Loading document...
We wish to install a wind generator for very positive economic and environmental reasons and have applied for a review in order to provide further evidence, and to respond to the negative reasons given for the refusal of our initial application.
RECEIVED ON 27 JUL 2005
We are interested in installing a wind generator, but are aware that it would be very difficult to make the project viable in economic terms on the Island without the benefit of the Renewables Obligation. We define the words ‘viable’ or ‘economic’ as meaning that the capital costs of the installation would be recovered within the working life of the generator - assumed to be 20 years. To this end we have prepared a number of spreadsheets for different types of scheme with varying parameters. Our conclusions are given in a letter to the MEA dated December 2004, a copy of which forms attachment (1). In their reply (2) they accept our findings and in paragraph 4 give their reason for introducing the tariff. It should be noted that the capital grant in the UK under the ‘Clear Skies’ program would be £5,000 for the 6kW turbine that we are proposing. Also EU member states have since raised their target to bring the total renewable energy contribution to 22% of electricity consumption by 2010. This is very unlikely to be achieved by the large generating companies and so the price paid for ROCs (Renewables Obligation Certificates) on the open market is highly likely to increase.
Since the spreadsheets submitted to the MEA use figures that need to be updated, we enclose two new sheets. The first (3) is for a 2.5kW on-grid installation. We have used our own annual consumption of 4170 units as the starting point. In such a scheme it is impossible to avoid the importation of units from the grid even if the generator has adequate capacity. Units will be imported when the wind speed is very low, and also when the wind speed is high and the load presented is greater than the output of the turbine. We estimate that a figure of ¼ of annual consumption will be imported. Assumptions are also made about the annual increase in electricity prices and interest rates. The scheme is clearly not economic as the figures in the Cash Balance columns are never approximately equal (breakeven = costs recouped) in any of the first 20 years. This shows that economic reasons may not be the main factor in on-grid applications on the Island.
Spreadsheet (4) relates to our own 6kW off-grid proposal, which we have made because circumstances have changed since our correspondence with the MEA. In particular oil prices have risen substantially and also the financial problems of the MEA have become apparent. In the spreadsheet similar assumptions are made about the annual increase in electricity and oil prices (assumed to be the same for both) and also interest rates. The scheme is viable with costs recoverable in 15.5 years. It is tempting to install a turbine of higher capacity in order to substitute wind energy for more of our oil-generated energy. There is a snag however as this would involve a higher capital cost, and on a warm and windy day the wind energy generated would not be needed and would have to be ‘dumped’ into the environment. Of course extra battery storage could be provided, but this is self-defeating on account of the very high extra capital cost.
We also enclose a very authoritative and balanced paper on home-based energy production by Katie Brown (5) published in the March 2005 issue of the IEE Review, which confirms our conclusions. As she puts it “For the present, the reasons for installing a grid-connected system are more environmental than economic”.
The turbine proposed is a Proven WT6000 model rated at 6 kW. It is common practice to rate turbines at a wind speed of 12 m/s (Strong breeze or force 6 on the Beaufort scale) at which they have their maximum output. The actual output will be very much less than this and depends on the annual average wind speed at the site. For the St Judes area this is 5.3 m/s at a height of 10 m. For this wind speed, the average annual output rating can be calculated as approximately ¼ of the maximum value i.e. 1.5 kW.
This turbine is available with a choice of two mast heights 9 and 15 m. As average wind speed increases with height the latter would give a much higher output. We have rejected it as being totally out of scale with the surroundings and also because of the very much higher capital cost. It is important therefore to select a site with an unimpeded and consistent airflow, and to avoid proximity to buildings and trees where turbulence is likely to cause long term damage to the turbine. This rules out the eastern half of our holding where there are many tall trees. The trees on the southern and western boundaries are small, principally willow and hawthorn, but we have to be well forward of two large trees (E and F) in the centre of the holding. We enclose a copy of a map of the St Judes area which has been annotated accordingly (6).
In the planning refusal notice the area is described as open countryside. In the Island Spatial Strategy map (7) the area is shown as unshaded to which there is no key. It can be assumed therefore that it is not an ‘Area of High Landscape Value’; as can be seen from (6), it is divided into small fields. These are all in agricultural use except for horse paddocks that are concentrated adjacent to Jurby Road and which would be out of sight of the turbine. The field boundaries are earth banks on which grow a variety of trees. The whole area is characterised by a very high density of tall trees, principally ash and sycamore. If a circle of radius ¼ mile were to be drawn with the turbine site at its centre it is highly unlikely that the mast could be seen from immediately outside that circle. The area is certainly countryside, but if ‘open’ implies long range views these are almost non existent because of the trees.
The wind turbine, which is available with black sails and matt grey mast, is also referred to as an incongruous feature. There could not be a more incongruous feature than the road signs situated in the open stretch of Andreas Road on our boundary (6), (8), and (9). There are no less than 15 poles of comparable height to the turbine mast, which can be seen from our holding. Of these, 6 are within or are on the boundaries of our land. The majority of the poles belongs to the MEA and comprises low and medium voltage transmission lines. There are also 2 poles belonging to Manx Telecom that carry a cable across the road at the entrance to our property (6), (9). Photographs of some of the poles are shown in (10) - (14). We consider that the turbine mast is of very graceful appearance compared to most of the poles and being of matt grey colour will merge into the landscape. The black sails compare favourably with the wiring and insulator arrangements on some of the poles.
The planning refusal refers to the visual impact of the turbine on adjacent properties. There are four such properties, which we consider in turn. Close-e-Cleator (Crellin) would have no view of the turbine. This is illustrated in (15), which is a view of our own house from the turbine site. Mrs Crellin’s house is completed obscured by our buildings and the tall trees on both our boundaries. Photograph (16) is taken looking towards Close-e-Cleator (Radcliffe). The tops of the chimneys on the facing gable end can just be seen in the gap between the trees. There would be no view in winter from rooms on the ground floor because
of an agricultural building beyond the trees, although an angled view would be possible through the trees from upstairs rooms. Springfield is much further away and is shown in (17). Again there is no view from downstairs rooms because of a stable block, hedges and trees, and the two-storey brick outbuilding. In winter there would be a view through trees from a single upstairs window. A view of Ballacleator, which is the most distant property of the four, is shown in (14). It should be noted that the façade presented is the rear of the house. Once again there is no view from the garden and downstairs rooms due to a tall well maintained hedge together with trees and shrubs. The turbine could be seen from three upstairs windows of which only one is in bedroom use. In this context we wish to remind the Planning Committee that no objections have been received from any of our neighbours, nor indeed have there been any other objections to the planning application.
We did not submit any data on noise emission in the original application because it is well known that there is no problem in respect of turbines of this size unless there are very close neighbours. In an unannounced visit to the site, the planning officer for the area was given some technical information, but he did not ask about turbine noise. We enclose a copy of the Proven noise emission report (18), which gives a detailed analysis of the noise calculations and the criteria determining the likelihood of complaints. The report concludes that there will be no noise complaints if the turbine specific noise is $10\mathrm{dB(A)}$ less than the background and that this happens in the range $40 - 75\mathrm{m}$ depending on wind speed.
The only neighbour who could possibly be affected is John Radcliffe at Close-e-Cleator. Measuring in a straight line from the turbine site towards his house, the distance as far as our joint boundary is $65\mathrm{m}$. The actual distance to his house is approximately double that figure bringing it well outside the $75\mathrm{m}$ zone. In (19) we have recreated the spreadsheet and calculated in the last column the difference between the turbine noise and the background, including the figure for $65\mathrm{m}$. The Proven report says that the figures for background noise on their test site have been chosen very conservatively (low). Examination of photograph (16) shows the tall trees in front of the Mr Radcliffe’s house that will cause the background noise level to be higher than the $35\mathrm{dB}$ used in the report. In the second block of figures in the spreadsheet this has been raised to $36\mathrm{dB}$. (1 dB is approximately the minimum step in noise level detectable to the human ear). The calculation shows that the difference between levels is $10\mathrm{dB}$ or more for distances of $60\mathrm{m}$ upwards. We can conclude therefore that at both high and low wind speeds complaints are unlikely outside the boundary of our property.
We note the comment that approval would set an undesirable precedent. In March 2005 approval was given to application number $04/02199/B$. The approval notice refers to the erection of a $15\mathrm{kW}$ wind turbine at a site near Colby. The conditions attached to the notice refer to plans which indicate that the turbine is a Proven $6\mathrm{kW}$ model, as is ours. The site appears to be in an area ‘not of high landscape value’, but the countryside is certainly open and the turbine would be visible over a wide area within distances considerably over a mile from the site (20). For these reasons we wish to cite the approval of this application as a precedent in the review of our own.
In the Colby application the grid status is not given. We do not think that there will be many applications for off-grid schemes like our own. Even for on-grid schemes there are
unlikely to be many people prepared to fund the large capital costs when it becomes generally realised that they are unlikely to be recouped during the working life of the installation.
On the other hand there may well be great interest, particularly in urban areas, in rooftop turbines. These turbines, which are very easy to install, are planned to go into mass production in the near future when costs will fall. In these circumstances the economics of the project become irrelevant and they may be installed just for environmental reasons. Furthermore these products are already advertised as ‘planning compliant’, although this of course refers to a UK general development order. Much impetus has been given to this type of project by the UK Government in its support for ‘micro power’ - a realisation that it may be more economic to generate energy where it is consumed rather than accept the considerable losses that occur in transmission (typically 10% in the UK) from the power station.
The Environmental Protection Strategy Document 2005 was published in May after we had submitted our planning application. It is remarkable that, for an island that is almost entirely dependent for its energy requirements on imports of oil, gas, and coal, there is no mention in the document of renewable energy resources such as wind and solar, which are freely available. The only commitment seems to be a vague statement on page 16 that “The Department will encourage the development and use of renewable energy”.
Public opinion seems to be changing rather faster than Manx Government policy. The Department of Trade of Industry in the UK has conducted surveys of public opinion and has found that:
These figures are reinforced by a very recent poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper in June, which the paper claims “shows voters are way ahead of the Government”. They have found that:
We have no reason to think that public opinion is any different on the Island. People we have met since submitting our planning application have been very supportive and are showing a positive interest in its progress.
Cc. Eddie Teare MHK T L Goodfellow BSc PhD MIEE J E Goodfellow MA BSc
26th July 2005
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown