|
TIVETSHALL ACTION GROUP |
|
Say NO to Turbines in Tivetshall. |
|
TIVETSHALL PARISH COUNCIL Minutes of a Public Meeting held on Tuesday 11 March 2008 at the Village Hall, 7.00pm
Present:
Invited speakers: Martin Wilby (District Councillor); Richard Cooper (Planning Officer SNDC); Lynn Wilson (Parliamentary Assistant to Richard Bacon MP); Eric Kirby (Resident of Tivetshall St Mary). Abbreviations: WT = wind turbine, SNDC = South Norfolk District Council, SO = Scoping Opinion, TPC = Tivetshall Parish Council Welcome and introduction by the chairman: it was explained that the meeting was to gather information for the SO for 6 x WTs in Tivetshall St Mary, and for a recent, full planning application for a wind measuring mast.
Lynn Wilson, Parliamentary Assistant to Richard Bacon read a statement from Mr Bacon. He apologised for not being able to attend and encourage residents concerned about the possible development to contact SNDC. He is not opposed to renewable energy, but suggests tidal energy as a better alternative. WTs were not suitable in a ‘gentle rural landscape’. He has written to SNDC outlining 35 issues for consideration in the SO. His letter may be seen at www.richardbacon.org.uk.
Richard Wilson, Planning officer SNDC. Explained the difference between a planning application and a SO. He invited the Tivetshalls to bring local knowledge to the attention of SNDC, so that it could lay out the issues that Enertrag (the developer) would have to consider in its environmental statement if it submitted a full planning application. He suggested that items to consider might include frequently used footpaths, access, wildlife interest, noise and visual impact. He introduced SNDC’s Local Plan and WT Landscape Sensitivity Study. The wind-measuring mast’s planning application will be considered by SNDC’s South-West Planning Committee at a meeting on 22 April 2008 at Long Stratton, 6 pm.
Martin Wilby, SNDC. Spoke briefly about other local planning applications and SOs for WTs in South Norfolk. He expressed his personal view against development at the site in Tivetshall, and his disappointment that Enertrag declined to attend this meeting. He was concerned about noise, shadow flicker and landscape impact. He suggested an alternative, appropriate development would be off-shore WTs. He argued that there would be an impact on health and a negative visual impact upon the environment. He declared his intention to oppose the planning application for the wind-measuring mast. He urged TPC to keep the people of Tivetshall informed of developments.
Eric Kirby, Resident of Tivetshall St Mary. Areas of concern: 1) Intrusion on the landscape: access for walkers to New Road and footpaths; ancient hedgerow and archaeology; the vista from St Mary’s ruin; size of WTs (125m) and their visual impact upon the landscape. 2) Construction Period: unacceptable loss of amenity for walkers for 6-8 months; vibrations from pile driving; disposal of excavated material; lack of suitable access routes for construction traffic (Moor Road and Rectory Road); impact of construction vehicles upon traffic-flow and junctions of the A140; long-term impact of access roads constructed on the site itself; heavy use of concrete; query about how the developer could mitigate the affects of noise and vibration during construction. 3) Operational period of 25 years: 700 m from dwellings is not far enough away from dwellings; noise would affect the living standards of those situated close to the WTs; impact of shadow flicker on A140 traffic; impact of shadow flicker upon dwellings in Ram Lane, Bond Road and The Street; query as to how developer could mitigate the experience of shadow flicker across a wide range of different locations; impact on house prices; distraction caused by WTs for drivers on the A140; interference with radio, TV and Emergency Service transmissions; low flying aircraft and local airfields; the cumulative impact of several developments in villages across South Norfolk. Mr Kirby urged villagers to object to the planning application for the wind-measuring mast.
Public participation Resident, Tivetshall St Mary: concerned about the sensitivity of wildlife (lapwings) and Roman and medieval archaeology. Suggested that Enertrag should fund archaeological and wildlife survey, and that they should consider the value of local heritage/ tourist attraction in any planning application. Resident, Tivetshall St Mary: asked for further information about the landowner, Huntingdon Freemans’ Charity, and their reason for not attending this meeting. Reports on telephone conversations with the landowner and the developer, giving their reasons for not attending, were read in response. Resident, Tivetshall St Mary: concerned about visual impact; lack of any local benefit; the cumulative impact of a network of developments across South Norfolk. Dickleburgh parishioner: concern for guy ropes of wind measuring mast upon walkers and riders; access route for construction traffic; impact on redwing, fieldfare and hares; long-term impact on footpaths; purpose of and justification for SO. Rushall parishioner: queried economics and efficiency of WTs and sufficiency of wind. Resident of Tivetshall St Margaret and TPC Councillor: queried cost to tax payer and expense of electricity generated by WTs. Rushall Resident: introduced the 4Villages action group which campaigns against WTs. Offered assistance for any campaign group that might be formed in Tivetshalls. Scole Resident: asked whether the status of the land might change following development from agricultural to industrial, and whether this would lead to further industrial development. Resident, Tivetshall St Mary: asked whether visual impact was considered to be a valid objection by SNDC. The planning officer responded that it was. Resident, Tivetshall St Mary: concerned that height of central propeller hub would require 600 ton crawler crane, which itself would require reinforcement of Pattern Lane and adjacent road network. Resident, Tivetshall St Mary: concerned about impact on house prices; asked about likely length of process for full planning application; asked about appeal process if developer denied permission to build. Resident, Tivetshall St Mary: concerned about visual impact, noise, flicker and whether turbines would be lit at night.
The chairman concluded the meeting, noting that TPC’s response to the SO would be posted on notice boards and in the parish newsletter, Grapevine
Date of next meeting of Tivetshall Parish Council: Thurs. 13th March at 7.30 pm at the Village Hall.
The meeting concluded at 8.30 pm |
|
Tivetshall Parish council |
|
Tivetshall Parish Council Response to South Norfolk Planning Dept:
For Tivetshall PC letter of objection, refer to SNDC Planning Portal web site (see links). |