precedence over individual objections. The appropriate action is then surely to compensate those directly affected rather more generously than at present. This may be an additional cost; but it has to be offset against the direct costs and delay caused by the present system. It works in France. It could work here.
ROUND-UP OF WIND FARM NEWS
Cragg Lot (Arkholme) - Cornwall Light & Power are now in discussion with Lancaster City council about increasing this proposal from three to five turbines each 125 metres (410 feet) high, almost 100 feet higher than the new ones at Caton.
The local opposition group are delivering 10,000 leaflets locally to warn people.
Pica - Copeland Council turned down this application (called Fairfield Farm) but the developer WindProspect say they will ‘...appeal to the Government’. The Planning Officers report said ‘...within the Cumbrian context, the Fairfield Farm scheme is the type of proposal which will need to be approved if there is any realistic prospect of the sub-Regional target being achieved’. Perhaps true but the targets themselves are farce as they see Cumbria merely in terms of a ‘wind resource’ and make no allowance for the fact that nearly 50% of the County is either designated National Park or AONB.
Winscales - Winscales Moor Windfarm Ltd want another 7 turbines on this site on the west coast where there are already 11. The County Council are opposing the plan as the site was said originally to be only capable of comfortably accepting nine.
Ormonde - This is the second off-shore proposal for Walney and will add 30 more turbines to the 30 already operating plus harnessing gas from two marginal gas fields. However, shortage of turbines has set back the start of construction by at least a year and the company say it will not now start operating until 2010 at the earliest.
Weddicar - A 580 acre site between Moresby and Frizzington is expected to be a site for a yet another new wind farm application on the west coast.
Hoff Moor – has been rejected twice by Eden DC but an appeal by the developer is still possible. This site on the Orton to Kirkby Stephen road is within the possible extension of the National Park being assessed by Natural England.
Barkin Lot, Dalton Crag - still no signs of further developments on these two sites.
Did you know? Global population passed 6.5 billion this year. People exhale about 1 litre of carbon dioxide each per minute. So just breathing today adds 1.84 billion tonnes of CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere each year — and that’s without the 6-9 tonnes each person will generate through their carbon footprint. This raises the question as to why there seems to be no political interest in regulating the growth of the world’s population.