Nimbies

Something that bothers me about the whole turbine “thing” is how divisive it is. We don’t like to talk about it but it is very hard for nearby groups to support one another because there is [probably] a limit to how many turbines the Government will push through in a particular area. It’s an unfortunate fact that if a windfarm say 4 miles away from one I particularly care about stopping is approved I am going to breath a very guilty sigh of relief as the chances of “mine” being approved drop dramatically.

Someone from the midlands now living in the area has emailed STINC to say the following:

I could not find a menu item on how to support a wind farm in North Cornwall in an appropriate site.  After all unless we are willing to stop using electricity it would be hypocritical to not encourage some applications.
After all the people of the Trent valley have been putting up with smoke, sulphur dioxide, increased rates of asthma, acid rain dust and noise from coal generation so that the people of Cornwall can put their lights on. 
The coal fired stations were there because the coal and water were  there.
The wind is here on top of hills so let’s decide where we will accept them and support those rather than just being a load of nimbies.

I didn’t read what he was saying properly to start with because I don’t read anything properly if I can help it and because I thought he was just calling me a nimby. But I think what he is saying is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately he doesn’t mention how to solve the difficulties of actually doing what he suggests. The obvious problem is that if I think Tredump is a good place for a windfarm because 1) it’s far enough away from my house so I won’t hear the noise from it and 2) it’s a tip and it couldn’t look any worse anyway, Joe Trevithick who’s family have lived there for 500 years is going to be quite upset if I persuade North Cornwall to vote for Tredump Community Windfarm and get it pushed through.

I think that Cornwall should pick itself up by its bootstraps and say “We are going to aim to be a net exporter of energy. We will first make a 30%(?) cut in our energy use through a self funding energy efficiency investment scheme. We will promote locally produced food. We will sort out a proper public transport system.” Once this sort of thinking is established we can start asking people to discuss and agree where we are going to site windfarms, digesters, woodpellet and biomass producers and reclaim the word community from the developers of Cheshire. When we build roads, we buy houses and land by compulsory purchase and whilst it must be devastating when it happens to you, there must be compensations. The trouble with X Community Windfarm is that there are no tangible compensations. We need to establish that within a framework for a sustainable future we don’t build windfarms in areas of outstanding natural beauty but that neither should we expect people to suffer from asthma on our behalf in Didcot. A compromise has to be reached where we agree the least worse place to build the things that ideally we don’t want at all and then go about compensating those who live near them with a certain amount of free energy, some money or some compensating improvement to their environment.

Central Governement won’t do it because they are too busy trying to refinance their other solution by selling it, or not, to the French Governement. But we are almost an island and we ought to be able to build a sustainable future with a concensus behind it. We have the Duchy. We have lots of rich people who like spending their money down here. We unfortunately also have a significant population living below the breadline who need energy efficient homes but can’t afford them and we need to deal with this too. We have a proud history of exporting industry to the rest of the world. And perhaps Cornwall’s success in leading the world in steam technology that spawned the industrial revolution leaves us with a duty to lead the world in building a sustainable future.

 

Need a magnifying glass?

People more eloquent than I have written excellent documents and articles about photomontages and wind farms but it seems important that we try to demonstrate in a “Davidstow specific” way how the public and the planners are being mislead. I’m nervous of having a stab at doing this because of copyright issues and because I’m a member of the IET and I don’t like to put my name to anything I don’t think is strictly accurate in engineering terms. If you think I’m wrong about the following I hope you will find the time to put me right. The important thing as far as I’m concerned is to get to the bottom of what should reasonably be used in the public consultation about wind farms. There are hard choices to make – perhaps we are just considering whether we want to slice up a few birds in our locality and spoil the view – perhaps it’s a small price to pay for saving the planet – but perhaps we are all being conned. Many people are unpersuaded by wind farms’ ability to save the planet. The financial and carbon cost is so hard to weigh up and the Government is looking for politcial solutions not practical ones. Telling people they don’t have the right to use more than their fair share of fuel even if they are very rich is unappealing to any politician with any chance of being elected.

My question is: “Why don’t the planners force the developers to follow the guidelines and produce single frame photomontages of proposed developments?”

Because I don’t have access to photomontages submitted to the planners, I’ve taken a screen dump of a leaflet available at http://www.davidstowcommunitywindfarm.co.uk/images/flyer.pdf which shows one of the panoramic photomontages that the developers love. It makes the turbines look tiny and insignificant. Colin Caudery has described the problems with these representations at some length in an article at http://www.stinc.co.uk/newsID031.shtml and the original “best practice” guidance is available at Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Guidance document. Here’s the screen dump (click it to view it full screen):

Screen dump of leaflet

I suggest that the turbines are all but invisible. If you take chunks of the panorama and enlarge it so that it is “something like” you might see if you were on Showery Tor it might look something like this:

A chunk of the panorma as you might see it on site

This is pretty unscientific. But what can you do when you have no resources to try and piece the evidence together properly? I’m not a photo analyst and as a group STINC doesn’t have the money to employ one. It gives you an idea of what we’re looking for though – we want to understand how it will look to a person who is actually going for a walk. If you were sitting on Showery Tor and looking towards Davidstow Woods you could have this picture on a sheet of A4 and hold it up and compare it with the view. When you’d recovered from the shock of how it would look you might manage to make your way home again.

It doesn’t look too bad though. That is until you realise that you can’t actually see the blades of the turbines at all. And it’s the moving blades that are very disturbing because it is not a natural site to see 90m diameter “things” moving in the landscape. And certainly not 20 of them in a space that used to be pleasant moorland.

So I’ve highlighted them by putting in a narrow rectangle of white approximately over the turbines so you can see them. If you drive back towards Camelford from an evening walk on the beach at Trebarwith you come to a T-junction where you get a “splendid” view of the Deli turbines and when the sun hits them as it is low in the sky they absolutely gleam and on this basis I think I am justified in putting the turbines in in PBW. Maybe you think otherwise? I have sized the column on the original taking the top of what is visible to be the hub of the turbine. I’ve then naively added 3 lines at 120Degree intervals measuring the lines to be a little over half the height of the hub (45m radius vs 80m to the hub).

Simplistic addition of blades and highlighting of the tower.

The turbines further to the east are more jumbled in and my simplistic approach is clearly inadequate to provide anything realist so I’ve just put in a few to give an impression.

Easterly view - just a few turbines highlighted.

The heights are entirely judged on the original photomontage. If they are under or over sized then my simplistic representations will be too.

So much fuss but you need a panorama to see the whole development at once don’t you? Absolutely not! The recommendation is to use a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera and this has an angle of view of 39Degrees as is explained in the references above. If you draw two lines at an angle of 39Degrees on a map you can just get the whole development into a single frame view from a viewing point on Roughtor (rather than Showery Tor) that could be posted on the planning website and the developer’s website and be printed by anyone with a normal A4 colour printer so that they could take a walk up Roughtor to get an idea of how the development would look.

A 39Degree triangle drawn from the top of Roughtor

Remember you can see the pictures full screen by clicking on them.

If you think what I’m saying is wrong please get in touch using the comments link at the end of the article or email me at webmaster@stinc.co.uk

I think decisions should be made on the basis of fact, not spin. Just to be clear I’m not asking for anything other than for the developers and planners to follow the SNH Guidance. At the least the developers should provide an additional set of A4 single frame images using the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. If the developers are certain that the community (they like that word) are in favour of the turbines even though they are so astonishingly vast and will mince the birds they won’t mind following the guidelines and publishing some representative photomontages will they?

Tim Henderson

Source of extended map in the last picture was Google Maps, reproduced without permission. Maps aligned and scales matched on the cross of the runway and the woods by Roughtor car park.

 

The Big Visual Debate – 8th July 2008

Read How It Effects You

Many thanks to all our many members that turned up at Sir James Smith’s Community School on Tuesday evening for the debate and the DVD showing on wind farm visuals that highlighted exactly what is wrong with the current photomontages used within the developers Environmental Statements (ES).

ES are public consultation documents; they are an integral part of a legal planning application. The primary purpose of the visuals within is to provide the public and members of planning committees with a proper sense of size and scale. At present this is sadly lacking in wind farm application ES. As turbines are getting ever higher this matter requires the utmost attention; wind farm applications have for too long relied upon a distortion of the visuals.

It was a great shame that none of the invited representatives from the wind farm companies came as they always insist that they listen and indeed invite local public participation in the planning process. These companies are obviously frightened of true participation especially when they know that what they are showing to the public in their ES is blatantly misleading.

“How are local communities being misled?” I hear you ask. Well the answer to that lies in the photographic format that has now been adopted by the wind farm industry that is wide-angle narrow panoramic strips. There are two main problems with this format: they make the landscape look much further away than it is in reality, and the vertical scale of the landscape appears to be reduced. This therefore appears to reduce the visual impact of the turbines themselves.

The production of the photomontage visualisations should be guided by the principle of providing the public and planning committee members with the most realistic impression of the proposed development in terms of scale and distance not how can we best deceive the public.

Now some good news: the Council after much haranguing from STINC have made both Delabole and Otterham send in revised photomontages, after finally agreeing that the photographs were of poor quality and did not meet the specified viewing distance as required under the guidance. However they have still not insisted on the developer supplying an additional set of single frame images as is also required under the SNH Guidance. We will ardently pursue this issue with NCDC to ensure that the new montages conform to Best Practice Guidance.

All we wish to see is for CCC and NCDC to make the developers adhere to the guidance that they state they are following in their ES and supply single frame 50mm focal length images in either A3 or A4, so as to give a realistic impression of the impact.

The advantages of the single frame image are many:

• this type of image needs no critical viewing distance; they can be viewed at a normal and comfortable reading distance
• they do not suffer from distortion when viewed on a computer screen or are projected onto a screen
• they can be easily printed off at A4 size on a home printer and taken to the viewpoint.

You can actually see the turbines within the photograph – something the developers do their best to resist doing. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Guidance (this guidance is used throughout England and is aimed specifically at wind turbine development and purely covers visual impact assessment) is clear that single frame images using a standard 50 mm lens comply with best practice. I cannot stress enough the importance of the developer being made to use single frame images within the ES. Of course the developers do not wish to as they know the public will then see the true scale of the development.

The flow chart below taken from SNH Guidance 2006 clearly shows that to illustrate predicted visual impacts to a wide audience (the public) single frame photomontage should be used. What you see is what you get with single frame images, unlike the misleading panoramic images, which distort the true view and underestimate visual impact.

Photomontage selection flow chart

We must get CCC and NCDC to understand the importance of the developers complying with best practice guidance. After all, the visual impact of a wind farm is a key planning consideration, and the only way that the visual impact can be judged is by studying accurate 50mm single frame images.

In summing up STINC recommendations are as follows:

• The developers of the current schemes are requested to supply an additional set of single frame 50mm photomontages in full A4 format as required by “Best Practice” and that these images be issued on CD-ROM.
• That these images are then uploaded onto the local authorities websites so that the public can easily download them, print them of and take to the viewpoint.
• That there is public notification of these changes.
• That no decision be taken on these current applications until this has been carried out.
• That all future applicants are requested to include an additional set of 50mm single frame photomontages within the ES and that these are the images posted on the websites and supplied on CD-ROMs. These can then be easily understood and used by the public.

The Interesting Stuff

For people with a really keen interest in this subject printed below is part of our planning rebuttal for the wind farm at Titch Barrow that pulls apart the developers current visuals (it’s all interesting stuff).

“Following independent computer analysis on the developer’s medium range photomontages, the images appear to under-represent by a factor of up to three. There are also problems with image distortion amongst other things. For a scheme of only four turbines where the visual resource and key components can easily be contained in a single photographic frame, it is our view that the applicant should have adopted this approach. None of the photomontages demonstrate the true characteristics of a 50mm lens.

STINC requests an adjournment of the planning process, on this development until it has had fair time to employ its own independent chartered landscape architect and visualisation consultants.

Following independent expert advice STINC request that the applicant for the above application provides amended and additional photomontages. The applicant has failed to comply with SNH Guidance even though the Environmental Statement cites SNH Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance (2005), it has also failed to comply with University of Newcastle, 2002,’Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice’, and The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual impact Assessment (LI-IEMA).

1 Amended photomontages

SNH Guidance is clear “that while an image height of approximately 200mm is recommended, an image height over 130mm is considered acceptable.” (Page 75- para.129). Images at 130mm or below will make the turbines look further away and smaller than they would be in reality.

STINC requests that the applicant supplies amended photomontages that comply with SNH Guidance with regard to image height.

2 Additional photomontages

The independent expert advice concluded that the panoramic A3 photomontages could not be viewed correctly on a computer screen as a viewing distance can only relate to a fixed image size. Due to different viewing software, different loading characteristics and different monitor sizes, this is not possible. This problem is compounded by the fact that the images should only be viewed on a curved plane and will therefore appear seriously distorted when viewed on a flat computer screen.

Owing to the cost of purchasing the printed full Environmental Statement, in reality most people will view the images from a CD-ROM purchased from the applicant, or from photomontages mounted on display boards in exhibitions by the applicant. The application of a viewing distance, which is the sole justification for the panoramic images, is therefore meaningless, and the images as viewed by the public will have a powerful under-representation of the true visual impact.

A focal length of 50mm in the 35mm format can only be achieved by a 50mm lens. The images as viewed on a computer screen do not have the technical characteristics of a 50mm lens, which has a horizontal angle of view of 39 degrees, so the claim by the developers that the images have a focal length of 50mm is again meaningless as the horizontal angle of view of the images in the Environmental Statement is 70 degrees which is characteristic of a 24mm wide angle lens. The images, when viewed on a computer screen or viewed by projection are therefore highly misleading.

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment- Appendix 9- Guidelines on photomontage and CAD clearly states that….’if a practitioner wishes to use an alternative focal length, then a 50mm photograph of the same view should be provided for comparison’.

The University of Newcastle Report 2002- 7.10 (conclusion) states that ‘a full image size of A4 or even A3 for a single frame picture, giving an image height of approximately 20cm is required to give a realistic impression of reality’.

Furthermore, SNH Guidance is clear (Fig 37 page 120) that to illustrate predicted visual impacts to a wide audience single frame photomontages should be used, provided that the key characteristics of the visual resource can be incorporated in a field of view of 39 degrees or less, which is the field of view of a “standard” 50mm lens.

STINC requests that the applicant supplies an additional set of photomontages based upon 50mm single frame images printed full page A3 which is the developers chosen format, in order to comply with SNH Guidance. A full set of 50mm single frame images, shown full screen, should also be supplied in electronic form. After all, the visual impact of a wind farm is a key consideration in any planning decision, and the only way that the visual impact can be judged is by studying accurate photomontages.

3 Photomontages of associated infrastructure

Paragraph 219 of the SNH Guidance is clear that “Windfarm proposals include elements other than wind turbines, typically including tracks, borrow pits, cabling and a substation. Additionally, a windfarm development may be both directly and indirectly responsible for vegetation and land use change. If these elements are likely to result in significant impacts, either individually and/ or collectively, they should be included in photomontages if possible.”

STINC considers that these features may well result in significant impacts and request that the applicant prepares additional photomontages, which demonstrate these likely visual impacts.

4 Misleading visuals

This proposal will cause visual confusion within the fixed elements of the landscape, due to the scale of the turbines. Titch Barrow is one of the highest points along our coastal region. The development will appear to make the landform visually unstable, especially views from the AONB and parts of the SW Coast Path. Fig 6.9 photomontage P- Rough Tor, Bodmin Moor is a clear example of this even though the photomontage diminishes the landscape and makes the turbines seem further back. The day is dull, overcast, the photomontage show large amounts of foreground, all contrary to SNH Guidelines. The distance is 7.2km, however the eye is still drawn directly to the turbines, as they break the skyline. Imagine them on a clear day and in reality.

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual impact Assessment (LI-IEMA) states in paragraph (3.4) under the Legislative Framework for EIA; “EIA is a means of systematically drawing together an assessment of a project’s likely significant environmental effects. This helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them are properly understood by the public and the relevant ‘competent authority’ before it makes its decision”.

STINC considers that in terms of the way the images are depicted, the visuals are not properly understood by the public, and are therefore misleading. In terms of public perception, there is a gross underestimation of the visual impact this development will cause to the North Cornwall landscape. STINC further requests that the application goes out for reconsultation once the amended and additional images have been received from the applicant, as any decisions made based upon the previous images may be flawed due to being based on incorrect information.”

If you have read this and feel that you would like to contribute to this debate or have input into the STINC campaign to free North Cornwall of further wind farm development then please leave comments below. (click on the word comments at the top of this post)

Colin Caudery

 

What’s your opinion?

The truth about wind turbines is very hard to establish. Debate about the pros and cons is intrinsically riddled with bias. Perhaps this is the main reason why Government and commercial companies are able to impose their wishes on us without true consultation.

It almost appears as if the companies who propose the turbines go out of their way to be dishonest. Obvious example: “community windfarm”. You can’t call food “organic” unless it is organic. If we want a community windfarm we’ll come up with a scheme within our community thanks very much!

However the objection to the proposed windfarms is not personal. This is just simply not the place for 126 metre high wind turbines. Why would we be prepared to take the risk of mincing up the geese that live at Crowdy and the stunning flocks of starlings that live in the woods at Davidstow?

Starlings coming in to roost in Davidstow woods

How could anyone think that installing giant moving machines will not affect them? The turbines aren’t just on their flight path, they are actually being proposed in the place that the birds roost. Would the companies be prepared to install them on a “try before you buy” basis or is it the case that once the turbines are installed they are here for ever with the only change being to periodically replace them with even bigger ones? In other locations evidence suggests that turbines do kill birds in significant numbers. Whether the evidence is relevant to these particular proposals can be debated but it is hard to imagine turbines being removed once installed if this does prove to be an issue. Is this the way we do science, engineering and business in the UK? If they were removed as a result of problems, how does that leave the carbon footprint of the project? A prudent person would do a proper independant study first and minimise the risks.

Neither are wind turbines the solution to our energy problems in general. Our output of C0₂ is still increasing year on year. The first thing we must do is to be more energy efficient. Walk instead of using the car to pop to the shop. Wear suitable clothes so that we can notch down the central heating. Turn off the lights when we don’t need them.

Roughtor was left to the nation as a memorial to those who fought in 43rd Wessex Division. Some think the aerodrome should be left as a memorial to those who flew from it. It is ironic that our servicemen and women are still giving their lives in the name of democracy while other people are trying to make a fast buck out of messing up these memorials with no discernable democratic process at all.

We think there should be open and truthful consultation about these proposals. Whatever you think the solution is, please involve yourself in the debate. We are confident that the arguments in favour of wind power as a significant, secure source of energy within the UK are weak.

 

The Proposal

There is a proposal for a wind farm at Davidstow by a company calling itself ‘Community Windpower Ltd’. The name of the project is ‘Davidstow Community Windfarm’.

Would you like to sign off the planning application to industrialise this view?

This is a community project, right? 

Well you would have thought so wouldn’t you with a name like ‘Davidstow Community Windfarm’. The company is based in Cheshire and has no significant links to the area. It is a commercial company that seems to think it’s OK to hijack words like ‘community’ and redefine them. When you view their website on the links to the right just read ‘commercial’ wherever it says ‘community’.

Yes but they work with local schools. If the schools are in favour it must be OK.

Well no. Schools aren’t for or against developments. They are just busy educating our children. And when the schools hosts presentations by the Cheshire company they are not supporting it – just renting them a room. But it does all add to the impression of being a community project doesn’t it?

What is the scale of the proposal? 

The intial proposal is for 20 turbines with a hub height of 80m, the blades will be 45.2m long with a rotor diameter of 92.5m. This makes a total of 126.25m to the tips of the blades. This is 415ft in old money and from where they will be positioned, they’ll be higher than Brown Willy, the highest point in Cornwall!

It’s a brown field site - just the place to redevelop?

OK you could say that it is a brown field site because an airfield was built here during the war. But it is not any old brown field site. It is on the edge of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, partly within an Area of Great Landscape Value and Site of Special Scientific interest.

It is in area 17 on the map of Cornwall County Council’s Landscape Character areas rated Medium – High sensitivity and bordering area 25c rated High sensitivity.

It is a highly valued amentity for people and for wildlife.