MP launches campaign to fight wind turbines

WIND PLAN: The site at Bradbury, near Newton Aycliffe where the wind farm is proposed.

WIND PLAN: MP Phil Wilson opposes the scheme.

First published in News by , Reporter (Sedgefield)

AN MP will today launch a campaign aimed at stopping any further wind farms from being built in the region.

Sedgefield MP Phil Wilson is taking action after E.ON announced plans that could see England’s biggest wind farm built in his constituency.

The energy firm will launch a formal consultation on August 31, with three proposals to be considered – for either 29, 30 or 45 turbines – on a site east of Newton Aycliffe.

E.ON say 45 turbines could produce up to 115MW of energy, enough to power 53,000 homes, and has pledged a £460,000-a-year community benefits fund.

However, Mr Wilson believes the area already has too many wind farms and claims E.ON’s community offer is paltry compared to what it will receive in subsidy.

He said: “E.ON will take a great deal out of the pockets of the local community and pay us back with peanuts.

“The income from the Isles wind farm for E.ON will be over £575m over 25 years, of which £311m will be out of the pockets of the consumer in subsidy.”

Mr Wilson said it amounts to consumers paying £235 per year in subsidy and receiving £8.60 back through the community fund.

Dr John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, criticised the subsidy system he said will see E.ON receive £50 for each MWh produced, plus the £42 market value.

He said: “It’s mind-blowingly expensive at a time when everybody is facing such difficulties.

“These subsidies are being generated entirely by the consumer, but let’s not forget we’re talking about commercial and industrial consumers too.

“So where you have industry that consumes a lot of energy, combined with tight profit margins, these subsidies could be costing more jobs than the Government tells us the low-carbon economy is generating.”

A spokesman for E.ON said it was early days for the Isles proposals and the firm wanted to get as many people as possible involved to help shape it.

He said: “We believe the site is an excellent location for a wind farm and, as such, could make a major contribution towards the Government’s renewable energy targets.”

Mr Wilson will launch his campaign in Mordon Parish Hall, at 11.30am.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:26am Tue 9 Aug 11

BB Darlington says...

Thank heaven somebody with some infuence is making a stand against the windfarm proposal. In addition to the economic argument I don't want our countryside spoiled
Thank heaven somebody with some infuence is making a stand against the windfarm proposal. In addition to the economic argument I don't want our countryside spoiled BB Darlington
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Tue 9 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

BWEA re branded and changed their logo at their AGM ( Dec2009) to which I was invited
Chris Tomlinson BWEA said he would look at the incorrect informaton re SW Durham Satle y and similar incorrect information re Walkway.( I mention only SW Durham /Satley as the Telegraph reported it at the time. However after the rebranding I cannot contact Chris at all!!.

-Isn’t it tme the planning system was investigated before there is so much ‘bribery’ under the name of community benefits that we end up buying planning------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------


Phil Wilson MP has organised a petition against the proposed Isles Windfarm.
It was suggested at a Westminster Energy ,Environment &Transport Forum (WEETF) Seminar in London.26 Nov 2008 that any M inister backing ‘anti’ wind farm groups be removed from office
. Chair was Tim Yeo
BWEA re branded and changed their logo at their AGM ( Dec2009) to which I was invited Chris Tomlinson BWEA said he would look at the incorrect informaton re SW Durham Satle y and similar incorrect information re Walkway.( I mention only SW Durham /Satley as the Telegraph reported it at the time. However after the rebranding I cannot contact Chris at all!!. -Isn’t it tme the planning system was investigated before there is so much ‘bribery’ under the name of community benefits that we end up buying planning------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------- Phil Wilson MP has organised a petition against the proposed Isles Windfarm. It was suggested at a Westminster Energy ,Environment &Transport Forum (WEETF) Seminar in London.26 Nov 2008 that any M inister backing ‘anti’ wind farm groups be removed from office . Chair was Tim Yeo marelizamann
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Tue 9 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

BWEA re branded and changed their logo at their AGM ( Dec2009) to which I was invited
Chris Tomlinson BWEA said he would look at the incorrect informaton re SW Durham Satle y and similar incorrect information re Walkway.( I mention only SW Durham /Satley as the Telegraph reported it at the time. However after the rebranding I cannot contact Chris at all!!.

-Isn’t it tme the planning system was investigated before there is so much ‘bribery’ under the name of community benefits that we end up buying planning------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------


Phil Wilson MP has organised a petition against the proposed Isles Windfarm.
It was suggested at a Westminster Energy ,Environment &Transport Forum (WEETF) Seminar in London.26 Nov 2008 that any M inister backing ‘anti’ wind farm groups be removed from office
. Chair was Tim Yeo
BWEA re branded and changed their logo at their AGM ( Dec2009) to which I was invited Chris Tomlinson BWEA said he would look at the incorrect informaton re SW Durham Satle y and similar incorrect information re Walkway.( I mention only SW Durham /Satley as the Telegraph reported it at the time. However after the rebranding I cannot contact Chris at all!!. -Isn’t it tme the planning system was investigated before there is so much ‘bribery’ under the name of community benefits that we end up buying planning------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------- Phil Wilson MP has organised a petition against the proposed Isles Windfarm. It was suggested at a Westminster Energy ,Environment &Transport Forum (WEETF) Seminar in London.26 Nov 2008 that any M inister backing ‘anti’ wind farm groups be removed from office . Chair was Tim Yeo marelizamann
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 9 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

A message from another MP


Charles Hendry MP
From A Community Commitment
The Benefits of On shore Wind
Feb 2011 renewable UK
“Onshore wind is our cheapest large
scale renewable energy source. It is
already delivering significant amounts
of power to our homes and businesses,
and it will make a significant
contribution to meeting our climate
change and energy security goals.
However, the development of onshore
wind has not been without its challenges
and we shouldn’t ignore this. There has
been a sense in some local communities
that wind developments are imposed
on them. It has also been the case that
communities can see what they will lose
by having a windfarm in their midst, but
cannot see what they gain.
I am clear that there needs to be a new
relationship between wind farms and
the communities which host them. This
Government has committed through
our localism proposals to giving
communities more power to influence
the development that takes place around
them. We also want to see communities
rewarded for hosting renewable energy,
which is why we have committed that
business rates should be kept locally for
renewable energy developments. The
Localism Bill also ensures developers
and local communities talk to each
other much earlier so local needs can be
factored in as proposals shape up and
local benefits – such as new jobs and
new skills training – can be built
into proposals for development.
I know that there are already a number
of excellent examples of wind farm
developers engaging positively with
communities and some innovative
approaches to ensuring that some of the
benefits of developments remain in the
local area. It makes sense that as many
communities as possible should benefit
in a similar way, and should have the best
possible clarity about what to expect
from developers. I therefore warmly
welcome the initiative that RenewableUK
has taken in bringing forward this
Protocol, underpinning the wider work
on community engagement being made
across the onshore wind sector”.
A message from another MP Charles Hendry MP From A Community Commitment The Benefits of On shore Wind Feb 2011 renewable UK “Onshore wind is our cheapest large scale renewable energy source. It is already delivering significant amounts of power to our homes and businesses, and it will make a significant contribution to meeting our climate change and energy security goals. However, the development of onshore wind has not been without its challenges and we shouldn’t ignore this. There has been a sense in some local communities that wind developments are imposed on them. It has also been the case that communities can see what they will lose by having a windfarm in their midst, but cannot see what they gain. I am clear that there needs to be a new relationship between wind farms and the communities which host them. This Government has committed through our localism proposals to giving communities more power to influence the development that takes place around them. We also want to see communities rewarded for hosting renewable energy, which is why we have committed that business rates should be kept locally for renewable energy developments. The Localism Bill also ensures developers and local communities talk to each other much earlier so local needs can be factored in as proposals shape up and local benefits – such as new jobs and new skills training – can be built into proposals for development. I know that there are already a number of excellent examples of wind farm developers engaging positively with communities and some innovative approaches to ensuring that some of the benefits of developments remain in the local area. It makes sense that as many communities as possible should benefit in a similar way, and should have the best possible clarity about what to expect from developers. I therefore warmly welcome the initiative that RenewableUK has taken in bringing forward this Protocol, underpinning the wider work on community engagement being made across the onshore wind sector”. marelizamann
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Tue 9 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

A message from another MP


Charles Hendry MP
From A Community Commitment
The Benefits of On shore Wind
Feb 2011 renewable UK
“Onshore wind is our cheapest large
scale renewable energy source. It is
already delivering significant amounts
of power to our homes and businesses,
and it will make a significant
contribution to meeting our climate
change and energy security goals.
However, the development of onshore
wind has not been without its challenges
and we shouldn’t ignore this. There has
been a sense in some local communities
that wind developments are imposed
on them. It has also been the case that
communities can see what they will lose
by having a windfarm in their midst, but
cannot see what they gain.
I am clear that there needs to be a new
relationship between wind farms and
the communities which host them. This
Government has committed through
our localism proposals to giving
communities more power to influence
the development that takes place around
them. We also want to see communities
rewarded for hosting renewable energy,
which is why we have committed that
business rates should be kept locally for
renewable energy developments. The
Localism Bill also ensures developers
and local communities talk to each
other much earlier so local needs can be
factored in as proposals shape up and
local benefits – such as new jobs and
new skills training – can be built
into proposals for development.
I know that there are already a number
of excellent examples of wind farm
developers engaging positively with
communities and some innovative
approaches to ensuring that some of the
benefits of developments remain in the
local area. It makes sense that as many
communities as possible should benefit
in a similar way, and should have the best
possible clarity about what to expect
from developers. I therefore warmly
welcome the initiative that RenewableUK
has taken in bringing forward this
Protocol, underpinning the wider work
on community engagement being made
across the onshore wind sector”.
A message from another MP Charles Hendry MP From A Community Commitment The Benefits of On shore Wind Feb 2011 renewable UK “Onshore wind is our cheapest large scale renewable energy source. It is already delivering significant amounts of power to our homes and businesses, and it will make a significant contribution to meeting our climate change and energy security goals. However, the development of onshore wind has not been without its challenges and we shouldn’t ignore this. There has been a sense in some local communities that wind developments are imposed on them. It has also been the case that communities can see what they will lose by having a windfarm in their midst, but cannot see what they gain. I am clear that there needs to be a new relationship between wind farms and the communities which host them. This Government has committed through our localism proposals to giving communities more power to influence the development that takes place around them. We also want to see communities rewarded for hosting renewable energy, which is why we have committed that business rates should be kept locally for renewable energy developments. The Localism Bill also ensures developers and local communities talk to each other much earlier so local needs can be factored in as proposals shape up and local benefits – such as new jobs and new skills training – can be built into proposals for development. I know that there are already a number of excellent examples of wind farm developers engaging positively with communities and some innovative approaches to ensuring that some of the benefits of developments remain in the local area. It makes sense that as many communities as possible should benefit in a similar way, and should have the best possible clarity about what to expect from developers. I therefore warmly welcome the initiative that RenewableUK has taken in bringing forward this Protocol, underpinning the wider work on community engagement being made across the onshore wind sector”. marelizamann
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Tue 9 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

A message from another MP


Charles Hendry MP
From A Community Commitment
The Benefits of On shore Wind
Feb 2011 renewable UK
“Onshore wind is our cheapest large
scale renewable energy source. It is
already delivering significant amounts
of power to our homes and businesses,
and it will make a significant
contribution to meeting our climate
change and energy security goals.
However, the development of onshore
wind has not been without its challenges
and we shouldn’t ignore this. There has
been a sense in some local communities
that wind developments are imposed
on them. It has also been the case that
communities can see what they will lose
by having a windfarm in their midst, but
cannot see what they gain.
I am clear that there needs to be a new
relationship between wind farms and
the communities which host them. This
Government has committed through
our localism proposals to giving
communities more power to influence
the development that takes place around
them. We also want to see communities
rewarded for hosting renewable energy,
which is why we have committed that
business rates should be kept locally for
renewable energy developments. The
Localism Bill also ensures developers
and local communities talk to each
other much earlier so local needs can be
factored in as proposals shape up and
local benefits – such as new jobs and
new skills training – can be built
into proposals for development.
I know that there are already a number
of excellent examples of wind farm
developers engaging positively with
communities and some innovative
approaches to ensuring that some of the
benefits of developments remain in the
local area. It makes sense that as many
communities as possible should benefit
in a similar way, and should have the best
possible clarity about what to expect
from developers. I therefore warmly
welcome the initiative that RenewableUK
has taken in bringing forward this
Protocol, underpinning the wider work
on community engagement being made
across the onshore wind sector”.
A message from another MP Charles Hendry MP From A Community Commitment The Benefits of On shore Wind Feb 2011 renewable UK “Onshore wind is our cheapest large scale renewable energy source. It is already delivering significant amounts of power to our homes and businesses, and it will make a significant contribution to meeting our climate change and energy security goals. However, the development of onshore wind has not been without its challenges and we shouldn’t ignore this. There has been a sense in some local communities that wind developments are imposed on them. It has also been the case that communities can see what they will lose by having a windfarm in their midst, but cannot see what they gain. I am clear that there needs to be a new relationship between wind farms and the communities which host them. This Government has committed through our localism proposals to giving communities more power to influence the development that takes place around them. We also want to see communities rewarded for hosting renewable energy, which is why we have committed that business rates should be kept locally for renewable energy developments. The Localism Bill also ensures developers and local communities talk to each other much earlier so local needs can be factored in as proposals shape up and local benefits – such as new jobs and new skills training – can be built into proposals for development. I know that there are already a number of excellent examples of wind farm developers engaging positively with communities and some innovative approaches to ensuring that some of the benefits of developments remain in the local area. It makes sense that as many communities as possible should benefit in a similar way, and should have the best possible clarity about what to expect from developers. I therefore warmly welcome the initiative that RenewableUK has taken in bringing forward this Protocol, underpinning the wider work on community engagement being made across the onshore wind sector”. marelizamann
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Tue 9 Aug 11

Jolly Roger says...

Well Mr Wilson only jumps on the bandwagon when it suits him.

I for one like wind farms and the one on the isles land is better than some.

Why do I say that have you ever driven a car down the A1M along that stretch of road, you will understand why I said that if you have you always get cross winds in that area.

But Mr Wilson, did not listen to us when the Post Offices were shutting left right and centre he voted with the Government of the time to shut them.

So in my opinion he cannot stand up and say he does what his people want him to do as he did not listen then - did you Mr Wilson.
Well Mr Wilson only jumps on the bandwagon when it suits him. I for one like wind farms and the one on the isles land is better than some. Why do I say that have you ever driven a car down the A1M along that stretch of road, you will understand why I said that if you have you always get cross winds in that area. But Mr Wilson, did not listen to us when the Post Offices were shutting left right and centre he voted with the Government of the time to shut them. So in my opinion he cannot stand up and say he does what his people want him to do as he did not listen then - did you Mr Wilson. Jolly Roger
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Tue 9 Aug 11

Axziz68 says...

All for windfarms build more and tie the anti- windfarm protesters to the blades,, get a life you old fuddys and stop winging,, wave power and wind power only safe way forward..id have 1 in my garden if got free power..good on e-on
All for windfarms build more and tie the anti- windfarm protesters to the blades,, get a life you old fuddys and stop winging,, wave power and wind power only safe way forward..id have 1 in my garden if got free power..good on e-on Axziz68
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Wed 10 Aug 11

BB Darlington says...

Mr Charles Hendry MP seems to be launching a sales campaign on behalf of windfarms rather than setting out a balanced argument. We do need to ensure, however, that the 'pros' outweigh the 'cons'. There are several surprising points made on the internet. The first one I came accross being the fact that 19 turbines outside Swansea are planned to generate ££12m per year for the Duke of Beaufort's estate of which £7m is a direct subsidy.
In April Scottish landowners were given nearly £1m in compensation for not supplying windpower to an overloaded grid for just one night. Offshore wind progamme amounting to over £100bn by 2020. I am no expert on energy matters and have quoted information readily available on the internet but it is sufficient to raise a lot of doubts about any possible long term value. Also the wind turbines will need to be dismantled after 15 years then there is the cost of energy and materials used in the manufacturing process,the noise and possible damage to wild life to be discussed.
We must nt be steamrolled into accepting this proposal. In the event that tthe windfarm went ahead without indepth debate I would wonder if it could be the normal countryside smell drifting over the region or the smell of corruption.
Mr Charles Hendry MP seems to be launching a sales campaign on behalf of windfarms rather than setting out a balanced argument. We do need to ensure, however, that the 'pros' outweigh the 'cons'. There are several surprising points made on the internet. The first one I came accross being the fact that 19 turbines outside Swansea are planned to generate ££12m per year for the Duke of Beaufort's estate of which £7m is a direct subsidy. In April Scottish landowners were given nearly £1m in compensation for not supplying windpower to an overloaded grid for just one night. Offshore wind progamme amounting to over £100bn by 2020. I am no expert on energy matters and have quoted information readily available on the internet but it is sufficient to raise a lot of doubts about any possible long term value. Also the wind turbines will need to be dismantled after 15 years then there is the cost of energy and materials used in the manufacturing process,the noise and possible damage to wild life to be discussed. We must nt be steamrolled into accepting this proposal. In the event that tthe windfarm went ahead without indepth debate I would wonder if it could be the normal countryside smell drifting over the region or the smell of corruption. BB Darlington
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Wed 10 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

Walkway Wind farm Sedgefield from BWEA Magazine Real Power Issue1

Wind Prospect
Seven turbines were given planning permission at High Swainston Farm, near Sedgefield in early March 2005.
The 21MW project has 3 claims to fame: this is the first consent for a windfarm in the Prime Minister's constituency, the turbines are the most powerful to be approved onshore in England to date at 3MW per unit, and all this was achieved well within the statutory time period, with consent awarded in an outstanding time period of 12 weeks following submission.

Reality: Walkway Wind Farm Sedgefield, not famous but infamous
The local group did not appear to have a fair hearing. Valid objections were not addressed. The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) was willing to pursue the case but the necessary funds could not be sourced at such short notice. The Council refused to wait for the results of the ongoing Noise Study by Dti, initially due Spring 2005. Later the developers sought to alter condition 20, relating to policy D10 of the local plan, in order to accommodate a 'de minimus' increase in the noise level. Again the Council refused to wait for the Dti study results which unfortunately were still not available,at the time of the Decision meeting.

What we need is the Truth
Walkway Wind farm Sedgefield from BWEA Magazine Real Power Issue1 Wind Prospect Seven turbines were given planning permission at High Swainston Farm, near Sedgefield in early March 2005. The 21MW project has 3 claims to fame: this is the first consent for a windfarm in the Prime Minister's constituency, the turbines are the most powerful to be approved onshore in England to date at 3MW per unit, and all this was achieved well within the statutory time period, with consent awarded in an outstanding time period of 12 weeks following submission. Reality: Walkway Wind Farm Sedgefield, not famous but infamous The local group did not appear to have a fair hearing. Valid objections were not addressed. The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) was willing to pursue the case but the necessary funds could not be sourced at such short notice. The Council refused to wait for the results of the ongoing Noise Study by Dti, initially due Spring 2005. Later the developers sought to alter condition 20, relating to policy D10 of the local plan, in order to accommodate a 'de minimus' increase in the noise level. Again the Council refused to wait for the Dti study results which unfortunately were still not available,at the time of the Decision meeting. What we need is the Truth marelizamann
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Wed 10 Aug 11

spragger says...

I thought RedEd was pro windmills?
Is this fool of an MP at conflict with his leader?
Own up, whats your policy Labour
I thought RedEd was pro windmills? Is this fool of an MP at conflict with his leader? Own up, whats your policy Labour spragger
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 11 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

Phil Wilson MP must also look at information given to cllrs and planners by BWEA now Renewableuk.Cllrs and planners will make their decision on smaller wind farms on what they are told as being the truth. Why won't he or some other MP investigate to find the truth.Why wont Chris Tomlinson answer as he promised.

There is much people are not told and should be.Then a decision can be made.

South West Durham and Walkway, also Butterwick were a travesty of justice
Phil Wilson MP must also look at information given to cllrs and planners by BWEA now Renewableuk.Cllrs and planners will make their decision on smaller wind farms on what they are told as being the truth. Why won't he or some other MP investigate to find the truth.Why wont Chris Tomlinson answer as he promised. There is much people are not told and should be.Then a decision can be made. South West Durham and Walkway, also Butterwick were a travesty of justice marelizamann
  • Score: 0

11:26am Thu 11 Aug 11

BB Darlington says...

When will the petition against the proposal for this windfall be circulated?
When will the petition against the proposal for this windfall be circulated? BB Darlington
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Thu 11 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

For any information on the petition contact Phil Wilson's Aycliffe Office.
--------------------
-------------------
Furthermore engaging with communities has been ongoing for some time. Here are some notes I made then in 2006.

INVOLVING COMMUNITIES WHILST NOT ADDRESSING POTENTIAL DISBENEFITS -WILL DESTROY THE 'BALANCING ACT, essential to informed decision making and paramount to good and democratic planning "

*Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England.
Meetings: Feb3rd 2006 and Peer Review, Feb 27th 2006 Dti London

The protocol as discussed on Feb3rd seemed to give the impression that windpower developments will always be permitted and that only benefits will occur rather than a balance .Invited to e mail comments to Simon Roberts before the second meeting I consulted with colleagues both in the North East and other areas including the South West, on the proposed protocol .A consensus of opinion follows which I then e mailed to Simon Roberts.
Surely the protocol should imply that in cases where a full economic and environmental assessment demonstrates that the range of impacts and disbenefits are so great, the development should be rejected. The following amendment was suggested:
The process may involve discussion of the site, the wind development itself, its impacts and their possible mitigation and the potential benefits and disbenefits to the local area and more widely.
Insertion of " its impacts and their possible mitigation, replacing "low local impacts may be mitigated" and addition of "and disbenefits" after "potential benefits, seems to restore some balance.
A telephone call from Simon Roberts (Centre for Sustainable Energy) and a member of the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB). confirmed that the peer review meeting scheduled for the 27th had been cancelled. He said it was felt there was not the correct mix around the table and more Councillors and Planners were needed. (Simon was previously Senior Energy Campaigner at Friends of The Earth 1989- 1994 and Commercial Manager at Tridios Bank from 1998 to 2002)
The Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England seemed to be directly connected with the Regional Conferences. The Renewable Energy & Community Involvement conference for the North East region (18/03/06 in Newcastle) hosted by the Environment Council and funded by Dti was one of eight held in the English Regions. The main thrust was that there are no disbenefits from wind energy and we must move forward together. The Environment Council, a semi private organisation I understand, gave their presentation which centred on the South West Protocol. It was basically training for Councillors on how to consult with communities under the terms of PPS22.It appeared to, as any 'protocol' does, to lay down a set of rules pre-defining what should happen.
For any information on the petition contact Phil Wilson's Aycliffe Office. -------------------- ------------------- Furthermore engaging with communities has been ongoing for some time. Here are some notes I made then in 2006. INVOLVING COMMUNITIES WHILST NOT ADDRESSING POTENTIAL DISBENEFITS -WILL DESTROY THE 'BALANCING ACT, essential to informed decision making and paramount to good and democratic planning " *Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England. Meetings: Feb3rd 2006 and Peer Review, Feb 27th 2006 Dti London The protocol as discussed on Feb3rd seemed to give the impression that windpower developments will always be permitted and that only benefits will occur rather than a balance .Invited to e mail comments to Simon Roberts before the second meeting I consulted with colleagues both in the North East and other areas including the South West, on the proposed protocol .A consensus of opinion follows which I then e mailed to Simon Roberts. Surely the protocol should imply that in cases where a full economic and environmental assessment demonstrates that the range of impacts and disbenefits are so great, the development should be rejected. The following amendment was suggested: The process may involve discussion of the site, the wind development itself, its impacts and their possible mitigation and the potential benefits and disbenefits to the local area and more widely. Insertion of " its impacts and their possible mitigation, replacing "low local impacts may be mitigated" and addition of "and disbenefits" after "potential benefits, seems to restore some balance. A telephone call from Simon Roberts (Centre for Sustainable Energy) and a member of the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB). confirmed that the peer review meeting scheduled for the 27th had been cancelled. He said it was felt there was not the correct mix around the table and more Councillors and Planners were needed. (Simon was previously Senior Energy Campaigner at Friends of The Earth 1989- 1994 and Commercial Manager at Tridios Bank from 1998 to 2002) The Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England seemed to be directly connected with the Regional Conferences. The Renewable Energy & Community Involvement conference for the North East region (18/03/06 in Newcastle) hosted by the Environment Council and funded by Dti was one of eight held in the English Regions. The main thrust was that there are no disbenefits from wind energy and we must move forward together. The Environment Council, a semi private organisation I understand, gave their presentation which centred on the South West Protocol. It was basically training for Councillors on how to consult with communities under the terms of PPS22.It appeared to, as any 'protocol' does, to lay down a set of rules pre-defining what should happen. marelizamann
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Thu 11 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

For any information on the petition contact Phil Wilson's Aycliffe Office.
--------------------
-------------------
Furthermore engaging with communities has been ongoing for some time. Here are some notes I made then in 2006.

INVOLVING COMMUNITIES WHILST NOT ADDRESSING POTENTIAL DISBENEFITS -WILL DESTROY THE 'BALANCING ACT, essential to informed decision making and paramount to good and democratic planning "

*Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England.
Meetings: Feb3rd 2006 and Peer Review, Feb 27th 2006 Dti London

The protocol as discussed on Feb3rd seemed to give the impression that windpower developments will always be permitted and that only benefits will occur rather than a balance .Invited to e mail comments to Simon Roberts before the second meeting I consulted with colleagues both in the North East and other areas including the South West, on the proposed protocol .A consensus of opinion follows which I then e mailed to Simon Roberts.
Surely the protocol should imply that in cases where a full economic and environmental assessment demonstrates that the range of impacts and disbenefits are so great, the development should be rejected. The following amendment was suggested:
The process may involve discussion of the site, the wind development itself, its impacts and their possible mitigation and the potential benefits and disbenefits to the local area and more widely.
Insertion of " its impacts and their possible mitigation, replacing "low local impacts may be mitigated" and addition of "and disbenefits" after "potential benefits, seems to restore some balance.
A telephone call from Simon Roberts (Centre for Sustainable Energy) and a member of the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB). confirmed that the peer review meeting scheduled for the 27th had been cancelled. He said it was felt there was not the correct mix around the table and more Councillors and Planners were needed. (Simon was previously Senior Energy Campaigner at Friends of The Earth 1989- 1994 and Commercial Manager at Tridios Bank from 1998 to 2002)
The Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England seemed to be directly connected with the Regional Conferences. The Renewable Energy & Community Involvement conference for the North East region (18/03/06 in Newcastle) hosted by the Environment Council and funded by Dti was one of eight held in the English Regions. The main thrust was that there are no disbenefits from wind energy and we must move forward together. The Environment Council, a semi private organisation I understand, gave their presentation which centred on the South West Protocol. It was basically training for Councillors on how to consult with communities under the terms of PPS22.It appeared to, as any 'protocol' does, to lay down a set of rules pre-defining what should happen.
For any information on the petition contact Phil Wilson's Aycliffe Office. -------------------- ------------------- Furthermore engaging with communities has been ongoing for some time. Here are some notes I made then in 2006. INVOLVING COMMUNITIES WHILST NOT ADDRESSING POTENTIAL DISBENEFITS -WILL DESTROY THE 'BALANCING ACT, essential to informed decision making and paramount to good and democratic planning " *Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England. Meetings: Feb3rd 2006 and Peer Review, Feb 27th 2006 Dti London The protocol as discussed on Feb3rd seemed to give the impression that windpower developments will always be permitted and that only benefits will occur rather than a balance .Invited to e mail comments to Simon Roberts before the second meeting I consulted with colleagues both in the North East and other areas including the South West, on the proposed protocol .A consensus of opinion follows which I then e mailed to Simon Roberts. Surely the protocol should imply that in cases where a full economic and environmental assessment demonstrates that the range of impacts and disbenefits are so great, the development should be rejected. The following amendment was suggested: The process may involve discussion of the site, the wind development itself, its impacts and their possible mitigation and the potential benefits and disbenefits to the local area and more widely. Insertion of " its impacts and their possible mitigation, replacing "low local impacts may be mitigated" and addition of "and disbenefits" after "potential benefits, seems to restore some balance. A telephone call from Simon Roberts (Centre for Sustainable Energy) and a member of the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB). confirmed that the peer review meeting scheduled for the 27th had been cancelled. He said it was felt there was not the correct mix around the table and more Councillors and Planners were needed. (Simon was previously Senior Energy Campaigner at Friends of The Earth 1989- 1994 and Commercial Manager at Tridios Bank from 1998 to 2002) The Protocol for public engagement with proposed wind power developments in England seemed to be directly connected with the Regional Conferences. The Renewable Energy & Community Involvement conference for the North East region (18/03/06 in Newcastle) hosted by the Environment Council and funded by Dti was one of eight held in the English Regions. The main thrust was that there are no disbenefits from wind energy and we must move forward together. The Environment Council, a semi private organisation I understand, gave their presentation which centred on the South West Protocol. It was basically training for Councillors on how to consult with communities under the terms of PPS22.It appeared to, as any 'protocol' does, to lay down a set of rules pre-defining what should happen. marelizamann
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Thu 11 Aug 11

marelizamann says...

Apologies for the double postings but I am not sure how that happened.

If anyone wants more information re the petition contact is:

Mick Hills
Senior Researcher to
Phil Wilson MP
Sedgefield


tel: 0207 219 4966 London
fax:0207 219 0639
tel: 01325 321603 Constituency
e-mail: hillsm@parliament.uk

I hope this helps
Apologies for the double postings but I am not sure how that happened. If anyone wants more information re the petition contact is: Mick Hills Senior Researcher to Phil Wilson MP Sedgefield tel: 0207 219 4966 London fax:0207 219 0639 tel: 01325 321603 Constituency e-mail: hillsm@parliament.uk I hope this helps marelizamann
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Wed 24 Aug 11

DigitalDemocracy says...

Yay or nay on the proposed wind-farm? Have your say here:

http://www.digitalde
mocracy.org.uk/campa
igns/3956
Yay or nay on the proposed wind-farm? Have your say here: http://www.digitalde mocracy.org.uk/campa igns/3956 DigitalDemocracy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree