·      Pollution from noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, ash, or the treatment and disposal of waste – In a well-documented case, a Lincolnshire family were driven from their home due to the noise created by wind turbines 900 metres from their house.     

·      The safe and free flow of traffic – You will be aware that Norfolk Gliding Club has registered its objection to this development on safety and noise grounds.

In Volume One of its environmental statement, the applicant states that:

“Due to the proposed turbine height, there will be no lighting on the turbine structures…The “Lighting of En-Route Obstacles and Onshore Wind Turbines” Policy states that structures over 150m must be fitted with aviation warning lights. This will not be necessary for the site at Tivetshall”.

However, as the CAA’s Director of Airspace Policy, Mr Mark Smailes points out in his email to you of 7 June 2010: “the [environmental] statement does not tell the whole story”.  Mr Smailes goes on to note that, whilst legislation demands that structures of 150m or more in height have aviation safety lighting fitted, aviation interests and groups may recommend that lighting be fitted to smaller structures.  Indeed, in its letter of 9 June 2010 the MoD has requested that, in the interests of safety, that the turbines be fitted with aviation lighting.  The MoD have explicitly stated that they require the turbines to be lit and the CAA have further made it clear that they would support any such call from the MoD.  Additionally, it is not known whether the applicant has, at Mr Smailes’s suggestion, consulted Norwich International Airport over these proposals and Mr Smailes concludes: “the current position is not clear”. 

With regard to the proliferation of applications for wind turbine developments in this area and the cumulative impact this will have, particularly upon aviation, Mr Swailes of the CAA states in his email of 7 June 2010: “It is possible that the proliferation of wind turbines in any particular area might potentially result in difficulties for aviation that a single development would not have generated”. 

Although not in legislation, government recommendations are that separate wind farms be at least 5 kilometres apart.  The proposed wind farm will be less than 2 kilometres from the proposed wind farm at Pulham St Mary (2010/0383) and I believe that, as the developments at Tivetshall St Mary and Pulham St Mary are being made by different applicants – Enertrag UK Ltd and TCI Renewables Ltd respectively – the cumulative impact of the proximity of the two developments has not been assessed properly by the applicant.

It should be noted that the applicant wrote to Breckland District Council on 30 October 2009 objecting to the proposal of Bernard Matthews Ltd to install two wind turbines close to the applicant’s development at North Pickenham on these exact grounds. 

It should also be noted that, in its study of cumulative effects, the applicant does not appear to have included its revised plans for a four-turbine wind farm at Hempnall.  On 3 March 2010, I received a letter from the applicant, stating an intention to resubmit a planning application in the area of the applicant’s previous proposal (2008/0917), which was dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspector in December 2009.  I believe that the applicant should have included its revised plans for Hempnall in its environmental statement given that its clear and stated intention, as of March 2010, is to resubmit its application. 

I hope that the above points will be considered by the planning committee when it meets to consider the above proposal. 

See also:
LOCAL NEWS: MP gives council his views on Tivetshall windfarm

---