Recent Enertrag Statements and TAG Responses
|
|
Enertrag Says..........
|
TAG Confirms.................
|
|
In an EDP article of 11/03/10 Mr Linley of Enertrag stated "that two members of TAG had been involved in the pre-planning consultation process”.
|
This is not a true reflection of the facts at all and misleads EDP readers by suggesting that TAG members have met formally with Enertrag as part of the consultation process. TAG was not invited to attend any aspects of the public consultation process. Signed up Tag membership currently totals almost 300 of the population directly local to and surrounding the proposed development site, so it is very likely that a number of those signed up members of TAG would have attended recent events to show their objection to Enertrag’s proposals, raise their concerns and to monitor other attendees opinion. However, they would of course have attended as members of the public, not as official representatives of TAG authorised by TAG Management Committee to discuss matters on their behalf.
|
|
A poster headed "Consultation" displayed at Enertrag's exhibition of 10th March 2010 stated “Parish Council Chairmen have been spoken to as part of the consultation process”.
|
Yes, some local PC Chairmen were contacted and invited to meetings with Enertrag / Curtins. The Chair of Tivetshall PC (Graham Mills) tells us he did not respond as he felt it inappropriate. Dickleburgh PC Chair, who is firmly against the development did meet with Enertrag / Curtins along with a SNDC District Councillor understanding that other PC chairmen would also be present but in the absence of other PC chairmen expressed their opposition, parting company “agreeing to disagree”.
|
|
Enertrag says in the same poster that "they have contacted local businesses"
|
Tag has contacted various Tivetshall businesses including Primrose Press, The Ram, Roger Martin Garage, Glover Bros, Post Office etc – and none have been contacted. Why should Enertrag fabricate this?
|
|
Also on the "Communications" poster Enertrag report discussions at the Workshops of 18th & 25th February.....
"people felt that 3 turbines were better than 6;
concerns were raised regarding distances between turbines and bridleways;
concerns were raised regarding noise and their closeness to residential property"
....and go on to say that they were able to answer these concerns.
|
Yes, they held two workshops (with a limited and selected, invited audience) who describe a very robust meeting of questions and objections, most of which Enertrag could not provide adequate answers to. Of course if asked the question (as people also were at the exhibition) are 3 turbines better than 6 some would answer yes. However, many responded that NO turbines would be even better.
Concerns were raised robustly regarding clearance distance between turbines and bridleways – Enertrag said 200m clearance was all they were obliged to provide for – unacceptable to riders and contrary to BHS advice.
Noise concerns were raised and Mr Linley guaranteed that this would not be a problem and that night-time noise would not rise above 35dB(A). If it did it only needed a phone call and turbines would be turned off!!
Minutes issued by Enertrag of this workshop were not quite so explicit as to a specific noise level; but that is what he said as confirmed by those present and we will hold him to it.
|
|
Other statements made by Mr Linley include.......“Some houses facing the turbines are in favour of the development”.
“The needs of the many must outweigh the perceived needs of the few”
|
TAG know of no direct neighbours in favour – Who are these supporters Enertrag speak of and why did they not attend the two workshops?
We know that the majority surrounding the turbines are against. TAG has just under 300 signed up members from the area surrounding the turbine site. We think Enertrag have their "many" and "few" confused. TAG members are the majority.
|
|
“There are 5-6% of the population that object strongly to turbines as they do not like the look of them”. (EDP 10/03/10)
|
Is this meant to refer to TAG? If so that is a nonsense also, especially as it infers that 94-95% of the remaining population like the look of turbines and perhaps support the development.
TAG’s signed up membership represents a considerable percentage of the population local to the development and it is not “the look of the turbines” we are against but their impact on the landscape and local amenity and the “selection” of a totally unsuitable site or rather use of that site made available by the land-owner (Huntingdon Freemen’s Charity) for this development.
|
|
Enertrag is working "in partnership" with South Norfolk District Council to ensure that the whole community benefits from the provision of zero carbon development. Not doing so would see the Council fined which would benefit nobodt.
|
SNDC has already responded to this comment made repeatedly by Curtins. There is no "partnership" arrangement between SNDC and Enertrag and their application will be dealt with in a professional and open manner according to Planning law and regulations.
|
|
Enertrag has recently opposed a second turbine development at North Pickenham by Bernard Matthews due to its being within 5km of their own existing development (Enertrag letter Oct 2009).
When asked why Enertrag had applied for the turbine development at Tivetshall within 2km of that proposed at Semere Green by SLP, subsequently taken up by TCI Renewables, Mr Linley stated that "Enertrag had planned its development before SLP".
|
By making reference to planning records provided by SNDC, TAG is able to confirm that the SLP's application for a Scoping Opinion was submitted to SNDC on 18th June 2007 whilst Enertrag's own Scoping request was submitted on 13th February 2008 some 8 months later. No Enertrag, SLP was first as you well know!
|
|
When asked about turbine noise, Mr Linley stated they make a very quiet "fizzing" sound and the ES will stipulate that the noise can only reach a certain level [he actually confirmed this would be no more that 35dB(A)] and that if it went higher then a phone call would lead to the turbines being shut down.
|
We shall see just what the ES states. It is not unusual for windfarms to be permitted to emit night-time noise levels at a level of 43dB(A) or 5dB(A) above recorded background levels (whichever is higher) in compliance with ETSU-97 maximum stipulations - and that will be heard locally. At source, each turbine according to Vesta technical literature emits a noise level of 106.5dB(A); a little less than a jet engine during take-off.
|
|
Mr Linley stated that there is no evidence to support the myth that the presence of local wind turbines devalues property prices.
|
A resident of Pulham had several prospective buyers pull out from the sale of her house because of the threat of turbines nearby and felt obliged to reduce the asking price. She is still awaiting a sale.
|
|
Enertrag aims to find the most suitable sites within current Government guidlines.
|
Is that why they "selected" popular amenity land outside of Tivetshall, and that at Guestwick and Hempnall which has led to much opposition? It is a fact they do not "select" land - they just make use of that offered by land-owners wishing to diversify the very lucrative turbine leasing income over a 25 year period.
|
|
Column 1, row12
|
Column2, row 12
|
|
Column 1, row13
|
Column2, row 13
|
|
Column 1, row14
|
Column2, row 14
|
|
Column 1, row15
|
Column2, row 15
|
