January 2012 Update
During the past year CFAG has been active in assessing the plans of the wind farm development at Cotton Farm, Graveley. In recent weeks there have several developments that will affect all the villages around the site.
The wind farm development approval has been sold by npower to a German renewable energy company called RENERCO. This company, after a recent financial bailout, is currently heavily investing in UK wind farm sites. Its biggest investment is Cotton Farm and its investment exposure concerns us. We are further concerned that the proposed UK contractor to build the wind farm, Wind Prospect Group, based in Cumbria, seems not to be in a good financial position either. Their group accounts show a loss for the last two published years. We are also aware Wind Prospect has been involved in building the wind Farm in Deeping St. Nicholas in Lincs. The developers and owners of that wind farm were taken to court by the Davis family after severe noise problems forced them to abandon their home. This case was settled out of court in December 2011 in favour of the Davis family: the total value is not known but it does run into £millions.
We are recommending both councils urgently contact the new companies involved with Cotton Farm, including the land owner, and secure a de-commissioning bond to ensure the site, when no longer operational, is demolished properly and safely, including the removal of the concrete bases and site infrastructure. It is known wind farms elsewhere have been abandoned and companies owning them have gone bankrupt leaving the land scarred and derelict. The bond, we recommend, should not be less than £5 million and be held by the County Council.
The action group and Graveley Parish Council, mindful of the recent developments and new evidence nationally and internationally, are aware of increasing concern over noise issues. The installation of noise monitors in the village is being actively pursued by the parish council. These would be installed to ensure compliance of operating conditions. Any breach will be instantly, and independently, flagged up for immediate action by Council officers and/or by recourse to law. This data can also be used if individuals develop medical conditions that could be attributed to the wind turbines. Recent medical evidence indicates a growing problem. The action group will assist Graveley, and any other parish council or individuals’ that have concerns with the proximity of the turbines.
We are aware the wind farm will be built. We still consider the decision to build was wrong; the only action that can be taken now is to ensure the proper protection of the villagers in law. This will be done by ensuring compliance to the planning conditions set out and, by the use of laws that protect against ‘nuisance’.
The action group is working with Graveley PC in the purchase and installation of monitoring equipment. We hope the other parishes will join Graveley in protecting their residents. Jointly we are in discussions with professional acousticians to ensure the data collected is in total compliance and acceptance in law. All parties are hoping both Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire district councils will involve themselves in the monitoring programme. The data provided will be available worldwide and be the first anywhere to provide continuous and accurate noise information from a windfarm site in real time. In all cases where noise conditions are exceeded, the evidence can be used to prove an unlawful breach of conditions. This will also allow the councils’ EHO’s, and others, to take legal action against the operators and, with repeated recorded breaches; it can be taken through the court processes to unlimited fines and possible closure.
We will post further information on our web site www.stopthewindfarm.org.uk
Bev Gray, Chairman of the Cotton Farm Action Group on 01480 830868.
February 2011 Update
As most of our supporters now know the Cotton Farm Appeal was upheld by the Inspector and npower have their permission to build at Cotton Farm. This is despite massive public opinion against the project, the unanimous decisions of our MP’s and all our local councillors at Parish, District and County levels. It is also against the much publicised Government statements for local people to have control of planning decisions in their areas.
The Action group and Parishes (CFA) hired a leading law firm to assess the Inspectors report to see if it could be appealed in the High Court. The CFA were stunned to find, in law, we cannot fight it. This is despite the inspector acknowledging errors and mistakes were made by npower in their documents and throughout the appeal. He rejected all this evidence and decided, under planning law and Government Policy, local and national, to allow the windfarm to be built.
The HDC policy document, called Wind Power Special Planning Document (WP-SPD) was the main problem. The inspector agreed with npower in his decision that the WP-SPD specifically states a windfarm could be placed in the area where Cotton Farm is. The HDC’s refusal of the npower plan at the Determination in November 2010 was based on an English Heritage letter stating the windfarm would have an adverse impact on Toseland Hall. This refusal was largely turned over by npower by them simply arguing, ‘The HDC’s own WP-SPD states there is room for a small development of 2 to 12 turbines in the South Claylands area.’ The inspector referred to this document many times in his decision.
The action groups and parishes (CFA) argued on many other issues at the appeal and exposed many faults and errors regarding noise, visual impact, local amenity, etc. Many were acknowledged by the inspector as being valid and, at another appeal (or with another inspector) might have tipped the balance in turning the appeal down. CFA proved again and again the npower evidence, especially on noise, was flawed. These, alone, could have formed the basis of an appeal. However, with no reference to these other subjects in the determination document and, coupled with the heavy weight of the WP-SPD, trumped all arguments. Combining this with the temporally reinstated National RSS policy the balance, in the Inspectors mind, was to approve the windfarm and left us with no room to directly appeal the decision.
This decision is particularly galling for Graveley. This is the nearest village to the windfarm site and, being downwind likely to be the most damaged village of all. Being in South Cambs, the Graveley residents have no say, vote or influence over HDC or its planning policies. The Graveley residents have been let down most of all. How SCDC will help mitigate the residents to this injustice remains to be seen.
The current role of CFAG and the CFA is over. We fought and lost. We have done all we can to stop this very damaging development. We do recommend a monitoring group should be set up by local people to insist on professional, independent civil engineers assistance, paid for by both HDC and/or SCDC, to enforce all elements of the conditions of build. Npower will make mistakes and will want to alter the plans. The monitoring group must stop this and hold npower to account on every single element of construction and supply; and to ensure the Councils do their job as well. Npower used unethical methods the raise background noise thresholds. All breaches of noise levels should be prosecuted under nuisance law as suggested by the inspector. Permanent and independently controlled monitors should be set up to provide this evidence. We also hope new legislation and a political reality of windfarm blight and damage will still stop this development. Individuals in CFAG and the Parishes will probably assume new roles and continue the fight along other lines at local and national levels.
We thank you, the residents, for your support. We do have a lot of sympathy for the many people who have tried to sell their homes and are likely to be exposed to noise and possible health problems if the turbines are built.
Finally, we expect to hold some functions to raise money to pay for the post decision legal fees. We are also to hold an AGM meeting on the 17th Feb in Graveley village Hall at 7:30PM. This will bring everyone up to date with further information. All are welcome.
Bev Gray. Chair
Appeal Upheld in Favour of NPower
The inspector has published his decision on the 14th December, 5 months late, and the appeal was upheld in favour of npower. A copy of the decision can be read – click here
The Action group is very surprised at some of the reasons used by the inspector in the report, so much so we need to discuss the findings with experts to see if we have to take this report to higher authority in the form of a Judicial Review. We will advise our supporters on our findings shortly. We may organise a public meeting to discuss this.
Another element coming through in the report is the way that HDC have, on the face of it, seemed to have failed the local population. We are to have a meeting with the council officers to discuss how and why their policies have allowed the whole district to be targeted by further developments. With four other applications in already they may not need too much convincing.
I am sorry we have failed in convincing the inspector at the appeal but, on reading the report, I think I am honest in saying he did not want to be convinced.
I am also very sorry for the many people who have been holding out for the decision to allow sales of properties to go though. I appreciate many exchanges will not take place and devaluation of property values and difficulty in selling will increase. It is a sad day when the greed of energy giants can trample local democracy and ignore the will of the people despite promises of the present Government to the contrary.
I cannot wish you a Happy Christmas. For far too many of us it will not be a happy time; and for some it is a portent of real hard ship and a devaluation of life style and property.
Bev Gray
CFA Chair.
Appeal decision is overdue….again
The decision for the Cotton Farm appeal, which finished in the first week of June, still has not been published. After three delays during the summer the report was promised for ‘Mid November’. We are now in the last week of November and there is still no sign of the decision.
The Cotton Farm Alliance (CFA, consisting of the action group and the parish councils around the Cotton Farm site) has been advised of people trying to buy and sell homes in the area are being frustrated and inconvenienced by the delay.
People trying to sell homes cannot get buyers while many potential buyers do not want to live near a wind farm.
Action Groups to have a policy discussion with HDC
The CFA is aware many other District Councils within the UK are acutely aware of growing problems from windfarm developments being sited too close to homes and places of work. These problems could end up in huge and very expensive planning and appeal legal costs and costs from defending litigation claims.
Currently action groups from other windfarm planning applications in the HDC area have joined to have talks with Huntingdon District Council to introduce a minimum distance between turbines and dwellings. Currently all parties are aware there is very limited protection given under local planning regulations and this should be rectified as soon as possible. A regulatory mechanism is available for immediate local legislation. This has to be looked at urgently especially as many areas in the UK, and Huntingdonshire particularly, are being swamped with windfarm and wind turbine applications.
To help HDC with this process the windfarm action groups have produced a discussion document based on our very considerable recent experience and research. This document, to be presented to the Council very shortly, not only justifies minimum distances but allows compliance with national regulations in protecting the environment and people. This is particularly relevant under the changes heralded by the new Coalition Government and regulation changes to be announced shortly. These changes are part of the continuing process of allowing local people to make local decisions on planning matters. In pursuant of this process action group representatives are to attend a meeting being be held shortly with HDC officers and councillors with the Leader of the council, Mr Ian Bates, in the chair.
Bev Gray
CFA chair.
Yet another delay for Cotton Farm appeal decision
The Inspector of the appeal, held in Huntingdon, Cambs, which ended at the beginning of June 2010 has advised the affected parties that there is yet another, third delay in his decision. The first date was the 6th July, then in August and later stated to be ‘mid September’. Now it could be November.
This development will increase the pressure on many supporters who have been ‘inconvenienced’ in trying to sell homes and move to new areas. The Alliance can only apologise to these people but the indecision from the office of the Inspector in Bristol is completely out of our control. We are aware of the strain this continues to be for all our supporters.
The committee were very surprised, on receiving a further letter on the 20th September, asking for further information. This is despite the fact the Inspector having already formally closed the appeal on the 31st August.
This action, although technically legal, is very, very unusual. It has raised concern among many in the Action Group of events happening possibly, outside the boundaries of the original appeal. This continuous delay could increasingly lend evidence to a Judicial Review that no one wants.
Consultation is being made to higher and more political authorities to see why this situation could be causing so much concern within the decision makers. It will also ensure our concerns, and the causal effects of the continuing delays to the local population, are brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
When we expect a result now is any bodies guess.
Bev Gray
CFA chair.
Latest Appeal information
Latest News 21st July 2010
Further delay in the inspectors report.
After the earlier delays due to further exchanges of evidence and rebuttal on the Gliding Club and Noise issues, the Inspector has delayed the publication of his report even further.
All the legal teams received a letter today asking for opinions due to changes in the Regioal Plan being scrapped in early July. The relevant section is copied below.
quote
As the main parties are aware, one further matter has arisen which is likely to delay further the formal closing of the inquiry and the issue of the appeal decision. On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State announced that he was revoking all Regional Strategies with immediate effect. Copies of the Secretary of State’s letter to Chief Planning Officers, the Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Statement and the Guidance issued by CLG are available on our website (www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk).
The Inspector has considered the correspondence received from the main parties concerning this announcement. He considers that, given the nature of the proposal the subject of this appeal and the policy context, the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy is likely to have a bearing on this appeal. This is important because the Inspector is required in law to take account of the development plan position at the time of his decision, rather than at the point at which the inquiry took place.
Accordingly he wishes to obtain the views of the main parties. He believes that this could be achieved by another round of written submissions and invites you to comment on how, or whether, the Secretary of State’s announcement affects your case. I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days of the date of this letter. Your response will be copied to the other main parties, and the opportunity will be given for further representations on the responses received. The Inspector will formally close the inquiry in writing at the end of this process. End quote.
This means the wait continues probably into mid August. This is a six week delay from the original 6th July dead line.
Bev Gray
Appeal Update
The appeal will, technically, close shortly with the final comments by the Cambridge Gliding Club rebuttal to the appellants comments on the Gliding Clubs public submission. The club members, based at Gransden, often glide over the windfarm site on their approach to land. This submission, at the appeal hearing, caused the appellant Barrister Hardy to loudly protest and ask for an extension for them to respond to the ‘technical’ document. This was done by an aviation consultant and a right of reply is to be submitted, by the Gliding Club, on or before the 28th June to the Inspector. This extension will lead to a delay in the Inspectors report. This is now expected to be at the end of July.
We are still looking for some final cash to pay off our final bills for the appeal. Donations, please, to Jeff Tossell.
CFA Closing Submissions
Click here for a copy of the closing submissions by Cotton Farm Alliance’s QC.
Inspector visits the area 2nd June
The end of our campaign was achieved on an extraordinary high note.
The day dawned with vehicles scurrying to Toseland Road, Graveley and then to College Farm Gt Paxton. Splendidly, magnificently, the blimps rose into the air and dominated the sky. The CFA had decided to use two blimps giving dimension to the depth and breadth of the proposed windfarm. The day was warming up and no wind (ironically) and a clear blue sky…and it stayed that way all day. Using two blimps turned out to be the best thing we could have done.
At 0930 the group from councils, CFA, npower and the Inspector rendezvoused in the Offords. After sorting out the cars and representatives, the convoy went to Cotton Farm and toured the windfarm site. The over-riding experience when standing still in the crops was the amazing still quietness of the site and the clarity of bird song.
The tour took us back to the Offords, then to Gt Paxton for the school and homes on the edge of the estates and after a look at the church, went to College Farm. Then the party walked to Toseland Wood and Toseland Hall. The over-riding factor that dominated the day were the blimps. They dominated every view point. Whenever we stopped we automatically looked to the blimps for our bearings. When the Inspector wanted to check a view point from photographs, in peoples gardens and in houses, he looked for the blimps. As we toured the district it became apparent we were seeing the dominance of the turbines, if built, to being a very major factor in our future lives. I am sure the Inspector was as surprised as we were. Allowing for the slight differences of positioning outside the windfarm site the mind’s eye filled in the turbines between them and the views from medium distances especially (1km to 5km) were simply dreadful to contemplate.
Views from Godmanchester Roman Way, Loves Farm housing development in St Neots, Diddington, Buckden, Papworth Everard and many other places would be dramatic. One person, arriving at the railway station in St Neots saw them as he walked across the platform bridge. Several supporters travelled the area and reported to us the impact on the area.
Corrie, from SCDC, took the inspector to a view point on the site of the old village in Papworth St. Agnes near the church. We looked back at the view over the present houses. The blimps were stark on the skyline over a village one would not think would be specifically impacted. Where ever we went the domination of the windfarm would be very obvious. The visual impact of the turbines on the area showed it should have been a major consideration in the HDC initial contemplation of the planning application. The approach to Graveley from the A1198 travelling west was truly awesome. The blimps showed that the turbines, if built, would be a moving blanket of turbine blades sitting over the northern section of the village like a smothering duvet.
At this point the CFA (and the Inspector) wishes to thank the many people who opened their homes and gardens to him. We are extremely grateful for everyone who allowed this. We are particularly grateful for the owners of Toseland Hall in accommodating the group, after the walk from College Farm, as we picnicked by the duck pond in the grounds of the Hall. It was really nice to sit in the sun being comfortable with the ancient walls of the Hall close by.
The tour continued, after a walk up the Toseland High Street, to Yelling and to Graveley and to the closest buildings to the proposed windfarm. Again it was the dominance of the turbines on all the properties represented by the blimps. After visits to Home Farm, Duck End and Graveley church the convoy returned to the Offord shop at about 5:30pm. The Inspector was then to continue his tour on his own until sunset. The blimps were also left flying until dusk to allow him his reference points.
As I write this it is a feeling of anti-climax. The campaign is over. The die is cast, the arguments fought and only the decision in July to worry about. It has been nearly three years of campaigning. It is unfair to pick out the many on the committee and in the Parishes who were tireless in their support and enthusiasm. The people of all the villages were very supportive and encouraged us in our fight. We thank you all for coming out for the Determination last November and again at the start of the appeal. Your letters of objection to the various politicians and the officers at the councils really mattered. We thank those who put up posters, delivered newsletters, raised funds and helped with all the chores of our activities. I must specifically thank those who gave statements to the inquiry. They were all very thoughtful, pertinent and relevant to each individual’s circumstance. There was passion, anger, frustration and tears. The inspector saw, as did the npower team, the raw emotions of people being wracked by this grossly unfair scheme being forced into our community. The greed and avarice of the wind industry is obvious. The employment of an advocate whose sole aim is to be a bully and threaten public and inspectors alike was deliberately provocative. The local press picked up the threat in his summary, ‘you will have to have 100’s of wind turbines in your region…get used to it!’ It says it all.
Sufficient to say when the appeal was announced by npower, a decision was made in January to raise money to fight the appeal. The level of support from the people in the area was so amazing we raised most of our target cash of £50,000 in under 4 weeks. We needed to raise (and still do) more money because of the increased time of the appeal. We raised it to £60,000. We are still a few thousand short with the final bills to come in. We are confident the funds will come in from you.
Finally I must thank our legal team and expert witnesses. David Cocks QC and Bob Barfoot were a formidable team. They are gentlemen, and those having met them, will agree with this. They assisted us because they too know the helplessness of fighting windfarm developers. We hope we can invite them back to a party later in the summer.
Whatever the outcome in July, I can honestly say we have fought as hard and as effectively as we could. We could not have done more. If there is any justice in the world we will have won hands down. But there is very little justice, I am afraid, and the decision is based on evidence relevant to planning law and not natural justice. This is restricted by all the finicky documents written by people in Whitehall and the oppressive legislation of an uncaring Government. We are hoping we get a better deal from the new Government. Letters by our MP’s to the Inspector intimate the opinion of the people will, at last, be taken into account. I sincerely hope so.
I hope we have done enough. However, those two blimps, they spoke a million words. They stated our case beyond all reasonable doubt. I hope, for all our sakes, the sheer visual impact of those blimps over ride the weasel words of advocacy.
Thank you.
Bev Gray
PS Please take down your posters. They were everywhere and the inspector could not miss them. Thank you.
Appeal Final Day. 1st June 2010
Final day of the Appeal
The inquiry returned to Woodgreen Animal shelter and opened with the final submissions by three members of the public and four District and County Councillors.
The one public statement advised the inspector of his childhood experience in remembering the building of the airfield and the aircraft flying to war and his experiences since then. It was a very moving account.
The councillors advised the inspector of the unanimous votes of Parish and district councillors in rejecting the npower windfarm.
After some legal clearing up on the conditions document it is to be noted the requirements of AM conditions were further discussed. It was concerning to note the npower request variations on hub heights were very interesting. They want a variable in hub height up to 20 metres instead of the 3metre suggested but still using a turbine max height of 127m. CFA are analysing this and have come to the (perhaps erroneous) conclusion the majority of AM problems seem to be caused by long blades on short hub heights. Is npower considering a new design of turbine where the blades are shorter but put higher into the wind sheer levels to avoid the AM thump? If so this would herald a much faster blade rotation and could herald new problems of noise and faster shadow and strobing effects.
Now we come to the closing speeches. David Cocks QC was first. He concentrated on the facts of the enquiry. He underlined the findings of the evidence and hammered home the facts that there were omissions of power calculations of the windfarm in production in the Environmental Statement (ES). He highlighted the defects and many errors in the document that were exposed. He underlined the way the npower witnesses had tried to minimise the effect of the massive effect the turbines will have on individuals and the loss of residential amenity in homes closest to the turbines. He pointed out the deficiencies of noise gathering and interpretation. He also noted the extraordinary attack on individual statements by Mr Hardy. It was a powerful submission that kept to the issues.
Then it was Tina Douglas, the Barrister for the Hunts District Council. In her submission she underlined the case for the council making particular references to the way Mr Hardy had tried to browbeat the inspector with references to planning law. She stated the WF-SPD (Wind Farm. Standard Planning Document) produced by LUC for the council was advisory to show the possibility of windfarm clusters in the HDC area and not mandatory. Toseland Hall was put into context and, in one example, the fact a barn was next to the house did not necessarily make it a farm house. She pointed out it was in the ownership of the Diocese of Ely and the barn was probably a tithe barn for the 10% donation to the church locally.
It was admitted HDC had not carried out as thorough an examination of some sections of the ES as should have been and the consultant used by HDC to assess the document was only used to ensure compliance of the structure of the document but not a full analysis of it. During her submission, Mrs Douglas emphasised further errors in the ES including the montages. This included the incorrect titling and/or location of at least one. However, she underlined the fact that the needs of the people and the environment should be protected and this fact should counter the appellant constant mantra that the needs of the nation should over-ride local convenience.
Now it came to David Hardy. It is very fair to say he is very articulate, persuasive and beguilingly convincing. He also had the advantage of being last in this rather biased system. His submission has to boiled down, in my personal opinion, to attacking the two previous submissions proving his extreme skill in fast thinking. It is difficult to report the speech because of its technical content and fast fire approach. I can only summarise it by reflection and impression, and I apologise to him if I have got the wrong end of the stick.
He seems to constantly emphasised the needs of the nations requirement for more renewable energy and the need for more turbines. This is an issue we locally cannot consider. He even used a figure showing the requirement of the East of England having to have many, many hundreds more wind turbines to meet CO2 (and Government) targets and intimated we should get used to the idea.
Mr Hardy used a very large amount of time trying to, it seems to me, frighten the Inspector with a barrage of his duties to the nation in accordance of the planning regulations and heavily quoted from them. He seemed to use a lot of references (most from where he appeared himself for the appellants) from recent appeals and emphasised one particular Inspectors judgements (Ruth Mackenzie) as being, apparently out of line and could be revisited for legal review.
He attacked the evidence of the witnesses including, again, the acoustician Mike Stigwood. He emphasised the skill, expertise and authority of his own witnesses, messrs Stevenson, Dr. Bullmore, Dixon and…Dr Edis.
He underlined his experts evidence of the insignificance of Toseland Hall. At this moment I could not help compare this with the evidence, unwittingly given perhaps, by the personal statement of the earlier witness who described the building of the north south runway during the war. He pointed out even at a time of dire need and national emergency, the runway was slightly realigned to avoid Toseland Hall. Even then the importance of this building was recognised and even the chimneys were preserved and were lit instead of being removed as was commonly done elsewhere.
It was the difficulty of keeping up with the argument Mr Hardy was putting that confused the audience leaving just an impression of numbed despondency. It is on reflection one realises there is one over-riding factor that one is left with.
It is not so much what he did say but more of what he did NOT say.
By concentrating of Government policy, planning law and previous appeal statements he seems to have avoided a lot of issues brought out specific to this appeal at Cotton Farm. He admitted, at one brief stage the opposition was articulate. A compliment to the CFA perhaps? There are outstanding issues still to be gone through. He re-emphasised his doubts over a stud farm; obviously not fully appreciating the nature and business of thoroughbred breeding. The inspector has kept the inquiry open allowing rebuttal by Hardy of the evidence brought to the appeal by the Gransden Glider Club. These facts alone showed the powerful evidence brought against his client.
Wednesday is the day of the Inspectors accompanied tour of the area. As I write this it is a very still and misty early morning (0615) with the promise of a fine day. I hope he enjoys our countryside. During the day we shall fly two blimps and at Cotton Farm npower have been asked to provide markers (helium balloons) showing some of the turbine locations. Npower, somewhat wryly, declined CFAG’s offer of our blimps to be put on the turbines positions.
