Objections to the Proposal

Landscape

The size, scale and extent of the turbines would:

- dominate and adversely affect the landscape character of the area - particularly its open rural character

- represent the industrialisation of a predominantly rural area

- adversely affect the historic pattern of the landscape by introducing intrusive and standardised industrial forms and by its dominating impact upon the setting of historic buildings and views from public rights of way

- be completely out of scale with the surrounding landscape

- adversely affect the Ouse Valley landscape over a very wide area because of the high, open and visible nature of the site. The turbines would be visible for 30 miles

The proposed development site is a tranquil, rural, "green field", farming environment. The landscape comprises wide views punctuated by small villages, church towers, trees and some woodland. A valued aspect of the landscape is the wide skies with spectacular cloudscapes and sunsets. The area is quiet with no major roads.

View from Toseland Road, south-west of Graveley, looking north.
Approx. 950m from nearest turbine. (For more photos see Photos page).

During WW2 the land was used as an RAF airfield. However, the concrete runways were removed more than 35 years ago and the remaining airfield buildings have reverted to residential or farming use or have simply crumbled back into the landscape. On the edge of Graveley there are two small commercial sites and on the outskirts of Yelling there is a water tower but these are of a scale in keeping with the landscape.

Being the highest point around (53m) there is an old Ordnance Survey "trig" pillar at Cotton Farm (shown as a blue triangle on OD maps and visible near the entrance to the farm). Triangulation pillars were built to be "intervisible" with at least two other far-away triangulation points when Britain was comprehensively surveyed from the 1930s. As one would expect, there are wide views across the Ouse Valley and in other directions. The site's openness and the absence of tall structures mean that the skyline above Cotton Farm is itself visible for many miles in all directions - including across the Ouse Valley.

It was no doubt precisely this wide, open aspect that led to the proposed site and the surrounding land being selected for:

- a section of the Romano-British way from Sandy to Godmanchester

- a secure moated medieval homestead in what is now Toseland Wood

- an RAF airfield in WW2

In relation to one of the adjoining villages, Toseland, the Huntingdonshire District Council website captures something of the character and history of the landscape:

"Toseland, one of the District's smallest but still thriving country villages, stands on a plateau north-east of St. Neots and east of Great Paxton. There are only a few buildings but the variety of their styles, from 17th to 20th Century, indicates something of Toseland's long history. Toseland Hall is one of the county's finest examples of 17th Century domestic architecture. The Church, restored in 1875, retains its Norman south doorway. Less visible is the medieval moated enclosure in Toseland Wood and nearby, the sites of wartime airfields at Yelling (1914-18) and Graveley (1939-45)." - click to view source

Toseland Hall - "one of the county's finest examples of 17th Century domestic architecture"

There is nothing in Toseland over about 15m in height.

In relation to another adjoining village, Graveley, the "Inventory of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in the County of Cambridge" (Vol 1, West Cambridgeshire, HMSO 1968) contains a whole chapter. It describes "the village, a small one ... about a mile from the perhaps older settlement of Yelling" and goes on to list a total of ten monuments including the 13th century church, eight houses and earthworks comprising extensive ridge and furrow remains.

Again, Graveley has no massive structures, the church and the old rectory being probably the tallest buildings.

Into this particular landscape, Npower propose to insert eight identical, angular metal structures, each more than 50 feet taller than the spire of St Paul's Cathedral (108m - still a dominant feature of the London skyline) and each around three times as tall as the wind turbine at Wood Green Animal Shelter (43m). For further comparison they would be 27m (74 ft) higher than the turbines at Kettering and Warboys.

Npower have stated that 127m is only the maximum height that they would apply for and that the actual turbines might be shorter, However, we must assume that they will build the largest possible turbines to maximise power generation.

The turbines would be visible up to 30km away and would have a significant visual impact at up to 10km. They would thus alter views over a 300 square kilometre area.

Combined with their height, the angular, metallic, identical nature of the turbines would be completely at odds with the landscape described above. The character of the landscape would be destroyed.

The report on "Wind Turbine Development in Huntingdonshire" commissioned by Huntingdonshire District Council in March 2005 (click to download from HDC website - PDF format), whilst broadly favourable to groups of up to 12 turbines in the area, states that "key landscape values" could be affected where the development impinges on "the site or setting of valued landscape components". It adds that such groups "could affect the serene tranquil character of parts of the landscape" [page 70]. The report "guidance notes" [page 72] state that such a development should:

- "Respect the sites and settings of key valued landscape features notably remnant historic features"

- "Respect the scale and setting of the small, intact villages and views to church towers and spires"

- "Consider the visual relationship with the Ouse Valley and the 'hidden' tributary valleys that cross the landscape"

It is worth noting that in Scotland, in relation to visual impact and the location of turbines near local communities, Scottish planning document PAN45 confirms that development up to 2 km is "likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape". Accordingly, the Scottish Executive supports 2km as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of villages (lesser distances requiring case-by-case basis justification). (Scottish Planning Policy SPP 6 Renewable Energy).

The whole of Graveley, Toseland and Great Paxton and parts of Yelling and Offord D’Arcy fall within 2km of the proposed turbines.

 back to objection summary

Visual Amenity

The turbines would completely dominate the landscape with out-of-scale industrial features alien to and out of keeping with it.

This drastic change would detract from the visual amenity of the landscape and affect the enjoyment of the area by all countryside users - including residents, walkers, cyclists, riders and visitors.

The turbines would be visible up to 30km away and would have a significant visual impact at up to 10km.

Residents

Landscape is part of the general amenity of life in small villages. Destruction of the essential qualities of the landscape reduces the quality of life of local people.

Local residents have either lived here since birth or have moved to the area through choice. A large factor in the attraction of the area for them is the visible landscape with the characteristics outlined above (see Landscape).

Walkers

The proposed site is surrounded by, and visible from, a number of public footpaths. These provide links between Graveley, Yelling, Toseland, Great Paxton, the Offords, Papworth St Agnes, Godmanchester, St Neots and beyond. These are enjoyed by walkers, those exploring the area adjoining the Ouse Valley Way, runners, visitors to Toseland Wood, visitors to the war memorials at Cotton Farm and near Yelling, and anyone who simply enjoys walking in unspoilt countryside.

As the Huntingdonshire District Council website points out, "Huntingdonshire is a paradise for walkers ... There are miles of waymarked public footpaths and bridleways criss-cross through open countryside and nature reserves. Many link country parks to charming market towns and villages. Pause to enjoy a picnic in the fresh air, indulge in a cream tea or take a well earned rest at a welcoming pub".

Graveley airfield (the site proposed for the turbines) was home to the RAF Pathfinder Force which suffered heavy casualties during WW2. Each year more than 150 walkers take part in the Pathfinder March to commemorate the Pathfinder Force. The march passes right beside the historic site, which, at present, looks much as it would have looked during WW2. The sight of huge turbines right in the middle of the old airfield would be a sad blow for those paying tribute to the lost service men and women.

Riders

There are livery stables at Graveley and smaller stables in the other surrounding villages. The whole area round the proposed site is popular with riders who make daily use of the quiet roads and bridleways. Riders appreciate and enjoy the landscape and views.

Cyclists

"Drift Through Time" as it says in the Huntingdonshire District Council leaflet (PDF format) on the Godmanchester & Graveley (Route 11) cycle ride. From Offord D'Arcy, says the brochure, "turn left to climb gently to GRAVELEY, perhaps stopping to enjoy the panoramic view which is behind you" - this is the road which passes along the northern edge of the proposed site!

"Huntingdonshire's countryside is easily explored on two wheels ... There are only gentle hills creating open vistas stretching out to the horizon." [HDC website - walking & cycle routes]

As HDC point out the views in this area have much to offer cyclists.

Visitors / Tourists

Many people visit the area and enjoy the views. These include visitors to the Ouse Valley, Paxton Pits Nature Reserve, the war memorial at Graveley, Godmanchester, country pubs in the surrounding villages, artists and many others.

The proposes development threatens to undermine all of these people's enjoyment of the wonderful panoramic views and open vistas which are currently a feature of the local landscape.

 back to objection summary

Effect on Local Roads

The construction / commissioning phase would last approx. 12 months (source Npower Scoping Report 5.7.1).

Based on figures provided by the developer in relation to the wind farm at Boxworth it appears that around 25 to 30 truck deliveries of concrete per day could be expected.

In addition, sections of turbine up to 40m long would be delivered on special large low-loaders.

All of the approach roads are small and rural and the condition of the road surfaces is seldom particularly good - often necessitating piecemeal edging repairs.

It is likely that the additional traffic and its heavy nature would cause both congestion at the site access and damage to the road surfaces necessitating more extensive and disruptive repairs.

 back to objection summary

Further Development

Perhaps most worrying is that there are plenty of examples where the grant of planning approval for a wind farm "opens up" the area for further wind farm development.

If 600m from the nearest village is seen as acceptable then one can imagine many "suitable" sites along the high ground between here and Cambridge - with the devastation to the landscape which that would entail.

 back to objection summary

Subsidies for Wind Farm Developers

At present, there are huge subsidies available (via the Renewables Obligation (RO) system) to energy companies who build wind farms. However, increasing energy prices and changes in the energy sector have rendered them unnecessary - although energy companies still receive them and taxpayers still pay for them.

Based on recent industry figures quoted in the press, each turbine at Cotton Farm would generate power worth around £200,000 on the wholesale market, plus a further £300,000 of subsidy from taxpayers. With a turbine cost of around £2m the net profit over the proposed initial 25 year life of the wind farm would be around £3.36m a year. [source - report by the Environment Editor of The Sunday Times, 27/1/2008 - click for article]

In January 2007, Ofgem, in its response to Government consultation on the subsidy system stated:

"We fully support the Government's aims of reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable generation but we think there are cheaper and simpler ways of meeting these aims than the RO scheme which is forecast to cost business and domestic customers over £30bn."

Ofgem goes on to state that:

"Other organisations, such as the National Audit Office, Carbon Trust,
academics and the European Commission have all raised similar concerns."

"The subsidy generates returns for investors that are greatly in excess of the economic cost of generation it helps to finance ... At an average price of £45/MWh (close to the current wholesale price) all of the existing deployed technologies are economic without the need for any further support suggesting that nearly all of the RO subsidy is excess."

[source - "Reform of the Renewables Obligation 2006: Ofgem's response" PDF]

[NB. Ofgem is responsible for administering the RO system on behalf of the Government but does not set the rules. Responsibility for the policy itself lies with the Dept for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR)]

 back to objection summary

Overstated Benefits

Whilst there are clearly benefits for the environment in terms of reduced reliance on fossil fuels, the extent of these may not be as much as is claimed.

Npower state that the maximum generating capacity of the site would be 24 megawatts a year and that the likely output would be at least 16 megawatts (see Npower website). This, according to their estimates, could meet the electricity requirement of between 6,900 and 10,000 homes.

To put the amount of electricity in context, there are approximately 6,980 homes in St Ives, 8,780 in Huntingdon and 11,440 in St Neots (source Cambs County Council Research Group latest dwelling stock estimates). In the villages most directly affected by the development (Graveley, Toseland, Yelling, Gt Paxton, Offords) there are approx. 1,200 (same source). Thus, 1,200 homes could suffer adverse effects to bring some energy benefits to one of the areas smaller market towns.

Wind turbines can only produce electricity when the wind is between around 10 and 56 mph. Electricity demand varies considerably at different times of day and year. There is no way to store electricity; demand must be met by immediate supply. Since there is no way to control the wind and determine how much electricity a turbine will produce at a given time, other, traditional energy sources are still needed in order to ensure supply. Thus, the building of wind farms does not mean that other power stations can be decommissioned.

The construction of a wind farm is not in itself "carbon neutral". The manufacture of huge metal turbines, their delivery on specialised lorries, the delivery of huge quantities of concrete for their bases and their actual assembly clearly expend large amounts of energy - most of it fossil fuels.

The extent to which overall CO2 emissions are reduced is not clear cut and, in the past, claims made by Npower have been found by the Advertising Standards Authority to have breached their rules on "truthfulness", "substantiation" and "environmental claims" - (see 2007 decision on ASA website).

For a discussion and interviews on the question of whether the benefits of wind farms are being overstated, listen again to BBC Radio 4's "Costing the Earth":

"... experts interviewed on Costing the Earth claim the power of the wind to deliver electricity is being overestimated by companies keen to cash in on big subsidies." - (30th August 2007 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth_20070830.shtml)

 back to objection summary

Noise, Health & Safety

The issue of noise produced by wind turbines is controversial. There are widely conflicting views, an apparent shortage of scientific research and planning regulations which are based on outdated data.

It seems that no one can be certain exactly what the noise implications would be until the site is operational. By then it would be too late to do anything about it.

Wind turbines produce three types of sound - (a) mechanical noise from the gearbox and generators, (b) aerodynamic noise from the movement of the blades through the air and (c) low frequency infrasound. Research has shown that low frequency sound can cause serious health problems for people sensitive to its effects. People living near wind turbines have been reported to experience health problems including sleep difficulties, headaches, irritability and stress.

The following factors are worth noting:

1. Obviously, the closer to a turbine you live the greater the chance of noise being an issue. The nearest house to one of the proposed turbines would be around 600m.

2. Noise would vary depending on the force and direction of the wind. If the wind were from the West then Graveley would be down-wind and one would expect any noise to carry more in that direction.

3. Different people have different sensitivities to noise.

4. Turbines can have an effect on one another. Sound waves from one turbine can affect and be affected by sound waves from others. There is potential for small "ripples" of sound from different turbines to build up into much larger "waves" of sound. This effect can become marked at certain distances from turbine clusters.

5. The wind can blow hard at any time of day or night. In the middle of the night when background noise is low the turbines could often be at their noisiest.

6. There has little research into the noise impacts of larger (125/130m) turbines. The people with the money to undertake such research are the Government and the wind farm developers - one suspects that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such research.

The statutory methodology (ETSU-R-97) used by planning authorities to assess wind farm noise was developed back in 1996 using data from turbines only 40m to 60m high.

Professor Ffowcs-Williams, Emeritus Professor of Engineering, Cambridge University, one of the UK’s leading acoustical experts has said:

"The regulations (ETSU-R-97) are dated and in other ways inadequate. It is known that modern, very tall turbines, do cause problems, and many think that the current guidelines fail adequately to protect the public."

[source - Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) - Press Release 4/8/2005 - "Studies on Wind Turbine Noise Raise Further Concerns" - August 2005]

Thus the fact that any proposed wind farm appears to comply with ETSU-R-97 in an Environmental Impact Assessment gives no guarantee that there will be no noise problems for people living in the area once the wind farm is built.

Reports from the UK Noise Association and others (see links below) suggest that the harmful effects on the health of people living near to wind turbines are insufficiently assessed and that minimum separation of wind turbines from dwellings needs to be increased (recommendations range from 1.5km to 1.5 miles), particularly for the large, modern turbines, until comprehensive scientific research can fully evaluate their impact.

As Mike Barnard observes (see link below):

"There have been many examples in the past when warning signs of future problems with new technologies have been overlooked or ignored (e.g. asbestos/tobacco). It took time before a pattern of health complaints were observed. As turbines increase both in size and proximity to houses reports of health effects appear to have started to escalate. In years to come the noise issue from large modern turbines may be seen to have fallen into the same category."

Finally, the experience of the Davis family from Deeping St Nicholas, who live 930m from an eight turbine wind farm, makes worrying reading. As soon as this wind farm became operational in 2007 they started experiencing noise problems which reached such a state that they have had to find an alternative "sleeping house" 5 miles away in order to get an uninterrupted night’s sleep. Yet the wind farm met the Government guidelines. See: "Statement from Jane Davis of Deeping St. Nicholas" - National Wind Watch online documents - April 2007.

In relation to safety, there have been some alarming incidents of turbines collapsing with wreckage strewn over a wide area. Here are some examples:

Denmark Feb 2008

Hesket, Newmarket Jan 2008

Click for document with more photos (PDF format)

For an interesting TV broadcast on the effects of wind turbines on local residents - especially the noise - see the LBV Television programme available on the Wadlow Windfarm website. [This is a large file. It may take a very long time to open - but is well worth listening to].

For links to several articles on health issues related to wind farms see - www.viewsofscotland.org/library/turbines_and_health.php

Further reading:

"Wind Turbines & Noise: A Review of the Current Situation" - Mike Barnard - May 2007 (PDF format)

"Wind Turbines, Noise and Health" - Dr Amanda Harry - Feb 2007 (PDF format)

"Wind farms make people sick who live up to a mile away" - Catherine Milner - Telegraph - 25/01/2004

"Location, Location, Location - An investigation into wind farms and noise" - The Noise Association" - July 2006 (PDF format)

Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments - BMJ - March 2007 - E Pedersen, K Persson Waye (PDF file)

Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise - E Pedersena and K Persson Waye - J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 116, No. 6, December 2004 (PDF file)

Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines installed Near Homes: Effects on Health - with an annotated review of the research and realted issues - B Frey & P Hadden - Feb 2007

 back to objection summary

Ecology

Birds & Bats

Birds and bats are particularly vulnerable to wind turbines. Although the blades rotate at only 15 to 30 rpm the blade tips, travelling at around 200mph, can kill both birds and bats.

Cotton Farm is only 2.5km away from the Paxton Pits Nature Reserve. Paxton Pits is an important breeding and migration site for numerous birds, especially Nightingales, Cormorants and a range of winter waterbirds.

There is ample evidence of barn owls flying, and probably nesting, in close proximity to Cotton Farm. Buzzards have also moved into the area and a large number of more common species are also active.

It is believed that significant numbers of geese and widgeon feed on arable crop shoots in and around Cotton Farm.

The existence of any bird migratory routes in proximity to the proposed site must be clearly defined to ensure that migrants will not be put at risk.

Informal reports of bats killed by collisions with turbine blades on the wind power station at Coldhams Farm are of serious concern.

Even if not killed, it is possible for birds and bats to change their behaviour and avoid dangerous areas - with possible implications for bird migration patterns.

Adverse effects of this sort can only really be measured over time by monitoring population figures. Developers might point to a lack of direct evidence of individual fatalities but it is worth bearing in mind (a) that the local fox population is unlikely to leave the evidence lying on the ground for long and (b) the only people with legal access to the area beneath the turbines would be Npower and the landowner.

Animals

The presence of greater crested newts on the site has been acknowledged by Npower and their protection must be assured. The presence and protection of land based wildlife species using and transiting the sit also needs careful consideration and planning for their protection.

Domesticated animals (including livestock, pets and horses) may be affected by noise - particularly ultra low frequency transmissions from the turbines. Concerns have been expressed that this could be detrimental to successful livestock breeding.

Any loss of wildlife will detract from the amenity of people enjoying the countryside.

 back to objection summary

TV Reception

According to the BBCs online "wind-farm assessment tool" - provided to assist wind farm developers (http://windfarms.kw.bbc.co.uk) - a wind farm located right in the middle of Cotton Farm (grid reference TL235640) may affect up to 590 homes by interfering with transmissions from Sandy Heath and Waltham.

The BBC and Ofcom both recognise that wind farms have a disruptive effect on television reception - see their joint report "The Impact of Large Buildings and Structures (including Wind Farms) on Terrestrial Television Reception". According to this report "Wind turbines affect reception up to a maximum distance of 5 km".

Although the focus of the report is on looking at steps which developers can be encouraged to take to remedy reception problems, it is acknowledged that "it is often impossible to avoid such problems completely" and that "both analogue and digital terrestrial reception can be affected."

In a recent written response to a local resident, Npower confirmed that "Wind turbines do have the potential to affect television reception to those homes using analogue system".

If the wind farm were built any signal degradation would be instantaneous. When asked how quickly they would resolve any such problems in relation to Cotton Farm, Npower replied (by email 25/1/08) "Reception problems would be resolved as soon as a problem has arisen and we are able to establish that the wind farm is at fault".

The onus would be on the householder to get Npower to do something. There is no guarantee that they would do so speedily and, as the BBC / Ofcom have stated, it may be impossible to rectify the poor reception.

 back to objection summary

Sun Flicker

There are many horses within 1km of the turbines and riders are a daily feature of local roads and bridleways. Sun flickering on metal rotors can easily "spook" a horse - with potentially dangerous consequences for riders and other road users.

 back to objection summary

House Prices / Saleability

The loss of amenity in an area will have an adverse effect on property values.

A court has recently ruled that living near a wind farm decreases house prices and it awarded a householder a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away. (For more details see the Telegraph report 26 July 2008)

In a 2004 court case where a seller had failed to disclose to the buyer that a wind farm was about to be built nearby, the judge ruled that the value of the property reduced by 20% by the presence of the wind farm.

Much depends on proximity and visibility. Clearly the prices of nearby houses in sight of the turbines would be affected.

The wider effect is likely to be linked to the extent to which the presence of the turbines changes the character of the landscape. In the case of Cotton Farm the negative effect on the landscape would be profound.

Would you prefer to buy a rural house in a village with eight of the biggest wind turbines in Britain looming over it or one in a rural village without the turbines?

For a report by Dr Sally Sims and Peter Dent, Oxford Brookes University (23 March 2007) see - What is the impact of wind farms on house prices? - on the RICS website.

 back to objection summary