STROAT – Gloucestershire – Forest of Dean

The History, The Area, The Neighbourhood, People & Properties links & connections!

Posts Tagged ‘STROAT’

Carolyn Black – “Exploring Landscapes” Panoramic Views On Both Banks of The Severn Including Stroat …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 30/07/2017

WELCOME TO STROAT.
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible
for it to be added.

.

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Carolyn Black – “Exploring Landscapes” Panoramic Views On Both Banks of The Severn Including Stroat …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WIND TURBINE WEB SITE
https://wordpress.com/post/stroatwindturbine.com/390

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

.

the standing stone ajoining the rail line in Stroat:

The Wibdon / Stroat Broad Stone
Photo: by Lee Lance – Watkins Aug-2012

Below is part of a digital photo of an original panoramic view, with the bridge under the rail line showing THE STANDING STONE on STROAT FARM LAND executed in Charcoal, chalk, pastels, watercolour & ink by Carolyn Black.

Carolyn Black – exploring landscapes

“What a fascinating and enriching exploration. The glimpse of your drawings makes me want to draw. Your text makes me want to walk to a river. The panoramic horizon makes me want to think far deeper and further than ordinarily.” Anthea Nicholson, author


EXHIBITIONS

File 22-06-2017, 06 28 48

File 22-06-2017, 06 28 04

Newnham Church

IMG_8389

IMG_8393

newnham ferry 18th may

fullsizeoutput_67b

fullsizeoutput_679.jpeg

fullsizeoutput_67a

purton railway import

perfect-trimmed-river-001-img_0016-for-web

I’m working on new drawings constantly, mostly depicting places either side of the River Severn in Gloucestershire. Read about the historical context of how these works have evolved, over some 20 years, here. These are black & white photos of original works and, as such, are different to the actual drawings. To view them larger, click on images and they will open a new page. To gain a sense of scale, go here. They all measure approximately 75cm x 25cm.

The images shown are photos of the original work where stated (mostly in frames or in context). They have a wider tonal range and are more subtle than black and white digital. Due to the large scale of the originals, they are better represented in this way. Others are black & white digital prints, photographs of the original artworks modified for editioning, not the actual artworks.

Close ups, showing detail:

I’m delighted to say I have been awarded a Grants for the Arts to pursue the next stage – a publication – about the drawings, the River Severn and this fascinating landscape.

Print

To view the original web site for Carolyn Black CLICK HERE

.

.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Advertisements

Posted in STROAT, Stroat Standing Stone | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

HANLEY LANE NP16 7JH & 7JK

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 28/05/2017

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. STROATForest of Dean 


.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

eMail Address:

Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Main WebSite:

www.InfoWebSite.UK

Friday, 20 January 2012

HANLEY LANE: NP16 7JK

HANLEY LANE: NP16 7JK
  

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.
.
HANLEY LANE: NP16 7JK
 
Boughspring Barn, CLICK HERE
Hanley Lane, Boughspring, Chepstow NP16 7JH
Detached, Freehold, 4 Beds, 1 Baths, 3 Receps 

Un-Named 01, 
HANLEY LANE – CLICK HERE 

1 Hanley Lane,
Boughspring, Chepstow NP16 7JH
Semi-detached, Freehold, 3 Beds, 2 Baths, 2 Receps
Last sale: £58,950 Sale date: 29th Jun 1998
Zoopla Estimate
£523,322

2 Hanley Lane
NP16 7JH

Semi
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar<
.
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
TWITTER: Greg_LW

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BOUGHSPRING BARN, Hanley Lane

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 28/05/2017

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. STROATForest of Dean 

BOUGHSPRING BARN, Hanley Lane, NP16 7JH

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

eMail Address:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Main WebSite:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

Property details for Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Boughspring, Chepstow NP16 7JH

Detached house, Freehold, 4 Beds, 1 Bath, 2 Receps Edit
Recently sold: £620,000 – Sold on: 17th Feb 2017

Value data/graphs

Estimate feedback

  • Zoopla Estimate

    £630,000
    Refine estimate

  • Value change
    31,800 (5.3%)
    from 
  • Rental value
    £1,800 pcm
  • Confidence level
  • Value range
    £617,000 – £643,000
  • Rental range
    £1,600 – £2,050 pcm

Monthly running costs Beta

name value
Mortgage 1,340
Insurance 15
Energy 138
Council Tax 305
Water 51

£1,849 Monthly total

Energy Gas £68 Electricity £70 Estimated energy cost £138/mo (£1,651/yr)

Reduce your energy costs by up to £405/year

  • You could save £405/yr
  • You could save £398/yr
  • You could save £370/yr

Public info

Property type: Detached house | Tenure: Freehold | Last sale: £620,000 | Sale date: 17th Feb 2017

This 4 bed freehold detached house is located at Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Boughspring, Chepstow NP16 7JH and has an estimated current value of £630,000. Hanley Lane has 3 properties on it with a average current value of £627,841, compared to an average property value of £311,741 for NP16. There has been 1 property sale on Hanley Lane, NP16 over the last 5 years with an average house price paid of £620,000 and this detached house was last sold on 17th Feb 2017 for £620,000. There are currently 115 houses and flats for sale in NP16 with an average asking price of £486,553 and 19 homes to rent in NP16 with an average asking rent of £185 pw.

Property history

Property history Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow NP16

Previously listed for sale on 7th Mar 2016 for £629,950

4 bed detached house

Property history of Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Boughspring, Chepstow NP16 7JH

* characterful detached property * picturesque setting with views to river severn * four double bedrooms, master with jack & jill en-suite * spacious living room leading to conservatory * formal dining * kitchen breakfast room * detached 1 bedroom …

See details for Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Boughspring, Chepstow NP16 7JH when it was last marketed:

Property history of Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Boughspring, Chepstow NP16 7JH, 7th Mar 2016

Previously listed for sale on 7th Mar 2016
£629,950 4 bed detached house

4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow

Sold STC

Start photo slideshow

1 of 25

Main Picture

  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
  • Thumbnail 4 bed detached house for sale in Boughspring Barn, Hanley Lane, Tidenham, Chepstow
 Property info

Property description

* characterful detached property
* picturesque setting with views to river severn
* four double bedrooms, master with jack & jill en-suite
* spacious living room leading to conservatory
* formal dining
* kitchen breakfast room
* detached 1 bedroom annexe with en-suite
* set in around 3 acres of gardens and grounds
* sought after residential location
* potential for attic conversion (partially converted requires staircase for access)
* viewing highly recommended
* energy efficiency rating – E

description
Boughspring Barn offers spacious family accommodation with this stone faced detached build situated in a picturesque rural setting with gardens and grounds of around 3 acres and fantastic views to the River Severn and surrounding countryside. The property briefly comprises a spacious reception hall giving access to large living room with feature fireplace and wood burner, access to conservatory maximising surrounding views, a separate formal dining room with dual aspect, kitchen/breakfast room, ground floor w.C. And utility room. To the first floor are four double bedrooms, the master of which benefits from jack and jill en-suite, also utilised as family bathroom. The property also benefits from a partially converted attic space, with a generous circulation area with good head height, one window, offering a fantastic potential for conversion with the necessary consent. Outside the property benefits from one and a half acres of formal ornamental gardens with a further one and a half acres of grounds. Also set in the grounds is a stone faced detached annexe with reception hall, w.C., living dining room and kitchenette as well as double bedroom with en-suite, which could also be utilised as a holiday let. There is also a garage, again which is stone faced, with power, lighting and water supply. Being situated in the sought after location of Tidenham, a number of facilities are close at hand to include local farm shop, primary and secondary schools in nearby Woolaston and Chepstow. There are a further range of facilities in Chepstow to include pubs, restaurants, doctors and dentists. Being situated near the A48, the M4 and M48 motorway networks are close at hand, bringing Gloucester, Newport, Cardiff and Bristol within easy commuting distance.

Entrance

ground floor: 7.44m (24’5′) x 2.79m (9’2′)

reception hall
With upvc double glazed front door and double glazed window to front elevation. Solid wood block flooring. Exposed timber beams. One double panelled radiator. Access to first floor.

Living room 5.41m (17’9′) x 5.31m (17’5′)
A spacious reception room with solid wood block flooring, exposed timber beams. Feature stone fireplace, multi-fuel burner. Upvc double glazed window to front elevation. One double panelled radiator. Access to conservatory via upvc double glazed sliding door.

Living room view 2

conservatory
A upvc double glazed conservatory with rendered plinth. Ceramic tiled flooring. Fantastic views towards River Severn and surrounding countryside. Upvc French doors leading to gardens.

View from conservatory

dining room 5.33m (17’6′) x 4.83m (15’10’)
Also accessed from reception hall with upvc double glazed windows to front and rear elevations. Exposed timber beams. Two double panelled radiators.

Ground floor W.C.
Comprising a white suite to include low lever lever flush w.C., pedestal wash hand basin with chrome double taps. Part ceramic tiled walls. Ceramic tiled flooring. Upvc double glazed window to side elevation.

Kitchen/breakfast room 5.69m (18’8′) x 5.00m (16’5′) max. ‘L’ shape
Appointed with a matching range of base and eye level storage units with granite effect work tops. Integrated high level oven and grill. Space for dishwasher and fridge freezer. Inset five ring gas hob. Multi-fuel burner linked to hot water. One and a half bowl and drainer sink, chrome mixer tap. Ceramic tiled splashbacks. Porcelain tiled flooring. Timber glazed double doors leading to rear lobby/utility area. Two upvc double glazed windows to side elevation. One double panelled radiator.

Kitchen/breakfast room view 2

rear lobby/utility area
With ceramic tiled flooring. Oil fired boiler. Timber glazed door to gardens. Window to rear elevation.

First floor stairs and landing
Open landing space with access to all bedrooms and family bathroom. Upvc double glazed window to rear elevation, one to side. Two loft access points. Airing cupboard. (Please note the loft space has a window on each gable end with good head height with fantastic potential for conversion, subject to the necessary planning permission, with the landing able to occupy another staircase.)

master bedroom 5.41m (17’9′) x 5.33m (17’6′) exc. Fitted wardrobe
A spacious master with a range of fitted wardrobes. Upvc double glazed window to side elevation, one to front with fantastic views. One single panelled radiator. Access to Jack and Jill en-suite.

Jack and jill en-suite
Accessed from master bedroom and landing. Comprising a white suite to include low level dual push button flush w.C. And wash hand basin with chrome mixer tap set into corner vanity unit with mirror and light over. Panelled bath with chrome mixer tap and shower attachment. Double shower cubicle with chrome mains fed shower. Part ceramic tiled walls. Ceramic tiled flooring. Chrome heated towel rail Upvc double glazed window to side elevation. Spotlighting.

Bedroom 2 5.33m (17’6′) x 3.81m (12’6′)
A generous double room with upvc double glazed windows to front and rear elevations. One single panelled radiator.

Bedroom 3 4.98m (16’4′) x 3.00m (9’10’) max. ‘L’ shape
A double room with upvc double glazed windows to side and rear elevations. One single panelled radiator.

Bedroom 4 3.76m (12’4′) x 3.73m (12’3′) max. ‘L’ shape
Currently utilised as study with over stairs void storage cupboard. Upvc double glazed window to side elevation with fantastic views.

Outside
The property is approached via gravel driveway with stonework pillars and gated access, leading to large parking area. The gardens are laid to lawn with a number of mature shrubs and trees with three natural ponds as well as large woodland area to the rear. The formal gardens approach one and a half acres with a further one and a half acres of field, accessed via five bar gate, also with water supply. Large store shed and poly tunnel to remain(Please note poly tunnel cover needs replacing), again with water supply. Also situated in the grounds are a detached annexe and garage.

Gardens view 2

gardens view 3

view from garden

annexe
The annexe briefly comprises a stonework faced build with reception hall, w.C., open plan living/dining room with vaulted ceilings, kitchenette, a double bedroom again with vaulted ceilings and access to en-suite.

Reception hall
With quarry tiled flooring giving access to w.C. And living/dining room.

W.C.

Comprising a white suite to include low level lever flush w.C., pedestal wash hand basin with chrome double taps. Part ceramic tiled walls. Quarry tiled flooring. Timber glazed window to side elevation.

Living/dining room 5.38m (17’8′) x 3.17m (10’5′)
With vaulted ceiling. Exposed timber beams. Feature fireplace. Timber double glazed sliding door to front paviour terrace. Electric storage heating. Access to kitchenette.

Living/dining room view 2

kitchenette 2.16m (7’1′) x 1.27m (4’2′)
Appointed with a range of base and eye level storage units with space for cooker and fridge. Stainless steel one bowl and drainer sink. Chrome mixer tap. Ceramic tiled splashbacks and ceramic tiled flooring. Timber glazed window to side.

Bedroom 3.38m (11’1′) x 3.23m (10’7′)
A double room with vaulted ceiling, exposed timber beams. Timber glazed window to front elevation. Storage into loft/eaves. Access to en-suite.

En-suite
A suite comprising low level lever flush w.C., pedestal wash hand basin with chrome mixer tap. Shower cubicle, fully tiled with electric shower. Part ceramic tiled walls. Ceramic tiled flooring. Electric chrome heated towel rail. Airing cupboard.

Garage
Attached to the annexe is a garage with timber doors. Power, lighting and water supply. Mezzanine floor for further storage.

Directions
From our Chepstow office, proceed along the A48 in the direction of Lydney, taking the left hand turn immediately after Hanley Farm Shop. Proceed along this lane and the property is around 3/4 of a mile on the right hand side.

Services
Oil fired central heating linked with wood burner for hot water and heating. Septic tank. Mains water and electricity.

 

Tenure – freehold

You are recommended to have this verified by your legal advisors at your earliest convenience.

 

.
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
TWITTER: Greg_LW

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PIXIE COTTAGE, STROAT, NP16 7LS …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 20/04/2017

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. 

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

PIXIE COTTAGE, STROAT, NP16 7LS …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:

Greg Lance – Watkins

Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

 detached house

PIXIE COTTAGE, STROAT, NP16 7LS,
Last Sold Noted:
  • 23 Jul 2015 Pixie Cottage Stroat, NP16 £355,000

NEARBY PROPERTIES SOLD or For sale:

  • 14 Jan 2003 Ashwell Grange Lodge Stroat, NP16 £166,000
  • 07 Sep 2010 Grange Barn Stroat, NP16 £475,000
  • 09 Jan 2017 Pennymoon offered @ £445,000
    20-Apr-2017 Pennymoon Price Reduced to £425,000


Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

 

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:

http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:

http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:

http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:

http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ASHWELL GRANGE – Grange Barn, STROAT

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 20/04/2017

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. 

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

ASHWELL GRANGE – Grange Barn, STROAT…

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:

Greg Lance – Watkins

Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

 detached house

Ashwell Lodge, Grange Barn, Stroat, Chepstow
Last Sold Noted:
  • 07 Sep 2010 Grange Barn Stroat, NP16 £475,000

NEARBY PROPERTIES SOLD or For sale:

  • 23 Jul 2015 Pixie Cottage Stroat, NP16 £355,000
  • 14 Jan 2003 Ashwell Grange Lodge Stroat, NP16 £166,000
  • 09 Jan 2017 Pennymoon offered @ £445,000
    20-Apr-2017 Pennymoon Price Reduced to £425,000


Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:

http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Oyster with links:

http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Trust with links:

http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

Stolen Childhood with links:

http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com

NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ASHWELL GRANGE – Ashwell Lodge, STROAT

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 20/04/2017

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. 

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

ASHWELL GRANGE – Ashwell Lodge, STROAT…

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

 detached house

Ashwell Lodge, Ashwell Grange, Stroat, Chepstow
Last Sold Noted:
  • 14 Jan 2003 Ashwell Grange Lodge Stroat, NP16 £166,000

NEARBY PROPERTIES SOLD or For sale:

  • 23 Jul 2015 Pixie Cottage Stroat, NP16 £355,000
  • 07 Sep 2010 Grange Barn Stroat, NP16 £475,000
  • 09 Jan 2017 Pennymoon offered @ £445,000
    20-Apr-2017 Pennymoon Price Reduced to £425,000


Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ASHWELL GRANGE – Pennymoon, STROAT, NP16 7LS

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 09/01/2017

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. 

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

ASHWELL GRANGE – Pennymoon, STROAT, NP16 7LS …

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

4 bedroom detached house for sale

Ashwell Grange, Stroat, Chepstow

£445,000

Key features

  • Four Bedroom Converted Barn, Peaceful Rural Location.
  • Large Garden, Lovely Views.
  • In Easy Reach of Major Road and Rail Network.

Full description

Tenure: Freehold

Ashwell Grange is situated four miles north of Chepstow.

Pennymoon, is part of an exclusive development of five stone barns believed to date back to the sixteenth century. The advantage of this rural location is to experience peaceful country living with the convenience of being in close proximity to major road and rail networks. The elevated position of Pennymoon offers a beautiful clear and open view over the surrounding countryside towards the River Severn.
The accommodation offers a good deal of flexibility. It is designed as an open plan living arrangement featuring a fireplace with wood burning stove and impressive original beams.
There is a fitted kitchen, a ground floor bedroom and dressing area with potential to expand, family bathroom with sauna and three further bedrooms, the master being en-suite.

The property has a secure south facing garden with a leisure pool, summer house and lots of parking space. A substantial, comfortable family home with lots of character in a much sought after part of the country.

Rear Lobby:
2.25m (7ft 5in) x 0.9m (2ft 11in)
Open to utility room, door to kitchen.

Kitchen:
4.9m (16ft 1in) x 4.31m (14ft 2in)
Window to front aspect, exposed beams, oil fired Rayburn supplying central heating and hot water, large storage cupboard, American style fridge/freezer, plumbing for dishwasher, door to inner hall.

Inner Hall:
2.7m (8ft 10in) x 1.42m (4ft 8in)
Stairs to first floor, doors to living room and front porch.

Front Porch:
1.7m (5ft 7in) x 1.64m (5ft 5in)
Window to side, door to to veranda.

Living Room:
4.82m (15ft 10in) x 4.32m (14ft 2in)
Exposed beams, fireplace with multi fuel stove, open plan to dining area.

Dining Area:
5.2m (17ft 1in) x 3.2m (10ft 6in)
Velux roof light, purpose built bar/servery, French doors to garden.

Utility Room:
3.55m (11ft 8in) x 1.37m (4ft 6in)
Window to rear aspect, plumbing for washing machine, doors to family bathroom and ground floor bedroom.

Family Bathroom:
4m (13ft 1in) x 3.46m (11ft 4in)
Velux roof lights, feature exposed stone wall, low level WC, wash hand basin, corner jacuzzi bath, separate shower enclosure with mains supply shower, free standing sauna.

Ground Floor Bedroom 4:
4.23m (13ft 11in) x 2.64m (8ft 8in)
Window to rear aspect, laminate flooring, open arch to dressing area.

Dressing Area:
2.65m (8ft 8in) x 1.23m (4ft 0in)
Hanging rails and shelving, door to store room with potential for an en-suite.

Store Room:
2.6m (8ft 6in) x 2m (6ft 7in)
Window to side, built in shelving.

Landing:
Doors to bedrooms 1,2 and 3.

Bedroom 1:
5.14m (16ft 10in) x 4.3m (14ft 1in) including en-suite
Window to front aspect, Velux roof light, two built in wardrobes, door to en-suite.

En-suite:
2.35m (7ft 9in) x 1.53m (5ft 0in)
Window to side aspect, low level WC, wash hand basin, shower enclosure with mains supply shower, floor to ceiling tiles.

Bedroom 2:
4.3m (14ft 1in) x 3m (9ft 10in)
Window to front aspect, wood flooring.

Bedroom 3/Study:
3.28m (10ft 9in) x 2m (6ft 7in)
Window to front aspect, over stairs storage cupboard housing hot water cylinder, wood flooring.

Workshop/Storge Room:
3.43m (11ft 3in) x 2.62m (8ft 7in)
Attached to the house with external access, power and light, storage in the roof space.

Pool:
Inset pool surrounded with decking and over looked by the sunmer house.

Drive:
Double gates open into the parking area and drive beyond. To the left a raised decked veranda provides outside relaxing and entertaining space. This area is accessed from the dining room and steps down to the lawn. At the far end of the garden is the walled pool area and summer house, set on a raised decked terrace enjoying the best of the view. It is a level south facing garden offering a good deal of privacy and security.

Directions:
From Chepstow proceed on the A48 for 4 miles to the village of Stroat. Turn left toward Ashwell Grange as indicated by our directional sign and the ‘Reece’ sign post. Follow the road to the top, bear left then right. Pennymoon is the second barn on the left.

NEARBY PROPERTIES SOLD:

  • 23 Jul 2015 Pixie Cottage Stroat, NP16 £355,000
  • 07 Sep 2010 Grange Barn Stroat, NP16 £475,000
  • 14 Jan 2003 Ashwell Grange Lodge Stroat, NP16 £166,000


Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CHAOS On The A48 In Stroat Extended 20-Apr-2016 . 12-May-2016

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 20/04/2016

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. 

.
CHAOS On The A48 In Stroat Extended 20-Apr-2016 . 12-May-2016
.
In posting this information from Gloucester County Council I am tempted to comment ‘what on earth did they expect in the first place’?
The Council points out that the A48 is one of the busiest roads yet it seems to have failed to realise just what chaos would result from closing the road!
I am astonished that the Council has so little understanding of this road when you consider the daily chaos that is found at the Sedbury/Chepstow end of the road every day of the week and not necessarily only at the two main rush hours of morning and afternoon!
It is also worthy of note that the A48 is recognised in some quarters as the most dangerous road in EUrope when measured by accidents and fatalities per mile driven – yet with gay abandon the Council authorises ever more houses to be built that will feed this chaos directly, where there are some 4-8,000 new homes to be built from Chepstow to Lydney giving a realistic additional 8-16,000 car journeys a day – let alone the additional delivers and service vehicles and expected rise in through traffic and lorries!
Then to exacerbate the problems when it is clearly stated by health and safety highway organisations that one of the biggest causes of accidents, where a single fatality has a direct cost to society of in excess of £250,000, selfish land owners and their parasites seek, by stealth, to capitalise on grant income by installing a wind farm strung out along the road, that will create huge impact on safety and will clearly be an ecological disater for generations to come.
It is worthy of note that such Wind Turbines as that which is being forced on the effected community of Stroat are being forced through planning in the most duplicitous manner and directly contra the professional advice of the Forest of Dean’s own planning officers! For further details CLICK HERE
Clearly as little thought goes into major planning issues as has been displayed on the smaller scale; shown by the debacle of  planning a total road closure, and then seemingly only issuing notices to those actually within the closed area; rather than advertising the closure to all those effected, in a responsible manner, for weeks if not months in advance!
Consider the fact that neither Wyvern Garage at the Woolaston end of the closure and Wibdon Farm at the other – both substantial businesses just yards outside the closure – did not even receive the courtesy of notification!
The apparent indifference of the executive level who are generously PAID to provide such services seems woefully lacking in forward thinking, as OUR service providers, whilst endlessly raising rates and taxes year on year from ever large numbers of homes and businesses!

Council issues statement after Forest of Dean roadworks chaos

By CitizenNews  |  Posted: April 20, 2016


Gloucestershire County Council has responded to reports of traffic chaos in the Forest of Dean

Gloucestershire County Council has released a statement after a surprise road closure caused traffic chaos in the Forest of Dean.

The full statement from the county council is as follows:

‘Following congestion this morning, the resurfacing works on the A48 at Stroat between Tidenham and Woolaston will be changed to avoid rush hour queues.

Resurfacing work began today (20th April) to improve the A48 at Stroat. The A48 is an important road for thousands of commuters and businesses, but following years of heavy use the surface is in need of repair.

Whilst a full closure was initially planned to reduce the length of time the works took, following concerns from local residents, the scheme has been changed to cut rush hour congestion.

To carry out the work safely it is necessary to close the road to traffic between 9.30am and 3.30pm each week day.

Two diversions are in place, one for heavy goods vehicles via the A4136, Monmouth, the A40 and A449 and another for lighter traffic via the A4136, Monmouth and A466 however local traffic may know of shorter routes.

The A48 is a major route through the county and the area is already becoming congested so Gloucestershire County Council is asking drivers to plan their journeys in advance and to avoid the area at closure times if at all possible.

The road will be open at all other times so traffic will not be affected during the morning rush hour, in the evenings, at night times or at weekends.

Cllr Vernon Smith, cabinet member for highways said, “I was very concerned to hear about the disruption in parts of the Forest of Dean this morning. The works on the A48 are an important part of our investment into improving the condition of Gloucestershire’s roads – but this has clearly caused more problems than expected. From tomorrow, the works will only be operating outside peak hours. Whilst this will extend the duration of the scheme, we hope that it will lessen the impact on local residents and businesses.”

“Our resurfacing work will really improve this part of the A48 and we’re doing all we can to minimise delays.”

The county council appreciates that the diversions are long but legally must publicise an alternative route using equivalent A roads. People living locally, driving cars and small vans are welcome to use other alternative routes that they are aware of.

Arrangements have been made for local school buses, and access will be maintained for emergency vehicles.

The work is now scheduled to finish on Thursday 12th May and once complete, the new surface is expected to last for more than 20 years.

For enquires please call 08000 514514.’

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE
Earlier in the day the following article had appeared in the press:

Surprise road closure causes traffic chaos in Forest of Dean

By CitizenNews  |  Posted: April 20, 2016


Traffic is piling up in the Forest of Dean after a ‘surprise’ road closure

Surprise roadworks on a busy road is causing traffic chaos in the Forest of Dean.

Apparently without warning, the A48 between Brookend and Chepstow has closed for roadworks.

And diverted traffic is piling up in the area as large vehicles struggle past each other on narrow country lanes.

One Citizen reader contacted us through Facebook, he said: “If anyone is travelling down the A48, be aware, they have closed the road in both directions from Wyvern Car Sales, Brookend all the Way to Chepstow.

 

“There were signs from further up this morning saying the road was being closed from 07:30 20/04/2016 until 06/05/2016.”
He added: “This was a bit of a shock because I drive on that road everyday and there were no such signs at 08:30 yesterday morning warning us.

“Not sure if the it is a complete closure between those dates or if it is open in the evenings.”

And on social media people have posted pictures of the traffic pile-ups.

News Feed

Tidenham chase snarl ups due to diverted traffic. Large vehicles struggling to pass each other on narrow road. Single track lanes suffering also. Madness!

From Sue Adams.Forest of Dean News Centre's photo.

At 5:30pm on Wednesday, Gloucestershire County Council issued a statement to say resurfacing works on the A48 at Stroat between Tidenham and Woolaston will be changed to avoid rush hour queues.

Councillor Vernon Smith, cabinet member for highways, said:
“I was very concerned to hear about the disruption in parts of the Forest of Dean this morning. The works on the A48 are an important part of our investment into improving the condition of Gloucestershire’s roads – but this has clearly caused more problems than expected. From tomorrow, the works will only be operating outside peak hours. Whilst this will extend the duration of the scheme, we hope that it will lessen the impact on local residents and businesses.” “Our resurfacing work will really improve this part of the A48 and we’re doing all we can to minimise delays.”

To see the original of this CLICK HERE
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

.
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
Personal Political Comments: CLICK HERE
Archive of General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General Stuff ongoing: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A48 Accident Survivor Helps Other Children In Hospital Over Christmas …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 23/12/2015

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. 

..

A48 Accident Survivor Helps Other Children In Hospital Over Christmas …

.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337

Ethan’s Christmas surprise for young hospital patients

Wednesday, 23 December 2015 in Local People

A YOUNG Lydney lad plans a Christmas surprise for children at the hospital where he and his brothers were treated for a total of six months after a tragic road accident.

Sad to hear that the children will spend Christmas on the neurology ward at Bristol Children’s Hospital, Ethan Rose decided to save up eight weeks’ worth of pocket money and ask locals for donations.

Ethan and brothers, Noah and Finley, were treated at the hospital after the accident in which a motorist died.

The 10-year-old, St John’s-on-the-Hill pupil in Tutshill, also appealed on his school’s website for help.

Proud mum, Kirsti Rose said: “Ethan really deserves some recognition for his hard work. He was so sad to hear that the children on the ward will be spending Christmas in hospital that he wanted to do something to help.

“He receives £5 a week, so over eight weeks saved £40 to buy gifts such as playdough, books and puzzles.

“With local support he has enough gifts to fill four sacks. People have been so generous, we can’t thank them enough.”

In February Ethan was travelling with his two brothers and their stepfather when their car collided with another vehicle on the A48 at Stroat killing a 21-year-old maths teacher who worked at the Dean Academy in Stroat.

Ethan said: “The ward that we were in was an amazing place; not only the nurses, cleaners, chefs and doctors but, most importantly, the children.

“I was struck by how strong they were, including my brother.

“They never moaned, were always smiling and never asked for much, apart from getting better.

“Some of the children had nasty brain injuries and I used to play my recorder to them because the nurses said music may help them relax.

“These children are the most courageous, strong and amazing people I’ve ever met and they deserve the best Christmas possible; as for some it could be their last.”

He added: “Thank you to everyone who has donated gifts, money and chocolate. I’m very grateful for your support and I know the children are going to be even more thankful.”

Donations can be made at the Orchard Stores in Orchard Road, Lydney until 10am tomorrow (Thursday) and Ethan will take the gifts to the hospital later on Christmas Eve.

To view the original Article CLICK HERE

Please note the accident took place near the Evangelical Building in Stroat and Dean Academy is in Lydney, whilst St. John’s on the Hill is on Castleford Hill, Tutshill, Chepstow.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

.
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
Personal Political Comments: CLICK HERE
Archive of General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General Stuff ongoing: CLICK HERE

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

Posted in A48, Chepstow, Cinderford, Coleford, FoD, Forest of Dean, Forest of Dean District Council. Google Alert FoD, Gloucestershire, Lydney, River Severn, STROAT | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

60m. Wind Turbine Eyesore Application For Stroat

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 09/12/2015

WELCOME TO STROAT. 
If YOU have ANY information on the village of Stroat 
PLEASE contact the blog owner as soon as possible 
for it to be added.

. STROATForest of Dean 

Proposed: 

Towering 337 feet above the Severn Estuary

60m. Wind Turbine Eyesore Application For Stroat

PLEASE NOTE:

The Material below is merely an archive.

This page is no longer being updated as it has become somewhat akin to ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’! All of the information is somewhere in the 100,000 words or so of this post but as a page on a blog it has grown beyond indexing and working out how to unroll the ‘scroll’!

This site has been transfered, Indexed and made more readily usable and maintainable at:

CLICK HERE

To continue reading about Stroat and general matters pertaining to the hamlet this WebLog and its many postings is the place to be!

However for Wind Turbine specific details and links do goto:
http://stroatwindturbine.com

Sorry for any inconvenience but we hope the new site will be more user friendly and of greater help to you.

ARCHIVE Below:

As at: 26-Jan-2016

The Blades Will Distractingly Rotate 337 feet (1/3rd. higher than Gloucester Cathedral!) above The Severn, along side one of the most dangerous sections of the A48, already designated The Most Dangerous Road In EUrope – opposite Hanley Farm Shop. the bus stop, two lane junctions, various property driveways & the public lay-by

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself”: 
Thomas Jefferson
A clear statement of wisdom that most appositely explains why Wind Turbines require Government intervention to use taxes levied on all, many of whom can ill afford them, to subsidise and enrich land owners and their corporate assistants!

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data
to 30 September 2015

The EFFECTED COMMUNITY

The ‘Effected Community’ being those contacted by the Council originally who are directly effected including:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
which includes 35 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

  • ASHBY, Leah, Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat,, approximately 1.3kms from proposed turbine
  • AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William – Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from proposed turbine
  • BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm – within 750m from proposed turbine
  • BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m from proposed turbine
  • BROOKES, Tracey & Andy – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine
  • BROWN, Louella & David – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine
  • CARPENTER, Garry, Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat,, approximately 1.3kms from proposed turbine
  • CROSS, Nigel and Samantha 3 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
  • DAVIDSON, Pam – The Garstons – within 750m from proposed turbine
  • ELSBY, Nigel & Linda, Stroat House, within 1.5km from proposed turbine
  • FORD, Claire & Roger – The steps – approximately 500m from proposed turbine
  • GOATMAN, Fiona & Robert – Beverstone Farm – approximately 1km from proposed turbine
  • HILLMAN, Robert & Alison Philpots Court Farm – within 700m from proposed turbine
  • HOLLIES, Lindsay & Mark – Chapel House, Hanley Lane – within 1km from proposed turbine
  • LANCE-WATKINS, Lee & Greg – Home Cottage Stroat – within 1.5km from proposed turbine
  • MAYO, Molly & Keith – Wibdon Farm – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine
  • NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue 4 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine
  • REES, James & Clare  – Greystones within 775m from proposed turbine
  • SMITH, Pam & David – Old Post Office within 900m from proposed turbine
  • WRIGHT, Sue and Peter – Little Wibdon, Stroat, approx. 500 – 550meters from proposed turbine

Minded that it is a relatively sparsely populated rural area, where numerous properties will be level with the blades on the overlooking slopes and clear visibility will be from Aust, Littlehampton, Thornbury, Rockhampton, Hill, Oldbury, Berkeley, Sharpness and beyond as it stands 50% taller than Gloucester Cathedral, undisguised by trees or other obstacles.

There would seem to be few if any supporters of the imposition of this turbine from within the community – other than those who have signed standard letters provided and vigorously solicited, by the applicants, either as potential direct beneficiaries in the scheme, tenants or employees of the applicant!

They have organised ‘THE COMMUNITY AGAINST SEVERNDALE WIND TURBINE’
& on his own behalf Peter Wright is seeking to challenge The Forest of Dean District Council at a Judicial Review – If you can help to protect The Severn Estuary, wild life and environment, or would like to know how YOU can help, without any obligation or in complete anonymity
 CLICK HERE

TWITTER HashTag #StroatWind

IF YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN
or
YOU WISH TO HELP

or Know Anyone Else
who might be willing to assist us

CLICK HERE

This desecration may happen to your hamlet,
village, community or favourite place next
if YOU fail to help us to draw a line in the sand.
SEE:
CrowdJustice

Could this naiive original watercolour be Hanley Hill through the eyes of the 11 year old Pauline, daughter of Parson Newman Rector of Tidenham Parish Church, C1937 or 1938:

This is how Hanley Hill will look, for at least a generation, if this industrial folly is errected:

WIND TURBINE to SCALE COMPARISON 03

This picture shows the applicants photomontage with the accurate scale representation of Big Ben at 96m. also showing 24 Routemaster double decker buses stacked alongside the giant wind turbine! A structure over 100 feet (33m) taller than Gloucester Cathedral and visually within the landscape standing high into the skyline some 8 times as tall as Oldbury Power Station.

For greater understanding of the implementation of this Wind Farm by stealth on the banks of the Severn Estuary in the rural and scenic area between the M48 Chepstow Bridge and the City of Gloucester consider:

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 001

& of course the size of these monstrous industrial instalations in such an area of outstanding natural beauty:

image

Minded that distraction is listed as the main reason for accidents, by the Police, it is hardly speculation that this giant moving structure alongside the A48 will be certain to cause additional fatalities on Europe’s most dangerous road!
How do the applicants excuse these inevitable killings?
These giant wind turbines may well be sited alongside motorways, visible on the given motorway over many miles, not suddenly materialising around a bend or appearing through the mist from the Severn!
As they dominate this pleasant rural area, once so attractive to tourism, which formed a major part of the income of the area.
ALVINGTON TURBINE 006 22-Nov-2015
Clearly the applicants, their agents and planners have chosen to overlook the enormous environmental damage these turbines cause, not least of which is the massive output of CO2 in their manufacture nor the defacing nature of the structure long into the future of these inefficient and costly follies, long after they have become obsolete and the grants have been withdrawn – who will clear up the mess we have thus left to our children and the ‘community’ in the future?
How in fact do the ‘community’ derive any gain from this self-serving application at the expense of the ‘community’, an obstacle that they claim, but do not guarantee, will pay £1/2M into the ‘community over the next 25 years when just two fatalities during that period will cost the public in excess of £1/2M.

It is my contention, based upon sound evidence that, for this industrial structure to be placed in such an inappropriate place, would not only be an act of irresponsible folly but a corrupt and criminal abrogation of duty of care by those making, aiding, supporting and granting the application.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~########~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just consider the quantifiable environmental damage alone, that the Greens and Warmists have been duped into believing does not exist, is beyond any reasonable argument they may try to make.

A primary motivation for constructing these evil structures is the dishonest claim that they save on CO2 emmissions, which are ‘claimed’ (without sound scientific evidence) to be responsible for Global Warming and Climate Change (for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence that the anthropogenic input is of any significance).

IF you have been duped into believing the claims of the highly suspect and palpably untrustworthy IPCC you should clearly oppose Wind Turbines as an environmentally damaging cause of Global Warming & Climate Change and no part of the solution.

Only the dishonest, the corrupt, the gullible and of course the greed of the land owners and profiteers in on the scam could overlook the FACTS! Consider the Carbon Footprint of a wind turbine before it even starts to produce any power, and conveniently ignoring transport of materials and fabricated structure, not to mention the movement of supersized cranes etc and most definitely ignoring the damaging legacy and the carbon footprint to restore the land after its destruction both in excavation of materials and dismantling the defunct turbine and its 480 m3 plinth.

For now just consider the carpon footprint in its basic construction:

So what is the carbon foot print of a wind turbine with 45 tons of rebar & 481m3 of concrete?

as at 04-Aug-2014

A Wind Turbine’s carbon footprint is massive
try 241.85 tons of CO2.

Here’s the breakdown of the CO2 numbers.

To create a 1,000 Kg of pig iron, you start with 1,800 Kg of iron ore, 900 Kg of coking coal 450 Kg of limestone. The blast furnace consumes 4,500 Kg of air. The temperature at the core of the blast furnace reaches nearly 1,600 degrees C (about 3,000 degrees F).

The pig iron is then transferred to the basic oxygen furnace to make steel.

1,350 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg pig iron produced.

A further 1,460 Kg CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Steel produced so all up 2,810 Kg CO2 is emitted.

45 tons of rebar (steel) are required so that equals 126.45 tons of CO2 are emitted.

To create a 1,000 Kg of Portland cement, calcium carbonate (60%), silicon (20%), aluminium (10%), iron (10%) and very small amounts of other ingredients are heated in a large kiln to over 1,500 degrees C to convert the raw materials into clinker. The clinker is then interground with other ingredients to produce the final cement product. When cement is mixed with water, sand and gravel forms the rock-like mass know as concrete.

An average of 927 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Portland cement. On average, concrete has 10% cement, with the balance being gravel (41%), sand (25%), water (18%) and air (6%). One cubic metre of concrete weighs approx. 2,400 Kg so approx. 240 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every cubic metre.

481m3 of concrete are required so that equals 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted.

Now I have not included the emissions of the mining of the raw materials or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~########~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MUCH Additional Material Has Been Added:
PLEASE NOTE updates may include
change or addition of information, as it comes to hand
or as it becomes superceded.

STROAT - WIND TURBINE 01

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group

CHANGES
INDEX


The Majority of updates are made as PS
(Post Scripts) at the end and are numbered:


05-May-2015

06-May-2015
09-Apr-2015
including newly elected councillors & updating etc.
11-May-2015

extensive additional details added
resultant from an emergency meeting held in Stroat
13-May-2015
14-May-2015
15-May-2015
16-May-2015
18-May-2015
(PS-15: My objection to the Planning Application)

19-May-2015
(PS-16: Including Parish Council Agenda)
21-May-2015
22-May-2015
(PS – 17 particularly)

24-May-2015
25-May-2015
26-May-2015
(particularly re PS-21:S. Glos & PS-22: re ‘Bat Survey’)

27-May-2015
(PS-23: Scale Representation, Based on Google Earth View
& Planning Appeals see: PS-24 & PS-25.)

Later update 27-May-2015
(PS-26: Parish Council Planning Committee Meeting summary
& vote 5:1 to oppose The Application see)

29-May-2015
(PS-26: to scale pictures of Turbine
in correct location!)

31-May-2015
(PS-27 a comment from NY)

18-Jun-2015
(PS-28 A Meeting + Update)

19-Jun-2015
(PS-29 New Govt. End to Subsidies)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-30 Press Report on New Turbine Subsidies)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-31 Amber Rudd MPs Statement on Subsidies
Discussed on Conservative Home)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-32 Some up to date stats & extrapolation thereof)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-33 Government Statement re Wind Power 18-Jun-2015)

20-Jun-2015
(PS-34 Gov. PRESS RELEASE re Wind Turbines,
Local People To Get Final Say 18-Jun-2015)

20-Jub-2015
(PS-35 A Legal Caveat To Councils, Officers & Councillors:)

22-Jun-2015
(PS-36 HANSARD: HoC Debate & Statement of today’s date)

02-Jul-2015
(PS-37 Yet Another ACCIDENT within sight of Hanley Hill)

02-Jul-2015
(PS-38 Planning Consultant Julia Joseph’s correspondence to date)

03-Jul-2015
(See update to PS-37 re ACCIDENT)

03-Jul-2015
(PS-39 New environmentally damaging Wind Turbine
installed at Rockhampton)

06-Jul-2015
(PS-40 House of Commons BRIEFING PAPER
‘Onshore Wind Power’ Paper #04370)

06-Jul-2015
(PS-41: DECC Letter to David Warren confirming details that Onshore Wind Turbines
are no longer to be granted planning permission after 18-Jun-2015
or be built after Mar_2016)

07-Jul-2015
(PS-42: Wind Turbine Application & appeal turned down in Devon on similar grounds to those pertaining at Severndale Farm)

11-Jul-2015
(PS-43: Seems 50 Turbines are Required in St. Briavels!)

12-Jul-2015
(PS-44: A fortuitously timed report on the dangers for motorists on the A48, particularly Woolaston to Chepstow)

15-Jul-2014
(PS-45: Circular from FoDDC to the ‘Community’)

20-Jul-2015
(PS-46: A general letter of objection [lengthy!] in response to PS-45 above)

20-Jul-2015
(PS-47: A specific letter of objection [brief!] in response to PS-45 above)

21-Jul-2015
(PS-48: Formation of:
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group )

22-Jul-2015
(PS-49: FoDDC moves Planning Meeting from 08-Sep-2015 to 11-Aug-2015!)

22-Jul-2015
(PS-50: Letter from

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
to members of the community)

24-Jul-2015
(PS-51: DECC – Onshore wind Letter 01)

24-Jul-2015
(PS-52: Sec.State Rt.Hon. Amber Rudd Aviva speech on Climate Change)

25-Jul-2015
(PS-53: Letter/Circular regarding PS-51 above)

30-Jul-2015
(PS-54: Exposing the environmental damage caused by Wind Turbines)

08-Aug-2015
(PS-55: Letter to Planning Committee Members from
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
drafted by Robert Hillman)

11-Aug-2015
(PS-56: PRESS RELEASE by:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
Subsequent to Planning Meeting)

16-Aug-2015
(PS-57: G.L-W. letter to Mark Harper MP requesting his attendance at

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group meeting)

17-Aug-2015
(PS-58: Robert Hillman’s letter on behalf of
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
requesting the Council’s procedure be ‘Called In’)

18-Aug-2015
(PS-59: Meeting of Planning of 11-Aug-2015 AUDIO Recording posted – LINK)

19-Aug-2015
(PS-60: Article of 07-Jul-2015 showing Wind Turbines are more expensive and more pointless than you may have realised – JUST A COSTLY SCAM!)

19-Aug-2015
(PS-61: Considering/Fisking the comments reported in the local press, regarding the planning consent – seeking the truth!)

23-Aug-2015
(Opening preamble above, with pictures & scale montage)

04-Sep-2015
(PS-62: Media Coverage of 26-Aug-2015 & Comment Thereon)

05-Sep-2015
(PS-63: Report of meeting with Mark Harper MP)

07-Sep-2015
(PS-64: Mark Harper MP > GL-W + SecState Greg Clark MP)

17-Sep-2015
(PS-65: GL-W > Mark Harper MP Thanks + Some Precedent examples)

18-Sep-2015
(PS-66: GL-W > An Effected Community Member

19-Sep-2015
(PS-67: Delay/Hold on Planning from Secretary of State)

22-Sep-2015
(PS-68: GL-W > Molly Mayo re Inappropriate Wind Turbine
+ Precedent set by Sec. State Greg Clark MP)

-Sep-2015
(PS-69: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-70: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-71: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-72: )

-Sep-2015
(PS-73: )

23-Sep > 07-Oct-2015
(PS 74: Correspondence between Dai Oakley & Stephen Colegate re FoDDC Local Plan for Wind Power Generation)

26-Oct-2015
(PS 75: Correspondence From: Greg Clark MP, Mark Harper MP – calling into question & seeking to justify the fairness of The Minister’s Failure To Set Aside The Planned Wind Turbine and the failure of FoD MP Mark Harper & FoDDC Planning To Acquit their duty & reject the plan on the basis of legal guidance & a level playing field.)

23-Oct-2015
(PS 76: Greg Clark MP, Mark Harper MP, FoDDC Planning Committee, FoDDC Planning Committee Need to justify their behaviour.)

13-Nov-2015
(PS 77: Yet Another Example Of Double Standards highlighting Greg Clark MP’s failure to act in accord with the law regarding Stroat!)

14-Nov-2015
(PS 78: Request for Greg Clark MP, Mark Harper MP, FoDDC CEO, FoDDC Leader, FoDDC Planning Committee to Justify their behaviour.)

14-Nov-2015
(PS 79: The Evil Con, Environmental Damage & Personal Greed That Underpins Wind Turbines.)

12-Nov-2015
(PS 80: The EFFECTED COMMUNITY Seeks CROWD FUNDING to PROTECT THE SEVERN ESTUARY.)

12-Nov-2015
(PS 81: PROGRESS REPORT on LEGAL CHALLENGE against SEVERNDAL Wind Turbine.)

 16-Nov-2015
(PS 82: To SEARCH The Data & RESEARCH SOURCES to confirm the facts provided.)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 83: It seems Alvington & Aylburton’s ‘effected community’ have been as soundly betrayed by its elected representatives as have those in Stroat to date …)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 84:Subsidies for renewables “least effective” for the environment: economist)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 85: the Economics of Climate Change:
The Paris Conference and Its Aftermath)

22-Nov-2015
(PS 86: Fight climate change efficiently.)

03-Mar-2012
(PS 87: Christopher Booker Was Exposing the Wind Turbine Scam back in 2012 in The Telegraph.)

05-Jan-2013
(PS 88: The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy.)

24-Nov-2015
(PS 89: Wind Power Sends Power Prices Skyward,
Risks Total Grid Collapse & Fails to Cut CO2 Emissions.)

30-Nov-2015
(PS 90: How the story of Climate Change impacts Stroat.)

03-Dec-2015
(PS 91: there seems to be no level playing field when political interests are being lobbied!)

07-Dec-2015
(PS 92: The Latest News On Judicial Review & Thank You.)

01-Jan-2016
(PS 93: Wind Turbine Accident data.)

02-Jan-2016
(PS 94: Wind Turbine Fires & Fatalities Are NOT Uncommon!)

05-Jan-2016
(PS 95: Do World Political Leaders Aim To
Bankrupt Mankind
Based On An Error?.)

 08-Jan-2016
(PS 96: Peter Wright Is Granted
The Right To JUDICIAL REVIEW.
)

09-Jan-2016
(PS 97: FoDDC Votes To Destroy Jobs, TV & Film Industry
and eventually tourism in the FoD.
)

TWITTER HashTag #StroatWind

IF YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN
or
YOU WISH TO HELP

or Know Anyone Else
who might be willing to assist us

CLICK HERE

This desecration may happen to your hamlet,
village, community or favourite place next
if YOU fail to help us to draw a line in the sand.

SEE:
CrowdJustice

I regret this document is lengthy and detailed, but I make no apology for bringing to your attention the facts, with many links and cross references, as this application by: Mr. & Mrs. Lyndon & Maria Edwards; who own Hanley Farm Shop, Hanley Office Complex, Hanley Allotments, Severndale Farm etc. The application being in the name of District Councillor Mrs. Lyndon Edwards, together with others, will scar this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for generations to come.

It is worthy of note that the previous Mrs. Edwards, aware this industrialisation of the area was in progress/planned, sold her property in the immediate area and moved away and that the current Mrs. Edwards put her name forward and was recently elected as a FoDDC councillor without making it clear to the electorate at large, that she had a pecunniary interest in this application as the named applicant and with her husband and others sought subsidies from the public purse from unsuspecting tax payers and electors in the community, both locally and at large and seem to wish to ‘pass off’ the application as in some consequential way being a ‘community project’, which it clearly is not, despite utilising a tiny portion of the monies raised by public subsidy from the tax payers, in a morally unpallatable manner, as a thinly veiled bribe!

A so called ‘Community Project’ which has undeniably failed to gain the support of the ‘community’ and has been rejected by their elected representatives on Tidenham Parish Council. To continue to claim this is a ‘Community Project’ is thus clearly dishonest and thus a deliberate attempt by the applicants seeking to profit by this as misleading – thus a dishonest scam!

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 001

For The Record:

Hi,

By all means use my details as follows, if it helps you to object to this industrialisation that is so clearly against the interests of the community at all levels save some very limited seeming indirect & nominal bribes, allbeit very profitable to a few wealthy applicants in terms of support from largely unwilling  tax payers!:

Fore name: Greg
Surname: Lance – Watkins
Age: born 26-Jan-1946
Marital Status: pretty good!
Occupation: retired
Resided with Retail business: central Chepstow 1981 > 2011
Resident/owner: Home Cottage, Stroat, Tidenham, NP16 7LR 2011 > …
Phone: 01594 – 528 337
Property owner: Chepstow x 2; Tidenham Parish x 2

My opposition to this application to industrialise this rural AONB is primarily because I find it morally reprehensible on numerous grounds, totally inappropriate in this proposed location visually and as a threat to wildlife on many levels, its possible risk to life due to its proximity to Europe’s most dangerous road the A48 in a stretch that has seen two fatal crashes this year SO FAR.

Briefly: I also object on the grounds that Wind Turbines are an inefficient and largely unsustainable means of producing electricity, thus requiring grant aiding in their construction and an ongoing subsidy (as confessed by the applicants, under cross examination at The Parish Council meeting 20-May-2015) by support of around £150,000 per annum paid by levying taxes on the poorer sectors of the society and enriching those sufficiently wealthy to instal these monstrous structures with their monstrous damage to the community within which they are located.

For further details and extensive facts do view my web presence at:
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

I am happy to support my opposition and the grounds on which I oppose this application and similar such applications with my identity together with my Post Code, aware that already a threat of violence has been made, by a supporter of this application from outside the parish, against a member of the community if they do not withdraw their opposition to this odious application and its dubious nature, which is clearly NOT a community supported attempt to industrialise this area.

I trust this is of help to you.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

PLEASE NOTE:

Public Closing Date:
MONDAY – 18-May-2015

Parish Council’s first opportunity to discuss the matter:
WEDNESDAY 20-May-2015 -19:00hrs.

Parish Council’s first & only opportunity to consider the matter at their planning committee:
WEDNESDAY 27-May-2015 – 18:30hrs.
Individuals wishing to make their position clearly known in this damaging & potentially precedent setting application for industrial developement of this area of rural landscape of AONB potentially fatyally close to the A48, EUrope’s most dangerous road per vehicle mile travelled and so clearly unpopular and damaging not only to the community of Tidenham Parish specifically but the FoD & these United Kingdoms in general.
It should be noted: just how unpopular this instalation is to the local community where it is clear the majority of support for the damaging and dangerous concept comes from outside the community, beyond Tidenham Parish, but is also clearly commercially orchestrated by the applicants seeking personal profits at the expense of the community they make a very clearly dishonest attempt to dupe people they pretend to serve.

It was publicly accepted at the Parish Council meeting, by the applicants, that they expect to receive a £150,000 subsidy per annum (as they confirmed they do on their St. Briavels installation!) and that the share of the professional body acting as applicant also values its share in the St. Briavels Wind Turbine at £500,000 (believed to be a 50% share) clearly hugely profitable even at an admitted 20% efficiency – this has led to what seem to be bribes valued at £25,000 (though quoted on their web site as around £17,000) only disbursed amongst the community – thus unlikely to compensate ANYONE, let alone the community, for the damages experienced and insignificant in regard to the applicant’s obscene profits exploiting the public purse!

Clearly as these Wind Turbines are grossly inefficient and far from cost effective, requiring massive tax payer subsidies, this is nothing less than a tax on those who may well not be able to affort the cost of enriching those who are already well off!

Not only is the entire concept morally dubious it is anti community interests and do note the Alvington installation is still dishonestly being described as a ‘community project’, when in fact it was resoundingly rejected by the electorate (viz. Community) by their elected Parish Council and by their elected Forest of Dean District Council – a display of just how anti ‘community’ this project is can be seen from the undeniable fact that it was forced, undemocratically through appeal, on a community which had resoundingly rejected it at ALL community levels!

I do wonder just howmany of the 4,300 or so homes in Tidenham are aware that they are most likely to be legally responsible  for informing any would be purchaser of their property, should they wish/need to sell, that a massive industrial installation is under consideration and when/if turned down by the community is likely, based on their track record, to be appealed to be forced on the community by any legal means they can, however morally repugnant and contra the needs and wishes of the community they may be – as they did with the Alvington installation and do bear in mind that these plans were put forward in 2012 but withdrawn at that time, most probably in fear of rejection at that time due to being linked with other applications.

Could it already be that individuals who have sold property in the parish since 2012, who were aware of the determination of the applicants were to use any means and any timing to force their personal profitable interests on the unwilling community, may well be open to being sued for possible damages having failed to inform their purchasers!

May I take this opportunity to stress that although the claimed comment period officially closed on 18-May-2015, already the  Parish Council has obtained a derrogation until 31-May-2015.

It is also worthy of note that our community’s, MP Mark Harper, has undertaken, through his office, to support my request to extend the period of consultation and I am informed has read my letter of protest at this unprincipled and self serving application that is so clearly against the interests of the community at all levels and utterly inapproopriate within this parish and/or on the banks of the Severn Estuary between the Severn Bridge and Gloucester, whether on the North or South bank – I gather he has highlighted points and forwarded my letter (see PS – 15 below) to the FoD DC Planning Department seeking certain answers and assurance on those points be sent to him.

Further please be minded of this letter mailed to one resident in the community:

From: Stephen Colegate [mailto:Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk]
Sent: 11 May 2015 11:06
To: ‘REDACTED’
Subject: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for comments

Dear REDACTED

RE: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for comments

Please note that the application has been called to Planning Committee prior to the election (likely to be 14th July 2015 committee) and that any representations received prior to the 30th June 2015 (deadline for my report to be finalised) will be taken into consideration.

Regards

Stephen Colegate
Senior Planning Officer
Forest of Dean District Council
Tel: 01594 812375
Email: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk

DO ALSO NOTE PS – 17 below from FoD DC Planning Dept., which updates this letter, received by email 22-May-2015.

PLEASE:

In the light of Stephen Colegate’s undertaking in his letter above, as updated PS – 17 below, Please continue to register any concerns you have about this application to industrialise this site in a dangerous and disadvantageous manner to the community for the personal gain of a few wealthy investors, with no consequential gain to the community relative to the massive public funding and indisputable profitability for the applicants.

In an effort to assist the planners please try to confine your letter to actual planning matters – there is absolutely zero value in standardised letter signed up to by individuals on the internet who have no real understanding of the community and location concerned nor any understanding of the deeply flawed logic and morality of inflicting these grossy inefficient and thus hugely subsidised industrial installations.

Furthert petitions may try to dupe people into believing there is support but all too often signatures are added based upon insufficient understanding and be people who are not of and have no connection with the community the applicants dishonestly pretend to represent.

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 002

Many more details regarding Wind Turpines and this application can be found below:

60m. Wind Turbine Eyesore Application For Stroat

TWITTER:

this installation will stand approximately between Hanley’s Farm Shop & The Severn and will stand 337 feet above the river! Visible from much of the FoD  & South Gloucestershire visible from as far away as Gloucester and setting a precedent for many more on the estuary banks – others are in the pipeline already!

Planning » Application Summary

P0365/15/FUL

Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy, including grid connection and ancillary works. 
Severndale Farm
Tidenham
Chepstow
NP16 7LL

STROAT - WIND TURBINE MAP 01TOTAL HEIGHT ABOVE RIVER 337 Feet +

Hanley Hill 22m

Tower Structure 60m

Blade/Sail 1/2 Diameter (54m) 27m

+ Concrete Mount Block ?

TOTAL 109m or 337 feet + concrete mount block

Both Westminster Abbey & Gloucester Cathedral are a mere 224 feet high

The tallest trees ever in the Forest of Dean is never over 115 feet high

Nelson’s Column is only 169 feet high

Big Ben is closer at 312 feet!

The London Eye, which dominates the London skyline is 12 feet smaller at 325 feet!

Bristol’s tallest building is St. Mary Redcliff at 289 feet

The Statue of Liberty is 302 feet high

Reference P0365/15/FUL
Alternative Reference DF4282
Application Received Tue 10 Mar 2015
Address Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow NP16 7LL
Proposal Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy, including grid connection and ancillary works.
Status Pending Consideration
Appeal Status Not Available
Appeal Decision Not Available
There are 0 cases associated with this application.There is 1 property associated with this application.

To view the original of this application CLICK HERE

I appreciate the primary reason for installing such wind turbines is clearly, on the part of the installer, owner or shareholders & land owner is personal profit.However the science behind the installation of such turbines is indubitably suspect and the efficacy of such installations is equally dubious.A measure of the false economy of these installations is the undeniable fact that they require massive subsidies to justify their installation. It is also well known that they are hugely inefficient and in many cases outright dangerous, not just to wild life and birds but in terms of the damage to the environment.WIND TURBINE 03 BURNING One should also be minded that a man standing at sea level has a view to the horizon of approximately 11 miles, which may give some indication of over what distance such a building some 200 feet high will be an eyesore.It is interesting to note that an application was made for just such a wind turbine in 2012, though it was withdrawn in some haste and rumour has it that not only was there a belief that it would not meet with favour but that it lacked sufficient funding and grants to go ahead, presumably as it is realised these turbines are not cost effective ever increasing grants/subsidies are sought!It is also worthy of note that this application has the same level of integrity as others that have been made! Although the application indicates that it will be a structure of 197 feet or 60 meters the truth is that despite this quoted headline figure the total will be much greater when the height of the sails is included! The actual height will be 87 meters or 286 feet thus over 80 feet higher than the headline size quoted.Do also bear in mind that the installation is planned for Hanley Hill, which is 22 meters above the river level, thus the finished height will tower 335 feet above the river Severn AND standing on a massive concrete block so over that height!, this is heigher than Wintour’s Leap!It is worth noting that the largest trees grown in the Forest of Dean are Douglas Firs which grow to a maximum height of a mere 120 feet or one 1/3rd the height above the river of the finished height of the wind turbine planned!The same trick, of quoting the ‘axis’ height, was pulled in the application for just such a turbine to have been installed on the South Gloucester side of the estuary, which thankfully was denied permission, being not just an eyesore but inefficient, likely to set a dangerous precedent and for many significant technical reasons that had similarly been obfusscated in the application documents.We must remember that whether the installation is profitable to the installers or not and the fact that it is dependent on subsidies, thus being a method of taxing the poor to fund the wealthy and land owners is NOT a planning consisderation – morality does not enter into the decision making for a public body!Just at the time that this application has been accepted, it has been accepted that Britain’s ONLY option to maintain power security is to commission new nuclear fuelled power stations, it is anachronistic to use this outdated and unsustainable wind turbine concept.This particular installation will be visible from Gloucester, Berkley, Thornbury, Aust and beyond, in view of its height!Let us also take note that there is a similar wind turbine located some 5 to 6 miles from Stroat and neighbours of mine in Stroat advise me that at some times they can hear the noise it generates! Imagine how much more significant the industrial noise output will be from Severndale farm for residents of not just Stroat but Woodcroft, Tidenham, Sedbury and Tutshill!It is astonishing how glibly the Politically Correct so called ‘green’ lobbyists are willing to set aside their own principles and install these industrial eyesores in areas of outstanding natural beauty when they will shortsightedly and often irresponsibly oppose more rational developements in rural areas!Also do be minded that NEVER has a responsible risk assessment been made, of these wind turbines, which are widely understood to have a catastrophic effect on both micro organisms and larger which maintain the health of soil surrounding the installation over a considerable distance and is believed to be responsible for forms of soil cancer!May I submit it would be irresponsible to grant this planning application and in endorsement of this fact may I commend to you two authoritative and responsible publications that have researched many of the facts regarding the unsound science surrounding the claims of those seeking to profit from these installations and beguilled by the bias of organisations dependent on public subsidies for their profits.First I advocate: BOOKER, Christopher - BOOK - The Real Global Warming Disaster 01as a second book to read I suggest: PLIMER, Prof Ian - HEAVEN & EARTH 01 You may be interested to know that much of the science claimed that underpins the subsidy of this particular form of inefficient, unsightly and massively expensive concept of electricity generation is based on the IPPC Report, which was founded on the now widely discreditted work of Al Gore & Ragendra Paschauri, who has recently lost his job in this field and has been shown to have VERY partisan interests.It is also worthy of note that even if you swallow the propaganda put forward in support of these profitable installations, from those making the profits from subsidy, you will find that it requires some 10 years at optimum continuous output to directly fund the installation and compensate for the so called carbon footprint of the manufacture and installation, together with related infrastructure – Two factors are conveniently overlooked by those profiting firstly this makes no allowance for the life expectancy of these turbines and secondly it does not allow, in the costings, for the removal of the installation and reinstatement of damage when the installation becomes time expired.It is notable that no provision is apparent to cover the costs of decommissioning and reinstatement, is it the glib assumption of the profiteers that the public will once again be tapped up for further subsidies and subsidy of such electricity to hopefully be produced and sold to the very public who were forced to subsidise the installation!You may also note that to manufacture the concrete block on which such a large structure will be footed, to ensure it does not crash to the ground,WIND TURBINE 01 Breaking uprequires a large amount of both sand and stone and the hugely environmentally damaging production of cement – frequently produced in third world countries where the damage done is conveniently overlooked viz Nigeria, where large areas have been destroyed and at best decimated by the chemical outfall, not to mention the minor details of environmental damage in shipping these commodities to Britain and onward to site!Also do be minded that they have been known, not only to catch fire but also to fracture in high winds when they get older. Another feature is that as they age like most equipment they are prone to becoming noisier and even by the applicants admission the DB rating is expected to exceed the legal maximum rating on the farm at the residential home and thus for the livestock.The legal maximum is a rating of 35 DB and by the applicant’s own estimate this industrial noise is estimated will be 35DB at several of the adjoining properties.Also do be minded that there is absolutely no doubt that these pieces of industrial equipment DO lead to the death of numerous birds (some estimates show some 300,000 per annum!) and have a catastrophic effect on certain wildlife..That said it is however not, seemingly a planning matter, that these vast unsightly structures are neither cost effective, nor do they deliver any level of so called ‘green’ or environmental benefits and it seems that their danger aside they can, tyhough the overwhelming majority of people consider them wholely inappropriate in rural areas be sited in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and at sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSI)! It is worthy of note that since time immemorial the immediate environs of Hanley Hill and the local reed beds have been a gathering area for migratory birds before they head for better climates in the autumn. Minded that my wife counted 47 martins in the sky immediately above our home and our neighbour in Stroat House, and others in the immediate area such as Wibdon Farm, have incurred huge expense making provision to accommodate bats it is hard surely to justify these monster bat and bird killers! There clearly is no ‘green’ argument in favour of these industrial structures!There is also the issue of the use of rare earth minerals to quote Wikipedia!

Rare-earth use

The production of permanent magnets used in some wind turbines makes use of neodymium.[24][25] Primarily exported by China, pollution concerns associated with the extraction of this rare-earth element have prompted government action in recent years,[26][27] and international research attempts to refine the extraction process.[28] Research is underway on turbine and generator designs which reduce the need for neodymium, or eliminate the use of rare-earth metals altogether.[29] Additionally, the large wind turbine manufacturer Enercon GmbH chose very early not to use permanent magnets for its direct drive turbines, in order to avoid responsibility for the adverse environmental impact of rare earth mining.

IF you can add further details your opinions and documented evidence would be much appreciated to assist in opposing this selfish and self serving unsightly and damaging installation.You may also be sufficiently concerned and have sufficient interest in ensuring this area does all it can to remain an area of outstanding natural interest and beauty – it is often stated that we do not realise the value of such areas until we have foolishly and all too often selfishly lost the resource for all time.Objections to this folly can be made directly on the Forest of Dean planning site – do please consider the asset we all risk losing for the profit of a few wealthy investors, manufacturers and land owners.To make an objection see:Planning Application – Number P0365/15/FULSite Address: http://publicaccess.fdean.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NKZLNXHIHP700This application has received very little publicity and until it was brought to my attention on 03-May-2015 I was completely unaware of the application, despite the fact that I live in Stroat, travel past the site most days, frequent Hanley’s Farm Shop and will likely be able to see the installation from my home.The amount of profit to be made from subsidies both for the installers and the eventual owners stands every danger that should this inappropriate installation be permitted, as it towers 285 feet (87 meters) over Stroat and the A48, visible for miles around, including areas of the Forest of Dean such as  Littleton and a swathe of South Gloucestershire marring the natural beaty of the area – this could well be the thin end of the wedge and be used as a precedent to despoil the entire area with serried ranks of these dubious industrial constructions.A map showing footpaths and much detail can be found at: https://gloucestershire.firmstep.com/default.aspx/RenderForm/?F.Name=B75apJt4Qgo&HideToolbar=1 IMPORTANT DATES!!!:

Application Received Date Tue 10 Mar 2015
Application Validated Date Fri 17 Apr 2015
Expiry Date Fri 22 May 2015
Actual Committee Date Not Available
Latest Neighbour Consultation Date Mon 27 Apr 2015
Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date Mon 18 May 2015
Standard Consultation Date Fri 01 May 2015
Standard Consultation Expiry Date Fri 22 May 2015
Last Advertised In Press Date Not Available
Latest Advertisement Expiry Date Not Available
Last Site Notice Posted Date Tue 28 Apr 2015
Latest Site Notice Expiry Date Tue 19 May 2015
Decision Made Date Not Available
Decision Issued Date Not Available
Permission Expiry Date Not Available
Decision Printed Date Not Available
Environmental Impact Assessment Received Not Available
Target Determination Date Fri 12 Jun 2015
Determination Deadline Fri 12 Jun 2015

To view the original of this tabulation CLICK HEREI believe that our new Councillors and Politicians elected on 7th. May have a duty to ensure the consultation period and the publicity of this proposition are extended.You will note that the application date was at a time when Parliament had been prorogued and we were without the benefit of an MP representing our daily interests and future issues – this losing 21 days of the representation period before we were once again able to call upon our MP.During this same period our Councillors were also actively campaigning for re-election and new councillors and MP could well come to office on the 08-May!It is morally wrong and should not be possible that the overarching importance of a General and local election should be permitted as ‘a good time to bury bad news’!

PLEASE NOTE:

Tidenham Parish Council has been asked to hear a presentation of the applicant’s views and opinions regarding the installation, which is planned for the next Parish Council Meeting, which is open to the public on:

Wednesday 20-May-2015 at 19:00hrs at Tidenham Memorial Hall

Please contact me if I can help or if you would care to help oppose this repugnant application and its dubious timing.and lack of merit for all but the applicant and those seeking personal gain at the expense of subsidies!Regards, Greg_L-W.01594 – 528 337

A SEVERN WIND FARM BY STEALTH 003 

PS-01:

Current Ward Councillors 03-May-2015 .

Ward Councillors

Cllr G Kirkpatrick (unseated 07-May-2015)
I spoke with Mrs. Kirkpatrick on Bank Holiday Monday 04-May-2015 – she has undertaken to make official representation for an extension of the consultation period, and if elected will represent the majority of her constituents’ wishes, though she clearly intimated that she was largely in favour of alternative power sources.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick phoned me evg. Tuesday 05-May-2015 and informed me that she had spoken with the designated planning officer who was not minded to extend the consultation period to make it more equitable and democratic, she therefore ‘Called In The Plans’ – thus they must go before the full planning committee to deliberate.
This will occur provisionally at a planning meeting on 14-Jul-2015.

Cllr R Birch (unseated 07-May-2015)
Address            33 Bigstone Grove Tutshill Chepstow NP16 7ENTel.: 01291 624326

Cllr. Gethyn Davies

Councillor Gethyn Davies
Party: Conservative
Ward: Tidenham
Parish: Tidenham

Appointments to outside bodies:
Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee

Cllr. Maria Edwards
Councillor Maria Edwards

Party: Conservative

Ward: Tidenham
Parish: Tidenham

Home address:

Severndale Farm, Tidenham, Chepstow, NP16 7LL
Committee appointments: Full Council
Term of office:07/05/2015 –

Cllr. Helen Molyneux

Councillor Helen Molyneux
Party: Conservative
Ward: TidenhamParish: Tidenham

Home address: 
Bluff House, Stoulgrove Lane, Woodcroft, Chepstow, NP16 7QEPhone:  01291 625013Bus. email: Helen.Molyneux@fdean.gov.uk Download Councillor Helen Molyneux contact details as VCard

Committee appointments:Full Council
Term of office: 07/05/2015 –
TIDENHAM PARISH COUNCIL
as per FoD Web Site 09-May-2015 + updating!
Admin Secretary
Kevin Duffin
Lorien, Hang Hill Road, Bream, Glos., GL15 6LQ
Home Phone: 01594 563151
Email: admin@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk Vice chairman
Clerk
Carole Hinton
Wood Cottage, Clanna, Gloucestershire, GL15 6AJ
Home Phone: 01594 530779
Email: clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk
Parish Councillors:
  • Lance Allan
    Phone: 01291 – 628867
    EMail:
  • Roy Birch
    33 Bigstone Grove, Tutshill NP16 7EN
    Phone: 01291-624326
    EMail:
  • Sheila Bollen
    3 Buttington Road, Sedbury
    Phone: 01291 – 620812
    EMail: sheila_bollen@hotmail.com
  • Dr Fiona Bowie
    5 Castleford Gardens, NP16 7LF
    Phone:
    EMail: Fiona.Bowie@KCL.co.UK
  • Nikki BoullivantPhone: witheld Nurse on Shift work
    EMail: nikki1002@hotmail.co.uk
  • Stephen Ford – Chairman
    5 Orchard Farm Close, Sedbury NP16 7BG
    Phone: 01291 624178
    Mobile: 07908 634570
    EMail: steve@fourm-ltd.co.uk
  • Sandra Gregory
    The Mews, 40 Inner Loop Road, Beachley NP16 7HF
    Phone: 01291-621573
    EMail: sandra.gene@btinternet.com
  • Andrew Hossack
  • Helen Molyneux
    Bluff House, Stoulgrove Lane, Woodcroft, Chepstow, NP16 7QE
    Phone:  01291 625013
    Bus. email: Helen.Molyneux@fdean.gov.uk
    EMail: helen@molnet.co.uk
  • John Powell – Vice Chairman
    39 Wyebank Road, Tutshill NP16 7ER
    Phone: 01291-624901
    EMail: ann.powell@mail.com

vacant seat – Parish Councillor

IF YOU CAN HELP by providing further/missing contact data on these public servants please phone or email me accordingly.
Thanks.

PLEASE NOTE:

The Parish Plan (on their own website) has an interesting bit – under the heading “Development” It clearly states “The parish council’s development policy is to support small scale in-fill development to cater for local needs and to OPPOSE large scale extensions of village boundaries OR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN OPEN COUNTRY”.
Let us hope they honour their own undertaking on which they were elected to represent the community’s interests which the community has made very clear do not sustain this self serving Industrialised structure as is being applied for and which the applicants and their largely out of area supporters would seem to be trying to bully into existence with misleading photo montages seemingly photoshopped, aesopian language and misleading or obfuscated data backed by abuse, intimidation and threats!
Fortunately it is the duty of both the Parish Council and the District Council to support the community not the narrow profit motives of the wealthy few who are acting against the interests of the community, the Parish ‘Development Policy’ and the District Council’s ‘Structure Plan’!

  • PS – 02:

    The following PPS (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates) are standing on 07-May-2015, with any responsible probability of election:

    Mark HARPER MP (incumbent & re-elected 07-May-2015)
    eMail: FoD@GloucestershireConservatives.com
    tel.:    01594 – 823 482
    I have spoken with Mark Harper’s office and am assured that if he is re-elected he will be happy to support an application for an extension of the consultation period in the light of the timing of the application. I am also assured that he will address the views of concerned constituents.

    PS – 03:

    It is interesting, in the light of the following article in the National media: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/01/tories-plan-attack-windfarms?CMP=share_btn_link

    that the wife of the applicant Mana Jane Edwards is seeking a position of increased influence as a Conservative Councillor!

    PS – 04:

    May I also draw your attention to the detailed and strenuous objections made by the CPRE, with whom I am in touch, against the now rejected application for a similar wind turbine in Alvington, which can be found at: http://www.aylburtonvillagehall.org.uk/P1396_CPRE_Objections.pdf

    PS – 05:

    Below is a very helpful series of comments with some additions and ammendments, and their source, including the apposite title for the application. to send a letter of objection of your own.

    Severndale Wind Turbine Proposal Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow NP16 7LL P0365/15/FUL Case officer: Stephen Colegate www.saynotosevernturbines.org.uk https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/

    Suggestions for residents who wish to object to the proposed turbine at Severndale Farm

    * We recommend writing a simple letter on one sheet of paper stating your objection in clear terms.

    * You should start your letter:

    Dear Sirs,

    please be advised that I wish to object to the Severndale Wind Turbine Proposal P0365/15/FUL for the following reasons:

    1. … 2. … etc.

    Please state in your letter that you are a resident or have a strong connection with this area.

    * You can send one letter from each member of your family.

    * Please encourage friends, neighbours and relatives to do the same.

    * The planning authority wants to hear your views because they will help them reach a decision. Comments may also be submitted by email to planning@fdean.gov.uk or online through the planning pages at http://www.fdean.gov.uk/

    PLEASE ACT RAPIDLY we have very little time to register objections as your letter MUST be with the FoD Council by Tuesday 19-May-2015

    I strongly suggest that you include in your letter the fact that the consultation period is wholly inadequate for such a major and complex industrial instalation sited so  visibly and dangerously and even the various Councils in the area were not made aware of the application until the 05-May-2015 in a period of flux due to local and National elections! May I also remind you that Michael Fallon; for and on behalf of the Government, which has been returned to Governance; stated on BBC Radio 4 that there would be no further grants and subsidiies for these industrial installations for those that had not been GRANTED Planning permission prior to the election!

    Letters should be sent to FODDC Planning, Council Offices, High Street, Coleford, GL16 8HG

    Try to get your comments to the planning authority by Tuesday 19th May at the latest.

    These notes will help you to send a letter that represents your personal opinions and concerns.

    Have you or the parish council ever been directly consulted over this proposal by the developer?

    Were you aware of these plans before an application was submitted?

    Are you concerned about the impact of the huge size of turbine on the landscape around Stroat? It will have an overwhelming and overbearing presence on its surroundings.

    Here is an approximate indication of its size though in this photomontage, which unlike those of the applicant, does not take an extremely wide angle view to minimise the effect in a manner which I defy them to show to be a responsible and honest indication and is of very questionable accuracy!

    Severn vale without turbine 01Severn Vale without a wind turbine!

    Is it the proposed industrial installation too close to either residential properties or the road or both?

    Are you concerned that its proposed size (height 283 feet [87m] + the 72 feet [22m] of Hanley Hill above the Severn total height 337 feet!, span 164 feet 50m ) 1/3rd again higher than Gloucester Cathedral or that is 3 times the height of Nelson’s Colum and 3 times the height of the largest tree in the Forest of Dean! is completely out of all proportion in this setting? This is 152 feet higher than the spire of St. Mary’s Church, Lydney.

    Perhaps you are concerned at the building of a huge moving structure in an open rural landscape with far-reaching views across the Severn Estuary which is completely unacceptable.

    Perhaps your concern is the strobe effect together with the distracting nature of such a towering industrial installation so very close along side the A48 as a further distraction adding to the danger on this road which is officially recognised as the most dangerous road in EUrope particularly in terms of fatalities, on a stretch which has, within sight of this monstrous construction killed 2 people so far this year and has experienced many many lesser accidents!

    Are you worried by the huge size of the turbine, its noise and its blade flicker?

    Do you think that it will affect your health and well-being?

    Are you anxious about its possible effects on wildlife in this area such as birds and bats – particularly the migratory birds that annually collect nearby and fly around Hanley Hill before their departure.?

    The turbine will be only 220 metres from the A48.

    There was for a short period an electricity pylon on Hanley Hill which was removed, together with others, to enhance the visual amenity of the area. Such pylons were far smaller and less intrusive than the proposed wind turbine and considerably less danger to the many low flying planes and helicopters that frequent the immediate area, both military & civilian.

    Greatly exaggerated claims of 35% capacity factor have been made about the output of this turbine. An identical turbine at St. Briavels, only 3.5 miles away, over the last two years has achieved only 20% capacity. This turbine has only produced an annual community benefit of £8,000 however the developer claims that there will be a community benefit of up to £20,000 for the Severndale turbine.

    Are you concerned that wind turbines have proved to be a failure at times of peak demand when there is a shortfall on the grid due to either lack of wind or too much wind to drive the turbine and similar periods when turbines produce more output than the grid can cope with!

    Are you concerned at the huge output in CO2 of the manufacture of cement, not recorded in 3rd. world manufacturing countries and the huge CO2 output of manufacture and transporting materials that require subsidies to errect this vast structure! Not to mention the years of leachate discharge of CO2 from the constructed concrete block mounting and the industrial service roadway!

    Are you concerned that the Government finds itself in the foolish position of having to use tax payers money to fund paying the owners of these very wind turbines the tax payers have funded to put their industrial devices out of use due to excess output relative to grid requirement!

    The proposed turbine is available either as a 500kW or an 800kW version. The developer has gone for the 500kW version in order to benefit from its much higher feed-in tariff. He is seemingly not interested in renewable energy generation only in maximising his profits.

    To stress the point above were the applicant really interested in alternative energy perhaps he can explain why he has never converted the rooves of his many buildings to solar pannelling, which would be far less damaging to the environment!

    Are you concerned at the disruptive potential and danger to life of increasing the heavy duty damage of the many 100s of truck loads of spoil from the site and materials to the site during construction.

    Does the probability of damage to the highway of several miles of heavy duty cabling installation to connect to the grid? Where will this connection be? Lydney 5 miles away?

    More wind turbines are being planned at sites along this side of the Severn estuary. Resilience is targeting small communities one by one. If these plans are passed, you will be living in the middle of a line of huge turbines between Chepstow and Lydney.

    Are you concerned at the risk to aircraft in view of the many civil and military journeys made through this corridor on a daily basis at a low level.

    Are you concerned at the inevitable heavy duty servicing road with an essential 60 m bell mouth join to the A48?

    Are you concerned at the glib way in which public consultation is dismissed based upon long out of date general data put forward in 2012 which is not being considered?

    Are you concerned that no current environmental impact study is being made and why is there not in the light of the planning applications granted and in process for additional housing and traffic on the A48?

    Are you concwerned at the prospect of the possibility that if this industrial developement may preclude planned future developements of housing between Chepstow and Lydney inclusively?

    Might the granting of this installation be made because the District Council fears defending an appeal based upon now outdated experience with arcane legal applications? Thus may this application set a dangerous precedent for seried ranks of these giant industrial installations being made on the banks of the Severn Estuary between the M48 Chepstow bridge and Gloucester?

    Are you concerned that the first and seemingly only public opportunity to consult will be a limited time presentation by and on behalf of the applicant at the first available Parish Council meeting since the election on the 20-May-2015 at The Memorial Hall in Tidenham at 19:00hrs.

    Are you concerned at the huge efforts made and the many jobs sustained in tourism in the area that may well be threatened by the industrialisation of the estary banks?

    Are you concerned that the wishes and needs of this small rural community are being effectively trampled underfoot by the applicant’s desire to make personal profits when one considers even the public investment can well be from profit motivated individuals and organisations with no interest or connection with the area?

    Are you concerned that the validation of this major industrial application was launched under the cloak of the National & local elections and very few of the local residents who will be effected are even aware or have been notified – I have not even noticed announcement signs at the applicant’s other commercial enterprises as a regular customer and visitor to his farm shop?

    As a resident of the same small hamlet is there a reason why so many of us have not been notified of this industrialisation of our rural community?

    Are you concerned at the fact that there is no apparent consideration of the military barracks at Beachley or the communities of Sedbury, Tutshill, Woodcroft, Chepstow, Alvington, Woolaston, Aylburton, Lydney, Thornbury, Olbury-on-Severn, Berkley, Sharpness, all of whom, and others will be effected!

    Are you concerned that not only is the historic significance of Hanley Hill is being overlooked or even deliberately ignored and there is no mention of the many historic sites in the immediate local area such as the pre historic Broadstone, the Roman mint, sites of various Roman villas and a possible Roman temple = a ‘Mansio’ or stopping point for Romans in transit having crossed or about to cross the Severn taking advantage of the low tides.all within a few 100 yards and the fact that the A48 in this area is itself a Roman road, leaving the great likelihood of further remains being found locally in the future!

    PLEASE include as many of these points as may concern you in the order of importance to you and also PLEASE bring this site to the attention of all who you can so that they can have their say in view of the dishonestly short time and advertising of this major industrial development

    PLEASE use social media to spread the word and use the hash tag #StroatWind on Twitter.

    The following are NOT valid reasons for objections (including them they may well weaken your case):

    * Loss of a beautiful view from your home.

    * Value of your property – this will be significantly reduced and your home will become difficult to sell. Some properties in the area may become unsaleable.

    DON’T DELAY! Keep it simple Keep it clear Keep it true Be sure to get your comments to the planning authority by Tuesday 19th May

    PLEASE also request a long extension of consultation time it is notable that as at start of business Monday-11-May-2015 there are no citizen/resident contributions on the FoD planning site either of concerned residents and not even the expected makewieght claims inspired by the applicant’s professional partners, as occurs in other such applications, which would seem to indicate few of the effected individuals and organisations like the Councils of Chepstow, Lydney, Tidenham, Oldbury, Thornbury and the many other communities which will have the visual ammenity of their environs significantly diminished!.

SEE:
CrowdJustice

PS – 06:

  • You may find this correspondence of value with both its invaluable facts and quotes and its many links:

This gentleman (Clive Hambler) is an author and lecturer at Oxford, I emailed him today and he responded in 20 minutes with so useful information for me. I have emailed a few more organisations linked to bats, birds and bees and will email James Delingpole tomorrow about his article http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227983/wind-turbines-are-a-human-health-hazard-the-smoking-gun/ to see whether he may wish to comment on the application. At 18:16 10/05/2015 +0100, you wrote: Hello Clive My name is Claire and I live on in a house along the A48 just 3 miles out of Chepstow, and am lucky enough to be surrounded by all kinds of wildlife. We can see the river severn from our windows and we felt very lucky that our 3 young boys were able to take advantage of their surroundings. However last week we were sent a planning application from our local council, Forest of Dean (Ref: P0365/15/FUL ) suggesting that a 87m wind turbine be placed just 455m from our home. On researching this proposal I found that it was just one of a handful that is being planned by the same company (resilience) up this side of the severn all within just a few miles of each other. <http://www.saynotosevernturbines.org.uk/>http://www.saynotosevernturbines.org.uk/ (as shown in the link) There are many objecting groups in the area but I fear that they are no being listened to and even when the planning application is refused, the application has gone to appeal and won. We have a long battle ahead of us and I discovered a article you wrote in 2013 <http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/>http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/ which I felt highlighted all of the issues that these wind turbine will impact. I worry not just about the impact on my children and our lifestyle but also about the wildlife that we see every day and also the birds that return here to nest each year. We have a family of swallows who return to one of our sheds, they have done this for the last 10 years. I would be ever so grateful if you could help in any way, even a letter of objection or comment would be very much appreciated, also if you know of anyone else or any organisation that may wish to help. We only found out on May 1st and have until May 18th to respond and try to get the message to more people that they may affect, it is a mammoth task when there is so much to research . Anyway I thank you for taking the time to read this email and hope to hear from you soon. Kind Regards Claire Ford Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 19:00:00 +0100 To: dinkey_4d@hotmail.co.uk From: clive.hambler@zoo.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: Severn Estuary Wind Turbines Hi Claire, I’m sorry to hear of your problem. Putting wind turbines near such an important wildlife site (one of the best in Britain) is more daft than the usual plan. I’m very glad the Spectator article has proved useful. I will have a look at the plan and might send the planning officers a note. It’s risky commenting on sites one is remote from. I have suggested that swallows and relatives are at relatively high risk from wind turbines: http://wcfn.org/2013/07/01/tip-of-the-iceberg/ Have you seen these articles, and the references in them: http://www.swlg.org.uk/uploads/6/3/3/8/6338077/spwln_final_small.pdf. There are reports you can find on Google of seabirds (‘seagulls’) being killed by wind turbines. They are a treat to terns, shawaters, swans, scoter, geese etc etc. For other detrimental impacts of wind power, see Hambler, C. & Canney, S. M. (2013). Conservation. Cambridge University Press. Here’s the section from it on wind farms; sorry the formatting may come out a mess: “Solar power and wind power have a low energy density, and thus require very extensive collecting surfaces, and can be particularly problematic if they are to feed into grids designed for centralised power generation.Wind turbines and their cables kill birds and bats – many of which breed slowly and range widely – with impacts far beyond the site boundaries. Wind farms can be population sinks or traps (Section 6.1), attracting and killing predators and bats (Long et al., 2011). Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagles are threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In North America, wind farms kill protected species (such as bald and golden eagles, and migrants) and will become a grave threat to numerous species unless adequately regulated (Drewitt & Langston, 2008; American Bird Conservancy, 2011). In California, tens of thousands of raptors have been killed, threatening the golden eagle population. Similarly, in Spain, millions of birds and bats are killed each year, threatening the Egyptian vulture population, and over 400 Griffon vultures were killed in 1 year at Navarra alone (Plate 3). Norwegian wind farms kill over 10 white-tailed eagles per year, and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against opposition by ornithologists. Densities of a range of upland birds are reduced within about 500 m of wind turbines in Scotland, whilst in North America tall structures displace sage grouse. Offshore wind farms (with associated lighting and maintenance ships) are a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks) and risking interference with navigation. Bats are killed by impacts, and by pressure shocks near the blades of turbines (Nicholls & Racey, 2007; Arnett et al., 2008), with migratory and forest species being highly vulnerable. There are also substantial impacts from the turbines’ foundations, cables, cable trenches, lighting, construction and access roads, with important montane forests being destroyed – as in Vermont, USA.” Are there any bat colonies within about 10km of the area, or woods or caves which might host them? I think it’s far from ethical to put structures known to attract and kill bats within several kilometers of colonies, especially for very rare species. It might be argued that deaths can reasonably be anticipated, and it’s thus illegal. That argument has worked in a prosecution in the USA involving birds of prey: http://news.yahoo.com/guilty-plea-bird-deaths-wind-farms-first-081651963–finance.html http://www.thegwpf.org/wind-turbines-killed-600000-bats-year/ I think the British guidelines for bats are inadequate, given attraction to turbines from over 14 km: http://wcfn.org/2013/07/01/tip-of-the-iceberg/ For the study of Europe’s bats being killed in wind farms in Germany, see: The catchment area of wind farms for European bats: A plea for international regulations Voigt, C. C. et al 2012 Biological Conservation 153, 80-86. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712002091 http://www.alphagalileo.org/Organisations/ViewItem.aspx?OrganisationId=1120&ItemId=122066&CultureCode=en Other sources: http://windfarmaction.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/brief-summary-of-recent-international-research-on-the-risk-to-bats-from-wind-turbines/ Bats in Greece: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3161/150811012×661765 Bats stop wind farm in Wales: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2013/01/05/giant-wind-turbine-plan-on-anglesey-halted-by-bats-55578-32548018/ The expert / NGO who can best advise on the continental figures for wind farm mortality for birds and bats is Mark Duchamp, of Save the Eagles international and formerly the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW): Mark Duchamp <save.the.eagles2@gmail.com> Paying reliable consultants to do bat surveys might be a good investment. For example, Bioscan UK do bat surveys. I’ve recently had similar correspondence from other people concerned about wind farms, bats and birds, who might be able to share their experiences with you. Pooling information seems sensible. You can say I gave you their contact details, in the hope it’s to mutual benefit sharing relevant knowledge: John Yelland <yelland.john@live.fr> trying to save bats on the Isle of Wight Anthony J Trewavas <trewavas@ed.ac.uk> bats in Scotland Peter Gardner <peter.gardner@indecon.co.uk> bats Bedfordshire Oliver Sheard <olivers100@hotmail.co.uk> Huddersfield See also the huge argument over Navitus Bay and wind farms – offshore sites might have similar issues to onshore ones near key wildlife sites. There are a lot of comments on the plans which you might track down though here: http://www.challengenavitus.org.uk/ Hope that helps. Sorry if the above focus on bats is less useful – but I had compiled the references above for a similar enquiry, so you might as well have them in case they are relevant! Bats are relatively strictly protected, but wind farms are often permitted in places which show little real planning concern for at-risk species. Best wishes, Clive

PS – 07:

  • Campaign starts against Tidenham wind turbine
  • Wednesday, 13 May 2015
  • RESIDENTS living along the River Severn are campaigning against a planning application to put a 60m high wind turbine at Severndale Farm, Tidenham.
    With the length of the blades taken into account too, the maximum height of the wind turbine would be 87m, which would make it visible from Chepstow to Woolaston, and out across the Severn.
    The application has been made for “Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy including grid connection and ancillary works”.
    Despite the application having been submitted on Thursday 29th January 2015 and published online on Tuesday 10th March, there have been no public comments published on the District Council’s website at the time of going to press.
    Claire Ford, who lives in neighbouring Stroat, says: “We received a letter from the Forest of Dean District Council on 1st May for a 60m wind turbine which is in fact 87m high when fully constructed. The proposed wind turbine is just 455m from my home.
    “I have three young children and am terrified of the impact this turbine will have on their futures as there are so many health issues these turbines can cause.
    “A small group of concerned residents met on Sunday evening (10th May) which was the first meeting to pull ideas together, discuss the issue and perhaps come up with a course of action.
    “Stroat is such a small village though it will be hard to get the message out to the wider area fast enough.”
    The deadline for residents to comment closes on Monday 18th May and plans can be viewed on the Forest of Dean District Council’s website at http://www.fdean.gov.uk under the planning portal with the reference number P0365/15/FUL
  • To view the original article CLICK HERE
  • PLEASE NOTE The deadline for comments IS Monday 18-May-2015 as stated on the FoD planning web site confirmed in conversation with Stephen Colgate the Planning Officer designated to this application 13-May-2015 12:00hrs by me directly.

PS – 08:

  • To clarify the issue of deadline for comments:
  • The media article in PS – 07 was correct in stating the official deadline for comment is Monday 18-May-2015.
  • I appreciate that a resident contacted the designated planning officer  Stephen Colgate as follows:
  • From: REDACTED
    Sent: 06 May 2015 20:33
    To: Stephen Colegate
    Subject: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for comments
  • Dear Stephen
    I understand you are the case officer for the above planning application.
    Please can you explain why the timescale for this application is allowed to coincide with local elections. I have spoken to a parish councillor about my concerns, but that individual is not standing for re-election. Clearly I am unable to express my views to newly elected representatives until after the results of elections are announced. This means I have less time to put across my views to elected local representatives, than would normally be the case in such planning applications.
    Please can this matter be considered and the timescale for comments be extended.
    Given the pressing timescales, I look forward to your early response.Kind RegardsREDACTED
  • a copy of the letter and the response was sent to me by the concerned resident, together with the reply received from Stephen Colgate, which I agreed with the resident seemed to contradict the conversation I had had with Stephen Colgate subsequent to his response to the correspondence:
  • From: Stephen Colegate [mailto:Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk]
    Sent: 11 May 2015 11:06
    To: ‘REDACTED
    Subject: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for comments
  • Dear REDACTEDRE: PO365/15/FUL – query on timetable for commentsPlease note that the application has been called to Planning Committee prior to the election (likely to be 14th July 2015 committee) and that any representations received prior to the 30th June 2015 (deadline for my report to be finalised) will be taken into consideration.RegardsStephen Colegate
    Senior Planning Officer
    Forest of Dean District Council
    Tel: 01594 812375
    Email: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk
  • PLEASE NOTE:
  • I have, since the circulation of the letters above, had a lengthy conversation with Stephen Colegate and although it is easy to misunderstand his response which was made to the one resident who had explained their misgivings and problems in obtaining representation and information, he claims that the response was peculiar to ONLY that individual.
  • The position still stands that the official deadline, as listed on the FoD planning site, is Monday 18-May-2015, whether you or I may consider that reasonable is of no concern to the facts!
  • The deadline is, and will remain Monday 18-May-2015.
    That said Tidenham Parish Council have obtained an extension for the Parish Council to make a submission up until 27-May-2015 as an outcome of the fact that the first opportunity for the Parish Council, with its new councillors, to sit is Wednesday 20-May-2015 at 19.00hrs. – a meeting at which the applicant’s professional representatives aim to make a sales pitch to show how this publicly subsidised profit motivated venture may benefit the community – a situation which sound both implausible and untrue to me and smacks of little more than local bribery!
  • ALL OF THAT SAID:
    May I suggest that IF you are reading this after the 18-May-2015 that you submit your comments and views regardless as I am sure and am informed they will be taken into account as long as they are received before Stephen Colgate has made his submission for the Council Planning Committee for the 30-June-2015.
  • Personally I am indebted to Gabriella Kirkpatrick for having represented my request for a delay, prior to the election, that Stephen Colegate was not minded to heed requests for an extension led to her then calling in the plans to ensure they were dealt with by the planning committee thus ensure some element of democracy!
  • Unfortunately Gabriella Kirkpatrick was voted out of office and I note Maria Edwards, the wife of the applicant, is now on the Council under the guise of a Conservative seat – which seems strange in the light of the Conservative Party committment in its manifesto and elsewhere to remove subsidies on all Wind Turbines for which application is granted after the election!
  • If you wish your views, facts and comments to be given their due weight may I strongly suggest that you seek to ensure they are with the Council on or before 18-May-2015 with copies to your MP, your County Councillors and your Parish Councillors!

PS – 09:

  • The following site notices should be displayed: but on vigerous inspection on 12-May-2015 only one could be found
  • PLANNING SITE NOTICE 01
  • The text of the notice being:
  • The following application has been received:-
    At:
    Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow

    Proposed Development:
    Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy, including grid connection and ancillary works.

    Application Number : DF4282 P0365/15/FUL
    The application can be inspected during office hours at:

    Forest of Dean District Council, High Street, Coleford, Glos, GL16 8HG
    Tel: 01594 810000

    A copy of the application has been sent to the appropriate Town/Parish Council Clerk, who may make the application available for public inspection at its discretion.

    Comments on this application should be made in writing to the above address by 19th May 2015
    Group Manager- Planning & Housing

  • &
  • PLANNING SITE NOTICE 02
  • On vigerous inspection on 12-May-2015 only one could be found, located curved around the gate of an unrelated property on the main A48.
    We know of absol;utely no signs that have been displayed other than on the main road where there is no viable parking, no footpath and the ambient speed is 40 >80 mph
  • As Stephen Colegate assured me he sent out 107 letters of notification – however he did not break that down between statutory bodies and effected individuals!
  • He also conceded he had not sent notice to all who will be effected as that would run to 1,000s – how right he is!

PS – 10:

  • Please note – there has been an anonymous mailing to home owners, which has been seen by many as personalised and threatening, please be assured this mailing has nothing to do with this site and we repudiate such tactics. Further we do not believe that it was mailed by the applicants to discredit their opposition, as some have speculated!

PS – 11:

  • One is forced to wonder just what elements of democracy pertain in planning applications like this one, which seems morally reprehensible and set up to enrich the wealthy and those devious enough to make them at the expense of their communities, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and funded by subsidies comprising taxes levied on the unwilling poor through ethically bankrupt taxation on their electricity bills.
  • Compounding this seeming dishonesty is the repugnant fact that the applicant’s wife stands for the Council without making it clear to the elec torate she may well be considered to have ulterior motives, and now we find that not only do they aim to shoehorn this application through without a current public exhibition but as you can see from this leaflet they claim to have had one! You will note thwe product they seem to have been forced (expediently) to withdraw, previously was not for the same item having been a smaller capacity turbine:
  • Very few of those who will be directly disadvantaged by this monstrous carbuncle industrialising this unique rural area with its long visual aspects and largely untramelled views attended the failed display of 3 years ago.
  • This is almost as dishonest as trying to relly on an environmental impact report that is also historic and would seem to have paid no cogniscence to the obscene damage to bird life had the report included the period when large numbers of migratory birds congregate over a period before setting out for warmer climes – a period when they wheel and swoop all around Hanley Hill, whilst roosting in the reed beds alongside the river, a period essential to ensuring they can catch enough insects to put on that extra fat that will provide them with the energy standby for their long flight and ensure they do not die in their thousands due to lack of nutrition. Amongst those not killed by wind turbines!
  • Let us not forget the Pylon which once stood on Hanley Hill was considered unsightly and was removed!

PS – 12:

  • It is interesting to note that a near identical planning application was made, but for a smaller Turbine in 2011.
  • Planning Application P0596/11/EIA, Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepst…
  •  
  • EIA Screening opinion

    Council
    Forest of Dean District Council
    Council Reference
    P0596/11/EIA
    Address
    Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow Mon NP16 7LL
    Application Url
    http://publicaccess.fdean.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LIV9LIHI03R00
    Location (from postcode)
    51.6618428540645, -2.63423225672715
    Decision
    EIA Required
    Applicant Name
    The Resilience Centre Ltd
    Start Date
    2011-03-16

    Further details

    Date Received
    Wed 16 Mar 2011
    Appeal Status
    Not Available
    Appeal Decision
    Not Available
    Alternative Reference
    Not Available
  • The application was withdrawn, presumably because the applicants felt it was doomed to failure.
  • It is noted the new application was madesubsequent to the proroguing of Parliament for Local & General Election, acting as a huge distraction and seemimngly ensuring no action was taken to oppose this unsighty, costly and dangerous induastrial installation for a considerable period – as proven by the FoDDC Planning site where no public objection was made/displayed until AFTER the election, even then at a time when the FoDDC web site had no listing of the new councillors!
  • It is further worthy of note that the applicant’s wife stood for and was elected to the council without any indication of her interest in the pecunniary advantages of this inappropriate application – were I cynical I might consider this to be an deliberate act of dishonesty for personal gain and a breech of the ethics of democracy!

PS – 13:

  • A valuable contribution to preserving the Severn Estuary from this industrial profiteering, of so little benefit to anyone other than the applicant:
  • From: Adrian Edwards <edwards.adrian@btinternet.com>
  • Subject: Planning Objection Ref. PO365/15/FUL
  • Date: 15 May 2015 09:52:50 BST
  • To: council@fdean.gov.uk
  • Cc: gregl-w@btconnect.com
  • We wish to register our objection in the strongest to terms to the above planning application for the following reasons;
    1. This constitutes the start of significant industrial development which is not in the county development plans. How many more may be envisaged up the valley?
    2. The construction is completely out of keeping with the environment.
    3. The potential for unacceptable noise levels.
    The report produced by Hoare Lea does not give assurances that noise levels will not be exceeded quite the contrary it states that it could well exceed acceptable levels. Since the models they refer to are not specific to this location all the data produced is merely a comparable extraction in their opinion.
    The aspects of VLF (very low frequency) effects has not been addressed since it is still a contentious issue. None of the reports refer to altitude effects and many of the local properties are at a similar or higher altitude as the propeller blades.

    The propagation and noise levels in a vertical plane have not been addressed or conveniently dismissed. Adrian Edwards M.Sc. C.Eng. FIET

PS – 14:

  • A further interesting submission in opposition:
  • By Peter Adlam CLICK HERE
  • also that by Lisa Davies-Evans of 5 Philpots Court, Tidenham CLICK HERE
  • & by Sam Cross CLICK HERE
  • PS – 15:
  • May I draw your attention to some of the relevant the facts about our parish:
  • Landscape and Biodiversity
  • The Parish includes five Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), a Ramsar Site, a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), part of the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and 10 Key Wildlife Sites. The Rivers Severn and Wye have the second biggest tidal range in the world, with a 14m difference between mean low and mean high water at the parish boundaries.
    The following details are taken from a study undertaken as part of the Forest of Dean Integrated Rural Development (IRD) programme which has mapped the biodiversity of the whole district.
     
    Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
    •   Severn Estuary – 15,950 ha
    •   Pennsylvania Fields, Sedbury 27.0 ha
    The site represents the only example of brackish pastureland overlying alluvial soils in Gloucestershire, including some nationally rare plant species.
    •   Poor’s Allotment, Tidenham Chase 28.6 ha
    •   Shorn Cliff and Caswell Woods, opposite Tintern 69.2 ha
    •   Lower Wye Gorge, Woodcroft and Ban-y-Gor 29.2 ha
    The woodlands of the lower Wye Valley form one of the most important areas for woodland conservation in Britain (comparable with the Caledonian pine-woods, the oceanic oakwoods of western Britain, the New Forest and the mixed coppices of East Anglia), including a number of nationally rare plant species. These woods sit in a matrix of unimproved grassland and other semi-natural habitats, which together make the Wye Valley one of the most diverse, rich and attractive areas in southern Britain.
     
    Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
    River Wye 2,234 ha
     
    Key Wildlife Sites
    •   Lippets Grove GWT Nature Reserve, Tidenham Chase
    •   East Wood Limestone Pavement, GWT Nat. Res., Tidenham Chase
    •   Beachley Saltmarshes, Beachley Point
    •   Beachley Grassland, River Wye floodplain, Beachley
    •   Ridley Bottom GWT Nat. Res., Kelly’s Lane, Tidenham Chase
    •   Park Grove, Sedbury
    •   Redding Well Alderwood, Stroat
    •   Walter’s Weir, Lancaut
    •   James’s Thorns, Wye Valley, Tidenham Chase
    •   Ladysmith, Severn bank, Sedbury Cliff
    The Countryside Agency has announced that at some point in the future it will consider again the designation of parts of the Forest of Dean as an AONB, the Parish Council will need to consider this carefully if it is likely to impact on the Parish, or if there is wish to see additional parts of the parish designated as such.
    In October 2005, as part of the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, in the West of England, including Gloucestershire, areas of Open Countryside and Registered Common Land become open to public access. In our parish this covers the natural heath area of Poor’s’ Allotment. Poor’s Allotment is managed by an independent charitable trust. Some of the area is rented for livestock grazing, adjacent to Park Hill Lane. The natural Heath area is managed by English Nature and is home to a number of significant species – both flora and fauna. Income from the Trust is used for the relief of need in the par
  • To view the original of this statement CLICK HERE
  • Further may I draw your attention to the fact that in neither the Parish documentation, nor that of the Forest of Dean District Council plans nor even Government outline plan is there any plan or warning of the possibility of industrialising any area of this parishes nor any grant to abbrogate on our responsibility to protect the amenity, its visual aspect, nor significantly impact in a dilaterious manner and deliberately increase the danger for the many 10s of 1,000s who pass through it on the A48 Roman Road along the banks of the estuary, whether commercially, as residents or as tourists.

 

PS – 15:

  •  Herewith my objection to the application (sorry the formatting has become a little muddled!):
  • HOME OWNER, RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER
    In the Parish of Tidenham
    AT:
    Home Cottage,
    Stroat,
    Tidenham,
    The Forest of Dean,
    Gloucestershire,
    NP16 7LR
    01594 – 526 337
    18-May-2015
    FODDC,
    COUNCIL OFFICES,
    HIGH STREET,
    COLEFORD,
    GL16 8HG
    PLANNING Department: planning@fdean.gov.uk
    CASE OFFICER STEPHEN COLEGATE: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk
    COPY:
    MARK HARPER MP: fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com
    PARISH COUNCILLORS clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk
    Re.: Planning Application PO365/15/FUL
    INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT of INITIAL WIND TURBINE
    Severndale Farm, Stroat, Tidenham, NP16 7LL
    STOP WIND TURBIBE 01
    • TOTAL HEIGHT ABOVE RIVER 337 Feet +
    • Hanley Hill 22m
    • Tower Structure 60m
    • Blade/Sail 1/2 Diameter (54m) 27m
    • + Concrete Mount Block ?
    TOTAL 109m or 337 feet + mountDear Sirs,
    Please be advised of my extensively researched and implacable objection to the industrialisation of this Rural Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.Fuller reasons and many detailes and links to accurate and proven facts opposing the installation may be found at:
    https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat/
    where many detailed factual arguments are raised, together with the views and opinions of many well informed individuals together with views and opinions of many local individuals.It would clearly be deleterious of anyone involved in the decision making in this application not to study the details enumerated therein.Minded of the constraints of time permit me to put the time required in perspective – a responsible finding of facts from the source quoted may take as much as a day out of YOUR life however by the proud boast of the applicant this monstrous carbuncle in our midst will be present and effecting many 1,000s of lives over the next 25 years and it is highly unlikely that the monstrous concrete block on which the 87m. high tower with its 158 foot span blades will stand will ever be removed!I appreciate the gadarene rush to profit from the subsidies, required to enable the pretence that wind turbines are cost effective, however like the Gadarene there is every probability that this will lead to a leap off the cliff for those effected!I object to this application on the grounds that there is no proven case for installing these monstrous intrusions and any pretence that they may provide a ‘community benefit’ of any consequence is dwarfed by the many disadvantages to the community and society as a whole, and thus appears to be little more than a sop, or to put it clearly a bribe!A measure of the dishonesty of this application, which strengthens my resolve to oppose it is:
    01. The headline figure of the height of the industrial structure is 60m. it is only when one drills down in the small print that it becomes apparent it is not a mere 60m. but will tower over the Severn Estuary in splendid un camouflaged isolation (until of course this precedent may be granted permitting seried ranks of them) by 337 Feet!
    02. It is claimed dishonestly by the applicant that there has been public consultation – there has been absolutely no public consultation, it would seem to be that the applicant seeks to mislead the planners by alluding to a sales presentation made by themselves, to an invited audience some 3 years ago! After which the applicants withdrew their application, no doubt in the realisation they had failed to convince!
    O3. It would seem that the applicants seek to further mislead by claiming that an environmental study has been presented when no such adequate environmental study has been made as:
    A. The study has not considered the deleterious effects of their proposed industrial action to the reed beds between their proposed installation and the river, which are the gathering ground for migratory birds, which gather to feed. and thus fatten to provide the necessary energy, prior to their long migration south to warmer climes for the winter – birds which WILL be slaughtered in consequential numbers as the turbine blades smash them from the side – the report pays no cogniscience to the differences of impact at different seasons.
    B. The study has made no allowance for the distance of travel of either noise, light flicker or safety lighting, particularly on the rising ground of the Forest approaches behind it – where many homes and farms and their livestock WILL be effected. It should be noted that the low frequency hum from the turbine, which they admit will be between 35 & 45 DB on a substantial radius of grounds & homes, below it will be likewise yet travel considerably further on a level with the source! Sound tends to travel further in a set pressure (altitude) density of air, particularly low frequency, long wave pattern sound, thus can cause considerably more damage to a wider radius stretching for several miles –
    eg the low frequency communication of elephants which can be detected over 20 miles away!
    C. I have been unable to trace a single solitary risk assessment of the damage done to micro organisms and their predatory food chain in soil, yet it is known that the continuous low frequency vibration radiates in the soil, causing a fall off in both micro organisms and the worms and the like that feed on them, including the larvae of the many insects on which the migratory birds are utterly dependent. The loss of such life and the vibration leads to compression of the soil and a form of soil cancer.
    D. I appreciate that the RSPB has made no objection nor any se4rious consideration however I would suggest that without implementation of an FoI report it would be wise to discount their input, or failure to input, as it is widely believed the Wind Turbine promoters are amongst their substantial donors!
    E. There would seem to be absolutely no consideration given to the impact on the many raptors in the area and even more significantly to the many owls that patrol this territory at night, with no hope of seeing the rotating blades until they are struck and killed – leading to a damaging increase in both mice and rats!
    F. Astonishingly the so called environmental report fails to even mention the Environmental Agency’s flood warning maps that show Severndale Farm WILL potentially be effected!
    04. I also object to these plans being put forward at this time, which so redolently smacks of ‘A good time to bury bad news’!
    The planning application was validated on 17-Apr-2015, after Parliament had been prorogued – thus from then forward the peoples of this community were without meaningfull representation and all in the political diaspora were involved in the flux of election.
    We had no MP representing us until 08-May-2015 and beyond during which the new Parliament was coming to existence as a Government.
    We had no meaningfull Councillors as they were seeking election or re-election and even now have not been accurately listed on the web site of FoDDC. In fact I believe they have not been sworn in yet, let alone selected for the various committees – particularly planning!
    We are as yet unrepresented by Parish Councillors who are due to be sworn in on 20-May-2015 and the first occasion on which they can consider the matter before the, to be selec ted, planning committee is the 27-May-2015!.This is clearly a shoddy and unsatisfactory manner in which to pretend to a democratic process.I incline to believe that the application was made at this time deliberately to suit the applicant and thus I believe the Council has little option but to act with integrity and extend the period by at least the 37 days that have been lost from the 17-Apr-2015 until the 27-May-2015.
    Fortunately with her last two clear days the outgoing councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick acted decisively and with integrity and at my request ‘called in the plans’.
    05. I am also minded to oppose this application as, although within electoral law, the candidacy of Mrs. Maria Edwards for a council seat is of some moral turpitude as although she was standing as a Conservative Councillor she seems to have overlooked the gathering opprobrium of her own party for the siting of wind turbines on land and the stated intention of providing nil public funding for all applications that were made and not granted prior to the election. I incline to the understanding that Mrs. Edwards failed totally to make it clear to the electorate that were she elected it would prove potentially fortuitously profitable for her as the wife and thus partner in the application for the wind turbine at Severndale Farm – had she told the truth to the electorate I believe she would not have stood any chance of being elected and unseating a candidate with the community’s interests at heart!
    I believe Mrs. Edwards’ position to be morally repugnant and her status as being out of keeping with the very principles of democracy regardless of the fact she may declare her interests at a later stage it does appear she obtained her position by deception.
    06. I appreciate that in return for the massive subsidies enjoyed by installers of this failed concept of power generation hereto fore there is a limp and implausible attempt to claim a ‘community benefit’ when quite clearly there is no meaningfull benefit gained that even begins to compensate for the damage such an industrial installation in so clearly a rural AoONB and loss of visual amenity for so many 1,000s of people, minded this edifice will be visible from Gloucester and much of South Gloucestershire and of course much of the FoD, being some 337feet high when Gloucester Cathedral is a mere 229 feet high!The pretence of a community benefit is palpably little more than an effort at justification by the applicants. much beyond the very personal member of the community and his own bank account.To justify this statement may I point out the public accounts of one of the applicants. who also has a similar interest in the wind turbine at St.Briavels which values that interest of around 50% as being £500,000 – perhaps besides free/subsidised electricity for Severndale Farm the applicants could make clear the relevance to the community of the small sop they offer relative to the £! Million value of their subsidised installation with a mere 20% efficacy and thus were it 100% effective the value would doubtless be in excess of £5 Million!I regret that a pretence at a ‘Community Benefit’ seems little more than an insignificant bribe relative to the huge benefit for the applicants developing this industrial installation and the damage done to this AoONB not to mention the loss of amenity, potential health risks, damage from noise, flicker and safety lighting not to mention the visual damage resultant from this installation – bear in mind that The Forestry Commission advise me that the largest genus of tree that grows in the FoD is the Douglas Fir which in our climate grows to a height6 of just over 115 feet or one third of the height of this 337 foot wind turbine with its 158 foot blades!I do not include the value of property as it would seem that the loss of property value for possibly 100 people is of no planning significance when measured against the gain of one or two individuals – it may not be a planning issue but to any individual with one wit of morality it is a very clear issue!
    07. A particular reason I am opposed to this application is both personal and public in that as a user, on a regular basis, of the A48 which besides being designated as a Roman road is recognised as the most dangerous road in Europe based, I understand, on death rate per mile in terms of vehicle miles.
    Minded that a principal cause of accidents is ‘distraction’ there can be no more convincing an argument against this industrial installation, being both close to the road and clearly inappropriate in such an open rural setting as it towers over the river by 337 feet and is a moving object dominant in line with such beautiful views – a half seen and even more distracting object at night with its alarm security lighting for the very many low flying light aircraft and the many helicopter flights in its immediate proximity – flights which are frequently below the height of this moving edifice. An even more dangerous object and distracting installation in the dense sea mist that frequently rolls up The Severn Estuary.
    08. One should also be minded that in consideration of the Roman ruins in the immediate area it is worthy of particular note that in ajoining fields there is the platform of what is believed to be a Roman temple, also of a Roman villa there is also I understand a Roman Mansio (a Mansio being the stopping point for Roman troops distanced by the marching regime of Roman Centurions on the move) this particular Mansio was the point at which troops gathered to await the right tide when crossing the Severn south or mustering to dry out and get in good order after crossing from South Gloucestershire.It is likely that there are other features as yet undiscovered.
    It is also worthy of note that Hanley Hill is known to be the Moot and as such was the meeting point for residents of Tidenham and thus has both medieval and pre medieval significance.
    09. It is also worthy of note that there was at one time an electricity pylon sited on Hanley Hill which was removed as it was considered unsigtly and the cabling was diverted.
    10. Please also be advised of the letter of objection to a similarly sited, though better camophlaged, application locally, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which contains many relevant points significant to this current application, which can be read at:
    http://www.aylburtonvillagehall.org.uk/P1396_CPRE_Objections.pdf
    11. This installation is far too close to the river, thus on the open historic flood plane and sticking out like a sore thumb and visible for miles around, this huge industrial structure, which will be over 150 feet taller than St. Mary’s Church in Lydney and 3 times the height of Nelson’s Column in London, with its related noise and visual impact is far too close to residential properties and will effect far more properties than were it situated, like most other such structures, as being in a valley many more properties are effected on a level with the structure and its visibility will be for miles around being on so prominent and open a site.
    12. I also object to this and other similar applications on purely ethical grounds as there is something particularly distastefull and morally bankrupt about the funding of these ‘white elephants’ as they are part funded by taxing the poor, through their unavoidable electricity bills, and then handing the cash to landowners and the wealthy – I find this to be utterly reprehensible.
    13. I am further opposed to these installations, particularly in such an inappropriate position when it is now well proven that wind turbines are not only an ecologically unsound method of generating electricity but greedy in two natural resources in short supply, namely the excess use of copper, which is an increasingly diminishing strategic resource and rare earth extracts available from only China where it is increasingly extracted utilising this scarce resource in an irresponsible manner in the manufacture of the turbines.
    14. These applications should further be rejected as it is increasingly apparent that they are so inefficient that the Government finds itself in the ludicrous position of subsidising owners with taxes levied even on the poor to fund subsidies to pay owners to take their turbines off line – turbines which those very same tax payers were taxed to fund the construction of.
    15. I further reject the idea of constructing this wind turbine in the light of the many 100s of truck movements that will be necessitated on the already over crowded and dangerous A48, which clearly to judge by the numerous potholes Gloucester highways can not afford to properly repair leaving the tax payer with unsound and unsafe roads and increased wear and tear, not to mention direct damage, to vehicles – indubitably a fairer and more intelligent use of subsidies than these follies as applied for.
    16. I am additionally opposed to this industrial installation in the light of the inevitable need for a service road with either a 110 or 150 tonne load capacity to allow for access by heavy lift crane facilities – a service road that will require an unsightly bell mouth junction on the A48 in the proximity of Hanley Farm shop and the property of Wibdon Farm some 60 meters in extent!
    17. In support of the rejection of this application I also believe that the probability that this application may prove a precedent if it is irresponsibly accepted for the erection of many more similar industrial installations despoiling the rural banks of the River Severn and its estuary and their visual amenity for its people and its visitors.
    18. I am also opposed to this application on the very real danger to jobs in the area, many of which are dependent on tourism and day visitors to the area all of whom will find their enjoyment of this AoONB with its many wonderful view points debased should this and similar installations be approved, this application alone will be visible from many of the classic view points in the FoD and almost all such view points in South Gloucestershire – we have a duty of care for future generations to ensure they can enjoy the unbefouled FoD we have all enjoyed.
    19. I believe that it is unprincipled to believe there is any sound motivation to grant this application funded in part by unwilling tax payers who can ill afford the subsidies to enrich a few selfish individuals. The concept of smaller investors being able to participate is debatable in that that may bring no local benefits as the investment will be open via the internet to the world at large as is the applicants fatuous petition orchestrated on the internet and accessible around the world, in the realisation that petitions are prone to abuse I understand local residents decided it would be unethical and counter productive to raise a petition, just as they have it would seem extended their encouragement to comment to local residents only.
    20. It is important to note, in deciding to reject this application, the claimed green aspects of such wind turbines – firstly their justification is grounded in the widely discredited IPCC report of Al Gore & Rajendra K. Paschauri where many of the claimed supporters have requested removal of their names and the signators to exposes of the theory far outweigh the supporters in their denunciation of the IPCC Report with the leak of East Anglia dUniversity documentation encompassing some 20,000 eMails that proved beyond doubt that much of the detail in the IPCC report was downright dishonest at worst and largely unsound being based on selective use of data!
    Do also note that Rajendra paschauri with his close partisan associations with Tatta Industries has recently been ousted from his job and Al Gore is now soundly discredited and the report itself has been accepted in Court to be insufficiently accurate to teach as a science in schools in Britain.
    21. Penultimately in considering this application it is important to accept the fact that any concept of benefit to the green carbon footprint is far outweigjhed by the enormouse level of carbon output in the production of the cement alone let alone the carbon footprint of transportation of the required other ingredients of the concrete block that will act as the mount, let alone the carbon footprint of the manufacture, fabrication and construction of the enormous industrial structure.
    On optimum output it will take at least 10 years to ‘repay’ the carbon cost of construction and as even the applicant’s claimed figure projects a 35% of optimum output, which can be considered optimistic as their other wind turbine at St. Briavels has an output of around 20% – thus reducing profitability to allow a mere £8,000 for so called ‘community benefit’ which was originally projected at £20,000 where £8,000 to £20,000 is likely to be the cost in lost value for any single property in its damage zone in terms of noise and loss of visual amenity and constant flicker day and night whether from sunlight or safety lighting!
    22. Finally let us consider in my opposition to this application the obvious fact that if the applicant had a genuione concern for the environment, as his recent award would show in 2014 one wonders why he did not advise the competition organisers that he was on the verge of despoiling the natural beauty of the area and installing a dangerous and overbearing industrial installation 337 feet above the River Severn ajoining the already overcrowded A48 adding to the likelihood of fatalities for people and birds alike.
    Was there a genuine interest in alternative energy rather than enrichment via subsidies surely the applicant would have clad his many relatively new barns with solar panels which would have been considerably less visually damaging to the area at large, would pose no additional danger to road users and wildlife and which have a proven track record of being cost effective without public funding from taxation!With regard to my opposition to this application as a resident in the immediate locality of this proposed industrial installation please be assured that together with the 22 reasons for my opposition it would be relatively easy to identify a further 78 reasons giving 100 sound reasons why on scientific grounds, amenity grounds, danger grounds and wildlife grounds this application is not only unsound but morally unsupportable, further as you can see from the web site:
    https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat
    appropriate links to supportive documentations for such a selected 100 reasons to oppose the installation can readily be provided.It is for these many and varied reasons that I oppose the application and would ask that as responsible planning authority that the applicant would seem to have a paucity of sound and proven benefits to offer to justify the application beyond narrow personal interests without ‘community benefits’ or benefits for society at large that would in any way counteract the harm done were this application to be approved, be that now or at appeal – an appeal the applicant would be likely to lose were they minded to persue a rejection, in the light of the change of policy of Her Majesty’s newly elected Government with its undeniable and clear majority – a policy change attested to both by the Minister concerned Michael Fallon prior to the election and by the party manifesto.Thus I call upon the relevant authorities to responsibly represent and uphold my opposition to this application.
    Regards,
    Greg_L-W.
    Greg Lance – Watkins
    HOME OWNER, RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER
    In the Parish of Tidenham
    AT:
    Home Cottage,
    Stroat,
    Tidenham,
    The Forest of Dean,
    Gloucestershire,
    NP16 7LR
    01594 – 528 337

WIND TURBINES A MATTER OF SCALE 001

PS – 16:

MONDAY – 18-May-2015

Parish Council’s first opportunity to discuss the matter:
WEDNESDAY 20-May-2015 -19:00hrs.

PARISH COUNCIL AGENDA:

Tidenham Parish Council

To: Members of the Public & Press 13th May 2015

You are invited to attend a meeting of Tidenham Parish Council that has been arranged for Wednesday 20th May 2015 at 19:00hrs in the War Memorial Hall, Coleford Road, Tutshill, for the transaction of business according to the enclosed agenda.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Carol Hinton
Clerk to the Parish Council
Wood Cottage, Clanna, Gloucestershire, GL15 6AJ. Telephone: 01594 530779
http://www.tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk

Note: Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Council and Committees, unless specifically excluded due to the confidential nature of the business. Members of the public can ask questions or make representation during item 19 but the council cannot make a decision on any matter which is not specified on the agenda.

AGENDA

1. CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

2. VICE CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Vice Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Vice Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

3. ATTENDANCE
a) DECLARATIONS OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE
i) To receive a report from the Clerk regarding the receipt of declarations of acceptance of office of councillors.
ii) To decide when any declarations of acceptance of office which have not been received as provided by law shall be received.
RECOMMENDATION: That if any declarations of acceptance of office have not so far been received they should be received prior to the next meeting of Full Council.
b) To receive apologies for absence from those councillors unable to attend.
c) To consider for acceptance those apologies received with reasons for absence.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
a) To confirm if the Clerk has received copies of all councillors Register of Interests for publication.
b) To receive Declarations of Interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of officers and in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 in respect of members.
Interests may be declared at any time during the meeting should they become apparent.
c) To consider any Dispensation Requests received by the Parish Clerk and not previously considered. (All councillors appointed to the Mopla Cottages committee should request a dispensation once appointed, to be considered at the next meeting of the Council.)

5. PRESENTATION BY ANDREW AND SUE CLARKE of the RESILIENCE CENTRE
Andrew Clarke from The Resilience Centre will give a presentation on the proposed community wind turbine at Stroat.

6. REMIT OF COMMITTEES
To consider for adoption the remit of committees (see Clerk’s Report item A and document attached)

7. STANDING COMMITTEES
To Appoint members to standing committees as approved by the adoption of ‘Remit of Committees’(see Clerk’s Report item B)
Amenities Committee
Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee
Finance and Probity Committee
Mopla Cottages Committee

8. PUBLIC AND CHARITABLE BODIES
To consider appointments to Public and Charitable Bodies (see Clerk’s Report item C)
Poor’s Allotment
Sedbury and Beachley Village Hall
Tidenham War Memorial Hall
Severn Area Rescue
Citizen’s Advice Bureau
Wye Valley Consortium

9. STANDING ORDERS
To consider adoption of Standing Orders (see Clerk’s Report item D)

10. FINANCIAL REGULATIONS
To consider adoption of Financial Regulations (see Clerk’s Report item E)

11. APPOINTMENT OF BANKERS
a) To consider safety of investments/bank accounts.
b) To consider confirmation of Bankers and account signatories. (see Clerk’s Report item F)

12. COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
To consider adoption of Complaints Procedure (see Clerk’s Report item G)

13. PROVISION OF INFORMATION UNDER FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT
To consider adoption of Provision of Information – model publication scheme (see Clerk’s Report item H)

14. MEDIA POLICY
To consider adoption of Media Policy (see Clerk’s Report item I)

15. ASSET REGISTER
To consider adoption of Asset Register as shown in Annual Accounts. (see Clerk’s Report item J)

16. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
a) To consider for approval as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15th April 2015
b) To consider any questions arising from those minutes.

17. COMMITTEES
a) To receive reports, minutes and recommendations from committees already circulated, enclosed herewith or to be circulated and to consider any questions arising from them.
i). Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee meeting held on 22nd April 2015
Questions to members of the previous committee present at the April meeting.

18. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
To receive and note any announcements from the Chairman of the meeting.

19. PUBLIC CONSULTATION ***
To receive and consider any questions from the Public, which may be answered but not debated.

20. POLICING IN THE PARISH
No report received.

21. PARISH CLERK’S REPORT
To receive and consider the Parish Clerk’s Report (copy attached). All items requiring the council to make a decision are specified separately on this agenda.

22. FINANCE
a) To receive and approve the Financial Statement for April 2015
b) To approve payments according to the Financial Statement for April 2015
c) To consider the Annual Accounts and sign Statement if approved. (see Clerk’s Report item K)

23. GENERAL POWER OF COMPETENCE
To note Tidenham Parish Council is no longer eligible to use the General Power under The Localism Act 2011: The General Power of Competence. (see Clerk’s Report item L)

24. TRAINING
To consider training courses for new and previous councillors (see Clerk’s Report item M)

25. COUNCILLOR VACANCIES
To consider advertisement and selection of candidates for co-option as Councillors to fill 3 vacancies. (see Clerk’s Report item N)

26. BACKUP OF ADMIN COMPUTERS
To consider use of ‘cloud’ backup service for both admin laptop computers. (see Clerk’s Report item O)

27. CCTV
a) To receive and note update on CCTV in Parish from Councillor Ford
b) To consider proceeding with CCTV on current basis

28. WEBSITE
To consider new Website (see Clerk’s Report item P)

29. CORRESPONDENCE
To consider any other correspondence as detailed in the Clerk’s Report (see Clerk’s Report item Q)

30. COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
To receive and note any matters which councillors wish to raise and where appropriate add to the agenda for the following meeting or meetings of committees.

31. FUTURE MEETINGS
To note the dates of future council and committee meetings:
Wednesday 27th May –
Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee

Wednesday 3rd June – Finance Committee 7pm followed by Mopla Cottages Committee
Wednesday 10th June – Amenities Committee
Wednesday 17th June – Full TPC Council Meeting

*** Allows a period not exceeding fifteen minutes for members of the public to make statements and ask questions of the Committee
This item does not preclude Suspension of Standing Orders by the Committee to allow participation on Items on the Agenda
i) Each person will be required to state his or her name and address
ii) Each person will be allowed no more than three minutes plus a brief follow-up to any answers given by the Committee
iii) Questions may be answered but not debated by the Committee
iv) Any issues that the Committee considers require consideration should be referred to the next meeting of the Committee or deferred to the next Full Council Meeting Tidenham Parish Council

To: Members of the Public & Press 13th May 2015

You are invited to attend a meeting of Tidenham Parish Council that has been arranged for Wednesday 20th May 2015 at 19:00hrs in the War Memorial Hall, Coleford Road, Tutshill, for the transaction of business according to the enclosed agenda.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Carol Hinton
Clerk to the Parish Council
Wood Cottage, Clanna, Gloucestershire, GL15 6AJ. Telephone: 01594 530779
http://www.tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk

Note: Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Council and Committees, unless specifically excluded due to the confidential nature of the business. Members of the public can ask questions or make representation during item 19 but the council cannot make a decision on any matter which is not specified on the agenda.

AGENDA

1. CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

2. VICE CHAIRMAN
a) To elect a Vice Chairman for 2015/2016
b) Vice Chairman to sign the Declaration of Acceptance of Office

3. ATTENDANCE
a) DECLARATIONS OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE
i) To receive a report from the Clerk regarding the receipt of declarations of acceptance of office of councillors.
ii) To decide when any declarations of acceptance of office which have not been received as provided by law shall be received.
RECOMMENDATION: That if any declarations of acceptance of office have not so far been received they should be received prior to the next meeting of Full Council.
b) To receive apologies for absence from those councillors unable to attend.
c) To consider for acceptance those apologies received with reasons for absence.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
a) To confirm if the Clerk has received copies of all councillors Register of Interests for publication.
b) To receive Declarations of Interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of officers and in accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 in respect of members.
Interests may be declared at any time during the meeting should they become apparent.
c) To consider any Dispensation Requests received by the Parish Clerk and not previously considered. (All councillors appointed to the Mopla Cottages committee should request a dispensation once appointed, to be considered at the next meeting of the Council.)

5. PRESENTATION BY ANDREW AND SUE CLARKE of the RESILIENCE CENTRE
Andrew Clarke from The Resilience Centre will give a presentation on the proposed community wind turbine at Stroat.

6. REMIT OF COMMITTEES
To consider for adoption the remit of committees (see Clerk’s Report item A and document attached)

7. STANDING COMMITTEES
To Appoint members to standing committees as approved by the adoption of ‘Remit of Committees’(see Clerk’s Report item B)
Amenities Committee
Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee
Finance and Probity Committee
Mopla Cottages Committee

8. PUBLIC AND CHARITABLE BODIES
To consider appointments to Public and Charitable Bodies (see Clerk’s Report item C)
Poor’s Allotment
Sedbury and Beachley Village Hall
Tidenham War Memorial Hall
Severn Area Rescue
Citizen’s Advice Bureau
Wye Valley Consortium

9. STANDING ORDERS
To consider adoption of Standing Orders (see Clerk’s Report item D)

10. FINANCIAL REGULATIONS
To consider adoption of Financial Regulations (see Clerk’s Report item E)

11. APPOINTMENT OF BANKERS
a) To consider safety of investments/bank accounts.
b) To consider confirmation of Bankers and account signatories. (see Clerk’s Report item F)

12. COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
To consider adoption of Complaints Procedure (see Clerk’s Report item G)

13. PROVISION OF INFORMATION UNDER FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT
To consider adoption of Provision of Information – model publication scheme (see Clerk’s Report item H)

14. MEDIA POLICY
To consider adoption of Media Policy (see Clerk’s Report item I)

15. ASSET REGISTER
To consider adoption of Asset Register as shown in Annual Accounts. (see Clerk’s Report item J)

16. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
a) To consider for approval as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15th April 2015
b) To consider any questions arising from those minutes.

17. COMMITTEES
a) To receive reports, minutes and recommendations from committees already circulated, enclosed herewith or to be circulated and to consider any questions arising from them.
i). Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee meeting held on 22nd April 2015
Questions to members of the previous committee present at the April meeting.

18. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
To receive and note any announcements from the Chairman of the meeting.

19. PUBLIC CONSULTATION ***
To receive and consider any questions from the Public, which may be answered but not debated.

20. POLICING IN THE PARISH
No report received.

21. PARISH CLERK’S REPORT
To receive and consider the Parish Clerk’s Report (copy attached). All items requiring the council to make a decision are specified separately on this agenda.

22. FINANCE
a) To receive and approve the Financial Statement for April 2015
b) To approve payments according to the Financial Statement for April 2015
c) To consider the Annual Accounts and sign Statement if approved. (see Clerk’s Report item K)

23. GENERAL POWER OF COMPETENCE
To note Tidenham Parish Council is no longer eligible to use the General Power under The Localism Act 2011: The General Power of Competence. (see Clerk’s Report item L)

24. TRAINING
To consider training courses for new and previous councillors (see Clerk’s Report item M)

25. COUNCILLOR VACANCIES
To consider advertisement and selection of candidates for co-option as Councillors to fill 3 vacancies. (see Clerk’s Report item N)

26. BACKUP OF ADMIN COMPUTERS
To consider use of ‘cloud’ backup service for both admin laptop computers. (see Clerk’s Report item O)

27. CCTV
a) To receive and note update on CCTV in Parish from Councillor Ford
b) To consider proceeding with CCTV on current basis

28. WEBSITE
To consider new Website (see Clerk’s Report item P)

29. CORRESPONDENCE
To consider any other correspondence as detailed in the Clerk’s Report (see Clerk’s Report item Q)

30. COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
To receive and note any matters which councillors wish to raise and where appropriate add to the agenda for the following meeting or meetings of committees.

31. FUTURE MEETINGS
To note the dates of future council and committee meetings:
Wednesday 27th May – Planning, Development Control and Highways Committee
Wednesday 3rd June – Finance Committee 7pm followed by Mopla Cottages Committee
Wednesday 10th June – Amenities Committee
Wednesday 17th June – Full TPC Council Meeting

*** Allows a period not exceeding fifteen minutes for members of the public to make statements and ask questions of the Committee
This item does not preclude Suspension of Standing Orders by the Committee to allow participation on Items on the Agenda
i) Each person will be required to state his or her name and address
ii) Each person will be allowed no more than three minutes plus a brief follow-up to any answers given by the Committee
iii) Questions may be answered but not debated by the Committee
iv) Any issues that the Committee considers require consideration should be referred to the next meeting of the Committee or deferred to the next Full Council Meeting

PLEASE be there to help make your views known
I am advised that the issue of the application to industrialise land at Severndal Farm will be a matter dealt with at the start of the meeting and equal time will be allocated to the professional aplicant company and parishioners – including parishoners who will have been mustered commercially to support the applicant’s profit motive!
WIND TURBINES A MATTER OF SCALE 002

PS – 17:

Owner/Occupier
Mr Greg Lance-Watkins (Email)

Contact:
Direct Line:
Direct Fax: 01594 812353
Email: planning@fdean.gov.uk
Our Ref: DF4282
P0365/15/FUL
Your Ref: PP-03945071
Date: 22 May 2015
Dear Sir/Madam

Town and Country Planning Act,1990 (As Amended)
Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow
Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy, including grid connection and ancillary works.

I refer to my previous letter informing you of the planning application. I am now in receipt of additional information. Any comments submitted that make representations for or against the application will be taken into account when the Council reaches its decision as will any previous representations made.

You can look at the additional information on the Council’s Website at http://www.fdean.gov.uk . Simply click on ‘planning’ then ‘View planning applications’’ and then the Public Access link. Click on the simple search screen and add the reference P0365/15/FUL you can then see a summary of the application details. If you wish to view plans and documents submitted with the application, click on the Documents tab. If you want to view any comments please click on the relevant tabs on the search screen.

Details may also be inspected on a computer at the Council Offices, High Street, Coleford during normal office hours (Monday – Thursday 9.00 a.m. – 4.45 p.m and Fridays 9.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) Alternatively, as a copy has been sent to the Parish Council, you might like to contact the Clerk to see if arrangements can be made to view the plans locally.

You can make comments on any application in one of three ways:-

1. Through the website by clicking on ‘View Planning Applications’, then Public Access, enter the Planning reference number in the search field. Click on comments and complete the Log In process as instructed on the screen. In order to make a comment you must register and log into the system. This is the Council’s preferred method of communication and also gives you the opportunity to track progress with the application and view the Council’s decision.

2. By sending an e-mail to planning@fdean.gov.uk

3. By sending a letter to the Planning Office.
Any comments should be made in writing quoting the above reference number by
05/06/15
Please note that only planning matters relating to the application can be considered by the Council when making their decision. These could include highway safety, national and local planning policies such as those included in the Council’s Core Strategy and design and amenity issues (privacy, overshadowing, noise etc). Matters that cannot be taken into account include loss of view, reduction in value, or comments on personalities or private rights of way. Please refrain from making personal references in respect of third parties or comments which may be defamatory or breach data protection legislation. The Council retains the right to redact any such content from your representation.

In view of the amount of correspondence that we receive as a result of representations made for and against planning applications, it is not normal practice to enter into correspondence concerning any specific questions or queries you may have.

The Council has also introduced public speaking at its Planning Committee Meetings. Details of the operation of public speaking are available from the Council’s web site. Click on ‘planning’ on the home page and a guide is available for downloading on the right hand side of the page. If you make any representation you will be notified in writing if it is to be determined by Committee.

Finally, I must advise you that under the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, 1985, your comments will be available for anyone to read, including the applicant(s). In addition any correspondence will be displayed on the Council’s website and in the event of an appeal all representations received will also be relayed to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant in accordance with appeal regulations.

Yours faithfully,

Business Administration Apprentice

 PS – 18:

 The Forester local newspaper:
FORESTER 20-May-2015 01

It is interesting to note that the applicant’s husband was permitted to claim that those opposing the industrialising of this rural AONB were misleading people yet could show no example but was permitted to perpetuate the pretence this was a ‘community project’ when it is almost totally rejected by the ‘community’, he also made the clearly ‘misleading’ claim that the wind turbine was almost silent when the application concedes that it will produce constant noise levels of over 40 decibells, when it is actually working, and that it will effect homes over a wide area!

This level of dishonesty seems all too common in the application as are the claims that it is ecologically friendly, when all the evidence shows these massive machines are anything but ecologically friendly, not cost effective, grossly inefficient and require massive levels of tax payer funded subsidies, which may explain why our elected Government seeks to bring an end to such installations with their obscene levels of subsidy and the use of these subsidies to make apparent bribes to narrow interests of a few in the community as a means of achieving their personal aims of enrichment!

There was also some coverage of the facts on Gloucester Radio.

PS – 19:

Wind Energy Generation
The British People and those across the World are being totally conned and absolutely misled by our Politicians with an energy policy that is based upon predominantly, hot-air.
For Wind Turbines are sheer economic madness in the long-term.
For an introduction to this the following was published in the Yorkshire Post (the UK’s largest provincial newspaper) on Wednesday 16 January 2013:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/letters/wind-turbines-are-costly-way-of-making-power-1-5314687m

Fot further factual data related to the great carbon con and the folly of Wind turbines from around the world:

‘Sweden: Offshore Wind Turbines to be Decommissioned After Only 13 Years “Cheapest Option”’ – http://quixoteslaststand.com/2014/09/20/sweden-offshore-wind-turbines-to-be-decommissioned-after-only-13-years-cheapest-option/

‘Top US Energy Economist Takes the Scalpel to the Great Wind Power Fraud’ – http://stopthesethings.com/2015/04/21/top-us-energy-economist-takes-the-scalpel-to-the-great-wind-power-fraud/

‘The windfarm delusion – The government has finally seen through the wind-farm scam – but why did it take them so long?’ – http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7684233/the-winds-of-change/

‘Wising Up to the Great Wind Power Fraud!’ – http://mothersagainstwindturbines.com/2014/10/27/wising-up-to-the-great-wind-power-fraud/

‘Europeans learning the hard truth about wind and solar energy’ – http://www.cfact.org/2013/08/13/europeans-learning-the-hard-truth-about-wind-and-solar-energy/

‘Gallery: Vattenfall’s Yttre Stengrund decommissioned’ – http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1313014/gallery-vattenfalls-yttre-stengrund-decommissioned

‘14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA’ – http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

‘Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it’ – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

‘The Faults, Fallacies and Failures of Wind Power’ – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/10/the-faults-fallacies-and-failures-of-wind-power/

‘Wind turbines: Con of the century’ – http://connexionfrance.com/wind-turbines-con-of-the-century-letter-france-10888-news-article.html

‘Salmond’s great wind farm rip-off’ – http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/salmond-s-great-wind-farm-rip-off-1.271296

The £125m green con trick‘ – https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2015/02/07/the-125m-green-con-trick/

‘The proof we got a bad deal on offshore wind farms’ – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11426763/The-proof-we-got-a-bad-deal-on-offshore-wind-farms.html

‘Wind turbines ‘only lasting for half as long as previously thought’ as study shows they show signs of wearing out after just 12 years’ – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254901/Wind-turbines-half-long-previously-thought-study-shows-signs-wearing-just-12-years.html

‘The U.S. to repeat Europe’s offshore wind energy disaster’ – http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2014/09/23/26161656-the-us-to-repeat-europes-offshore-wind-energy-disaster

Wind power promises are just a lot of hot air‘ – http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/article/122471/wind-power-promises-are-just-a-lot-of-hot-air

‘Ending Ontario’s wind power ‘ripoff’’ – http://blogs.windsorstar.com/opinion/ending-the-wind-power-ripoff

‘Wind farms only 80% effective at CO2 reduction (0% effective at temp reduction). UK to allow homes to stop turbines!’ – http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/wind-farms-only-80-effective-at-co2-reduction-0-effective-at-temp-reduction-uk-to-allow-homes-to-stop-turbines/

‘The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark’ – http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/WindFarmsUK_Denmark_hughes2012.pdf

‘Energy: the answer is not blowing in the wind’ – http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/4173#.VV9_503bLDc

‘Wind Farms DO NOT Provide Large Economic and Job Benefits (quite the opposite)’ – https://www.masterresource.org/false-claims/false-wind-claims/

PS – 20:

To understand the facts and the background to the world economies and the underlying background facts of the claims of anthropogenic global warming and climate change see:
This is the world’s most widely read informative web site on the subject, it dispels the global myths and the outright con behind the concept of anthropogenic climate change and its associated wind turbine scam!

PS – 21:

Hi,

it is worth noting that campaigners in South Gloucestershire actively campaigning against wind turbines in Oldbury on Severn, Hill & other sites included the reasoning that it would damage the visual amenity of The Severnvale and thus North Gloucestershire and the Forest of Dean and were supported by their planning authority.

Let us hope the planners of the FoD & North Gloucestershire act with a similar sense of responsibility and reject the applicants short term personal gains whilst considering the undeniable long term damage suc h an industrial installation will cause!

Regards,
Greg_L-W

From: BG Roberts
To: Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 8:56 PM
Subject: Severndale Farm Turbine Objection

1 Chantry Rd.
Thornbury
South Glos.
BS35 1ER

Regarding the proposed Turbine at Severndale Farm, this will present an unacceptable intrusion on the views over the Forest of Dean from the Thornbury side of the river , for very little gain in electrical production or environmental reward. When taken together with other applications it will look like an extension of the Avonmouth skyline.
The Government Inspector recently turned down an application for Turbines in the neighbouring Parishes of Oldbury on Severn and Hill in South Glos. on grounds of environmental and visual impact on the amenity of the Severnvale.
This site is surrounded by reed beds and rhines which provide valuable cover and feeding grounds for migrating birds whose flight paths will impinge on the area covered by the Turbine blades. This is also an important feeding ground for Bats who can be disoriented by the sonic noise.
The Evironmental issues provide strong grounds for objection.

Regards
Brian Roberts

PS – 22:

PLEASE NOTE:

In the ‘Bat Survey’ commissioned and selected by the applicant and conducted by ‘Keystone Environmental and dated 2012 they unequivocally state:

5.0
Recommendations and Requirements
Further Surveys
5.1
Further surveys would only be required if the works were delayed for a year or more. If this
were to be the case, a repeat Automated B
at
Detector Survey would be recommended before
work commenced to confirm that the bat activity status of the site and the impact assessment
remain the same as that described within this report
3 years have passed thus clearly a further bat survey is called for before the plans can be considered.
Similarly full surveys should be undertaken of other aspects and there has been absolutely no meaningful public consultation and as was shown at the public attendance at The recent Parish Council meeting no offer of current meaningful consultation was offered by the applicants who were clearly unwilling to give straight and honest answers to simple questions!
WIND TURBINES A MATTER OF SCALE 003

PS – 23:

Here is a view of the wind turbine to scale, unlike the photoshop mock-ups from the applicants this places the giant turbine in its correct location – as seen on Google Earth’s view from level with a part of Hanley Lane Laybye at the Fairview end.

You will note, if you try hard, the two towers of the M$* Chepstow Severn Bridge in the photograph.

The applicant’s selected views, as displayed on the FoD planning web site, are well presented but seem to indicate the turbine will be some 90 meters from the actual site defined! Also all seem very selective, to minimise the effect of such an immense industrial structure.
A48 with TURBINE to SCALE from HFS Laybye 01

PS – 24:

Wind Turbine Application Appeal Rejected:

Wind Farm Appeal Dismissed – Standle Farm, Stinchcombe, Gloucestershire

Thu, 29 Nov 2012

Barrister - jack smyth

Following a eight day planning inquiry the appeal in respect of an application for four wind turbines was dismissed. The appeal site lay near to the M5 and close to the edge of the Cotswolds AONB. Jack Smyth represented Stroud District Council.
The Reasons for Refusal were narrow and discreet; namely that the proposed turbines would have an unacceptable impact on views out from and towards Stinchcombe Hill (the escarpment on the very edge of the AONB). The case which was successfully advanced revolved around the unacceptable harm said to be caused to an important and valuable vantage point of the Cotswolds AONB. The Council’s landscape expert described it as “the shop-window of the AONB”.
The Inspector accepted the Council’s evidence that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on their landscape character of this national designation. He found that this harm was substantial and outweighed the clear and multiple benefits of the renewable energy scheme.
This was an interested appeal which was adjourned mid-way through when the National Planning Policy Framework was published on the 5th day of the inquiry. The Inspector seems to have accorded the development plan and the array of SPDs full weight.

– See more at: https://www.no5.com/news-and-publications/news/420-wind-farm-appeal-dismissed-standle-farm-stinchcombe-gloucestershire/#sthash.wKyHcfdS.dpuf

See also the press report at:
http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/10076243.Appeal_to_build_four_wind_turbines_near_Stinchcombe_is_dismissed/

To View The Full 25 Page Planning Appeal see:
http://www.programmeofficers.co.uk/posl/documents/Gloucester/CD9/CD9.5.pdf

PS – 25:

ALVINGTON COURT FARM WIND TURBINE APPEAL:

Appeal Ref: APP/P1615/A/13/2204221
Alvington Court Farm, Alvington, Lydney GL15 6BG

PS – 26:

PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE:

19:00hrs 27-May-2015 @ Tidenham Memorial Hall
The planning committee of 6 elected councillors considered the Planning Application to Industrialise the Hanley Hill agricultural Severndale Farm site with a massive Wind Turbine.

Some 40 members of the public, 6 members of the planning committee and the admin clerk Kevin Duffin attended.

The public were permitted to comment and Liz Brown of Wibdon Cottage, Stroat started the ball rolling with a well researched list of reasons for opposition to the application including the fact that the various surveys were flawed being long out of date and also that no meaningful consultation with the ‘community’ had been undertaken there having been only a sales exhibition some 3 years ago!
She also presented some far more accurate representations of both the location and the size of the monsterous turbine which were provided to the committee and passed around, though not as large and glossy as those provided by the applicants at the previous Council meeting they were clearly better representations of the reality of both the siting and the size of the turbine.

WIND TURBINE LOCATION to SCALE 01

01.  Arrow Indicates Wind Turbine to Scale

WIND TURBINE LOCATION to SCALE 02 from PHILPOTS COURT FARM

02. Wind Turbine to Scale from Philpots Court Farm

WIND TURBINE LOCATION to SCALE 03 from HANLEY LANE & BOUGHSPRING03. Wind Turbine to Scale from Hanley Lane & Boughspring

WIND TURBINE LOCATION to SCALE 04 from FOOTPATH looking NE04. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath looking North East

WIND TURBINE LOCATION to SCALE 05 from FOOTPATH above PHILPOTS COURT FARM 05. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath above Philpots Court Farm

Mrs. Brown was followed by David Mitchell-Smith of the Old Post Office, Stroat who, being a retired Police Inspector, showed the many reasons why the siting of a large wind turbine dominating the A48 was dangerously even potentially fatally inappropriate in terms of safety and showed how the paultry sums allegedly likely to pass to the community of around £25K were insignificant when a fatality would cost us around £1.9M whilst a serious injury would cost some £250K and even a mild injury would cost around £20K and to be minded that frequently injuries in an RTA where impact speeds of 100 > 120mph could be reasonably expected were frequently multiple with multiple costs!

A gentleman from Sedbury stated that he was in favour of the scheme, without consideration of the downside risks and damage, as he had bought into the propaganda of anthropogenic global warming & the climate change story and the need for these installations, he also let on that he was an investor in the St. Briavels turbine – thus presumably profitting from the obscene subsidies granted to these false solutions to energy supply!

The retired councillor Bernard Bowshall spoke in an informed manner in opposition addressing the fact that such turbines were grossly inefectual in producing energy and the siting of this installation at the proposed venue was wholely inappropriate.

Greg Lance – Watkins of Home Cottage, Stroat spoke next stating that not only was he domicile in Stroat but had lived in the immediate area for some 35 years and was opposed in both general and in specific to the installation of these wind turbines as they were not fit for purpose to effectively produce electricity, were anti community, unsightly and contra the interests of the electorater locally and the principles of conservation both in terms of the topography, the wildlife and the numerous points of historic interest in very close proximity such as a Roman Mint, a Roman Temple site, a Roman Mansio, a Roman villa and the fact that Roman coins had been found on the land – further that Hanley Hill on which the turbine was to be sited, destroying the integrity of the hill had never been propery excavated despite the fact that it was the site of the Moot for Tidenham, where all major events in the parish/area were discussed or celebrated from the Medieval period and long before. The fact that the A48 was a Roman road yet was the most dangerous road in the EU was once again raised.

Sue Davies for the applicant then spoke with a repeat of her sales pitch of the previous Parish Council meeting, which I found to be aggressive, fairly incoherent, misleading and utterly unconvincing, wherein she picked off points that she found selectively suitable yet failed to justyify the installation or its location.

The meeting then continued with the Planning Committee making various points, there was near unanimity in the belief that the site was totally inappropriate, it was also stated that there was no clear case for wind turbines as a viable alternative power source, and seemingly the effective bribe of a payment from the subsidies by the applicants to the community at large was dismissed as the irrelevant sop that it clearly is, and the matter was not mentioned. That there was an Act of Parliament precluding the building of such industrial installations within 1,500 meters of domestic properties was also highlighted as were the limited exceptions to that Law, none of which would seem to apply.
Only one voice of disent was heard from the failed Green candidate in the recent elections, who had however retained her Parish Council seat, who extolled the benefits of wind turbines with something of a lack of factual data though she did assure those present that she had spent a considerable amount of time with the applicant’s professional partners Sue & Andrew Davis of Resiliance listening to their case in favour! She did however claim that she considered these industrial edifices to be a thing of beauty!

Fortunately the Council committee was not swayed by her rather strange presentation which seemed to totally overlook the position of the residents of the parish or those effected – when it came to the vote Dr. Fiona Bowie was the only person in favour and the other 5 councillors on the elected planning committee were resolutely opposed.

Personally from her arguments in favour and the manner in which she presented them, spiritted as her blandishments may have been, however unconvincing I and other residents found them to be, I would doubt her Doctorate to be in Logic!

PS – 27:

My thanks to a friend in New York who has read this web site for the following article:

Wind Farm invasion at an end as Tories plan to ‘pull plug’ on any new turbines

THE wind farm invasion blighting Britain could come to an end under new government’ plans to pull the plug on funding for new turbines.

PUBLISHED: 17:04, Sun, May 31, 2015 | UPDATED: 17:28, Sun, May 31, 2015windmillGETTY
Amber Rudd is set to unveil proposals for a subsidy scheme this week

Ministers want to halt a generous subsidy scheme which would effectively prevent thousands of the monstrosities from getting built.

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd is expected to unveil the proposals this week.

Under current policy, any big onshore wind turbines built before the end of March 2017 would automatically be able to qualify for generous payments through a scheme called the Renewables Obligation (RO), which is funded through green levies on consumer energy bills.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has now confirmed it plans to “reform” the RO scheme.

It is understood to be looking at ending the free-for-all by shutting the scheme down early – effectively preventing thousands of turbines getting built.

The action follows similar moves taken to curb subsidies for solar farms last year.

After the RO shuts, the only possible subsidies for wind farms will be through a new scheme that is less generous and also much more strictly rationed, with ministers deciding how many projects – if any – are awarded subsidy contracts, enabling them to block further onshore wind if desired.

We promised people clean, affordable and secure energy supplies and that’s what I’m going to deliver

Amber Rudd, Energy Secretary

As well as big wind farms, subsidies for small individual wind turbines such as those popular with farmers – funded through a separate scheme called the Feed in Tariff – are expected to be limited under the plans.

A spokesman for the DECC said: “We are driving forward plans to end new public subsidy for onshore wind farms.

“We will shortly be publishing our plans to reform the Renewables Obligation and Feed in Tariff scheme to implement this commitment. With the cost of supplying onshore wind falling, government subsidy is no longer appropriate.”

Ms Rudd said: “We promised people clean, affordable and secure energy supplies and that’s what I’m going to deliver. We’ll focus support on renewables when they’re starting up – getting a good deal for billpayers is the top priority.”

Many of the projects that already have planning permission would have been expecting to secure subsidies under the RO scheme and it is not clear whether they will still be able to if the scheme shuts early. Ministers may consider offering a ‘grace period’, enabling some of those that already have permission to still get built while blocking off subsidies for those that do not.

DavidCameronEPA

David Cameron and the Tories want to pull the plug on funding new turbines

The Government announced in the Queen’s Speech last week that it would bring forward legislation to give local communities “the final say” by ensuring large wind farm projects are decided at local rather than national level.

Ms Rudd said: “We need to make decisions on energy more democratic and give our communities a direct say into new onshore wind farms where they live. In future, I want planning decisions on onshore wind farms to be made by local people – not by politicians in Westminster.”

However those in the green energy industry had been most concerned about the pledge to end subsidies, amid uncertainty over the detail of the plans.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

PS – 28:

STROAT WIND TURBINE MEETING 19:30hrs. Friday 19-Jun-2015 + Update.

Hi,

re: Hanley Farm Giant Wind Turbine Planning Application PO365/15/FUL – standing 3 times the height of the tallest tree in The Forest of Dean & 100 feet higher than Gloucester Cathedral – an application to industrialise the AoONB ajoining the SSI unshielded from standing out in the landscape with the risk of acting as yet another, but the most notable, moving distraction ajoining THE most dangerous road in Europe.

For more details, facts and opinions see:
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

A MEETING:
19:30hrs. Friday 19-Jun-2015 – sorry about the short notice!
You may not have seen these to scale photographs of this industrial structure which are on the web site and would clearly damage our community, putting at risk the lives of drivers on the notoriously dangerous A48, where sadly fatalities are commonplace – a fact that is likely to be exacerbated by such a huge moving structure so close to such a busy road – not even taking into consideration ther added danger of several 100 large vehicle movements during its construction and the heavy haulage service equipment which will be required over time!

VIEW PHOTOS IN PS-26 ABOVE /\
01. Arrow Indicates Wind Turbine to Scale
02. Wind Turbine to Scale from Philpots Court Farm
03. Wind Turbine to Scale from Hanley Lane & Boughspring
04. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath looking North East
05. Wind Turbine to Scale from Footpath above Philpots Court Farm

As a member of the community who would be most damaged by this planning application were it to be foist upon the community – you will be pleased to note that the application was rejected with only one vote, based largely on political dogma rather than planning issues or factual details, in favour by our community council’s planning committee.

Many very varied letters of objection, many with copious detailed facts and a wide variety of pertinent planning issues have been lodged from members of the community, in defence of Tidenham and the beauty and amenity of the area and the Severn Estuary in general rather than the parochial NIMBYism.
Amongst the many letters of objection are very accurately dealt with by amongst others Robert Hillman, of Philpotts Court – a professional in the field of planning; also a very sound letter on behalf of members of the community by Julia Joseph, also a professional planning consultant; a letter from David Mitchell_Smith a retired Police Inspector, outlining the danger to drivers and transport on the A48 (potentially fatal) for 12 to 15 years, the likely survival period of this installation as shown by the track record of similar installations; & consider the various letters from medical Doctors with concerns at the effect on health for those living near the turbine both from noise, vibration and flicker – particularly those who even the applicants concede will experience noise levels of 35DBs, however they would seem to have failed to note the DB exposure of many who will be effected – as with The Equestrian Centre and other properties just as close or those level with the turbine and blades in the community on Hanley Lane, Tidenham Lane & Rosemary lane who will be on the same level and thus in the air density band of the noise output!
I will refrain from over detailed reiteration of the many well argued and accurately and well presented facts showing the grounds for objection to this application, as I feel sure that not only will the officer concerned make clear the detail of some of these submissions but thus in not labouring the point I feel there is no need to yet again show how febrile is the applicant’s case for this industrialisation of this beautiful rural area.
Were there a genuine interest in alternative energy supply, a ause at which Wind Turbines are notoriously ineffectual, perhaps the applicant would consider placing on every south facing roof of the many matt black barn they own a shiny black solar panel – as at least solar panels do perform with some degree of valid efficacy. I appreciate there may well be less grant income from this more productive electricity generation scheme, however such level of efficacy may concern the applicants as it could well outstrip the capacity of the proposed link and line capacity of the grid at this point, whereas the lesser output of a wind turbine most of the time may make such a connection viable without the added expense (no doubt grant aided) of installing a new grid cable to a suitable sub-station!
It is also worthy of note the inaccuracy of many areas of the application, which have been far more eloquently presented than could I, as with one property where the applicant said ‘some windows will have an oblique view of the installation’, when in fact the property in question has 19 windows directly facing this enormous carbuncle blotting the landscape!
There was also a very poor spread of communication on the entire issue within the community, it is to be hoped that a part of the planning committee will act with forethought and ensure the applicants position a static balloon in situr indicating the true height of the upper blade tips, so that all may be aware of the actual size of this immense turbine, which were it standing in The Wye at Wintour’s Leap view point would out top the cliffs and in its planned site will be higher than Tidenham Memorial Hall and will not only effect the views from various listed buildings but also visible from many of the historic view points in the Forest of Dean that attract so many tourists who bring jobs and wealth to the area.

One should also be minded that at a very recent count of the items of support very very few are other than standard letters seemingly gathered on the internet and drummed up from individuals with little direct interest, including many from far afield and when counted would seem only to represent some 54 households, many from outside of the community and with an undeniable disregard for the community! Seemingly most of the various such letters have been commercially obtained by the applicants or their agents in the interest of tapping into the subsidies in a cynical effort to exploit a now discredited subsidy structure for these economically non-viable structures.

It is to be hoped that our representatives will act with integrity, in the spirit of the law wherein it has been shown and decided that these wind turbines – be they industrial farms with many turbines or small holdings of a single turbine, or as in this case a collective of small holdings with a common ownership interest of the professional agents for the application who have valued their interest in a mere single site at St. Braivels, although it is only 20% effective as being £1/2Million thus seemingly valuing the subsidy income at around £1Million in profitable value even on an basis of 80% failure to perform!
That the Government has clearly stated it will withdraw subsidies from April 2016, it would clearly be an act of gross defiance for the planning authority to assist an applicant to get their plan in ‘under the wire’, particularly as to date there has been absolutely no meaningful public consultation in current terms nor a current comprehensive bat or bird survey – merely an update lacking convincing year round scientific survey data.

It is clear that this application is not seen as in the interest of the community it is the applicant’s aim to foist it upon.
We are now in the latter stages of the application with a site meeting by the FODDC planning committee scheduled for 10:55hrs. 23-Jun-2015.

Although the prefered period for public submissions is officially over it is legally incumbent upon the planning authority to accept submissions up until the date at which the application is heard by the Council Planning Committee. Though I am sure Stephen Colegate, the designated council officer responsible for presenting the report on this application for the elected Councillors to consider, would appreciate it if any late submissions could be sent in as soon as possible, for both his and the planning committees perusal and consideration.
Representation has been made on behalf of a body of us by Sue & Peter Wright expressing our concerns at the fact that Tidenham Parish is somewhat short of ethical and uninvolved representation in this matter, as the applicant Moira Edwards is a new Councillor who is on the planning committee having stood recently for the Council, yet having failed to inform the electorate that she was the applicant in a majoreffort to change the nature of this region by industrialising a very visible and rural part of the Parish. Our second representative Gethyn Davies who is a member of the planning committee and has made it known it is thus his duty to consider the matter only on planning issues thus possibly not representing the interests of the parish, the AoONB, the SSI and the visual amenity of the area nor representing his constituents who will have the noise and flicker effect inflicted on them . Our third representative is Helen Molynew, not only is she a new Councillor but let us not forget she is the Mother of the Council Leader whose nomination was sponsored by the applicant Mrs. Edwards!

We are blandly assured that members of the planning committee are honour bound to prorogue themselves by declaration of interest – however this does nothing to allay our fear that we are not validly represented as a Parish in any meaningfull manner, as is expected of our democracy!

Perhaps this is why there has been no meaningful consultation, why largely misleading photo montages have been accepted from the applicants, why sinage was not present for a substantial period of that required, why the application is being accepted as put forward with outdated reports and why facts would seem to have been misrepresented by the applicant.

It may also explain why the approval of the application fell during the period in which Parliament had been prorogued for the General Election and public attention was diverted and we found ourselves with new and inexper5ienced councillors in situ to represent our community, were they able in the light of their personal interests!

Penultimately:
My personal thanks to Mark Harper MP for his personal attention to my letter of concern and objection re planning application PO365/15/FUL, and my thanks for having taken up various of the issues on my behalf with Mr. Peter Williams, Group Manager, Planning and Housing department at the FODDC and his considered response ref: FD111709 01-Jun-2015.

My letter having been a copy of my letter of objection and concern eMailed to Stephen Colegate, which interestingly would not seem to have been published on the FODDC Planning Web Site, unlike others sucvh as the many repetitive standard letters of support for the applicant! I am tempted to speculate why!

To discuss these issues it is my pleasure to pass on to you an invitation to a meeting at the home of Molly & Keith Mayo, at Wibdon Farm, Stroat on the main A48 road on the left if you are approaching from Chepstow.

Should you require any further details please feel free to phone me, if you can not find the answers on the web site at:
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

I do hope you can attend the discussion hosted by Molly & Keith Mayo at Wibdon Farm 19:30hrs. Friday 19-Jun-2015 – sorry about the short notice!

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins
eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com
Phone: 01594 – 528 337 – Calls from withheld numbers are blocked & calls are recorded

PS – 29:

News story

Changes to onshore wind subsidies protect investment and get the best deal for bill payers

The Government intends to end new public subsidies for onshore wind farms by legislating to close the Renewables Obligation across Great Britain to new onshore wind generating stations from 1 April 2016.

The Government intends to end new public subsidies for onshore wind farms by legislating to close the Renewables Obligation across Great Britain to new onshore wind generating stations from 1 April 2016.

Up to 5.2GW of onshore wind capacity could be eligible for grace periods which the Government is minded to offer to projects that already have planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance, as well as evidence of land rights.

In 2014, over £800m of Government subsidies helped onshore wind to generate 5% of the UK’s total electricity, with the high volume of onshore wind either deployed or in the pipeline meaning that the UK is well on the way to meeting its climate change targets.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd said:

“We have a long-term plan to keep the lights on and our homes warm, power the economy with cleaner energy, and keep bills as low as possible for hard-working families.

“As part of our plan, we are committed to cutting our carbon emissions by fostering enterprise, competition, opportunity and growth. We want to help technologies stand on their own two feet, not encourage a reliance on public subsidies.

“So we are driving forward our commitment to end new onshore wind subsidies and give local communities the final say over any new windfarms. Onshore wind is an important part of our energy mix and we now have enough subsidised projects in the pipeline to meet our renewable energy commitments”.

DECC will look at options to continue support for community energy projects, as part of the Feed-in Tariff Review later this year.

DECC have already announced measures in the Queen’s speech to change the law to give local communities the final say on onshore windfarm applications.

Notes to editors:

• We will be introducing primary legislation to close the RO to new onshore wind from 1st April 2016.

To view the web source CLICK HERE

PS – 30:

Taxpayer subsidy for wind farms to end a year early as locals get the right to veto new turbines near their homes

  • Tory government aces subsidies for onshore wind farms from April 2016 
  • Energy Secretary Amber Rudd said: ‘We’ve got enough wind energy’
  • Government surveys show 65% of people support onshore turbines 

Taxpayer subsidies for wind farms are to be axed a year early with local people given chance to block turbines near their homes. 

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd today said ‘we’ve got enough wind energy’ as she promised to end new public subsidies for onshore developments.

But the Scottish government immediately threatened a legal challenge to the decision, claiming it will have a ‘disproportionate impact’ north of the border.

Taxpayer subsidies for wind farms are to be axed a year early with local people given chance to block turbines near their homes

Taxpayer subsidies for wind farms are to be axed a year early with local people given chance to block turbines near their homes

During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to ‘halt the spread of onshore wind farms’.

David Cameron warned they often fail to win public support and are unable by themselves to provide the energy capacity that the country needs.

The Tory manifesto proposed to ‘end any new public subsidy for them and change the law so that local people have the final say on windfarm applications’.

However environmental campaigners and some in the renewable energy industry have criticised the Conservatives for attacking the cheapest form of clean energy.

Government surveys suggest onshore wind farms are supported by 65 per cent of people. But Miss Rudd told Sky News: ‘People who actually live near them aren’t so happy. Generally people in the country like them, but living right next to them isn’t so good.

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd today said ‘we’ve got enough wind energy’ as she promised to end new public subsidies for onshore developments

‘But the fact is I think we’ve got enough wind energy and there are other sources of renewable energy that we need to use our precious money to support.

‘So it’s a question of getting that balance right, balancing between making our targets and doing it in the most cost-effective way.’ –

Under the plans, the ‘renewables obligation’ scheme, through which subsidies are paid to renewable schemes, will be closed to onshore wind farms from April 1, 2016.

There will be a grace period offered to projects that already have planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance and evidence that the scheme has the right to use the land.

This could allow up to 5.2 gigawatts (GW) of wind capacity to go ahead – potentially leading to hundreds more wind turbines going up in the countryside across the UK.

The renewables obligation has already been closed to large scale solar farms, amid Tory concerns that the technology was a blight on the landscape, and is due to close to all new renewables schemes in 2017.

A new system for subsidies for low carbon energy, known as ‘contracts for difference’ is being brought in, and it is not clear whether new onshore wind farms will be eligible for the scheme in the future, though it is believed to be unlikely they will.

More than £800 million of subsidies – which are paid for through consumer bills – helped onshore wind generate 5 per cent of the UK’s total electricity last year, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said/

But Scotland’s Energy Minister Fergus Ewing MSP threatened to take the UK Government to court over the decision to end subsidies.

He said: ‘The decision by the UK Government to end the Renewables Obligation next year is deeply regrettable and will have a disproportionate impact on Scotland as around 70 per cent of onshore wind projects in the UK planning system are here.

‘This announcement goes further than what had been previously indicated. It is not the scrapping of a ‘new’ subsidy that was promised but a reduction of an existing regime – and one under which companies and communities have already planned investment.

‘Onshore wind is already the lowest cost of all low carbon options, as well the vital contribution it makes towards tackling climate change, which means it should be the last one to be scrapped, curtailed or restricted.’

Government surveys suggest onshore wind farms are supported or strongly supported by 65 per cent of people

Government surveys suggest onshore wind farms are supported or strongly supported by 65 per cent of people

WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said: ‘This decision risks undermining the development of the cheapest form of renewables in the country, and is bad news for Scotland’s clean energy ambitions.

‘Cutting support early for the lowest cost renewable technology is a backward step that will either see bills rise or climate targets missed.

‘Opinion polls consistently show onshore wind to be one of the most popular forms of electricity, generating thousands of jobs across Scotland and helping to cut our carbon emissions.

‘We urge the UK Government to rethink its plans to end early its support for onshore wind.’ 

Greenpeace UK energy and climate campaigner Daisy Sands said: ‘Ministers have just moved to raise everyone’s energy bills by blocking the cheapest form of clean power, whilst continuing to back the impossibly expensive Hinkley C and going ‘all out’ for unpopular, risky, and unproven fracking. 

‘Even if this omnishambles of an energy policy survives the many legal challenges threatened against it, it will send a clear message to international investors that the UK government is willing to wreck our power sector to please their most ideological backbenchers. This mistake will cost the UK dearly.

To read the original article CLICK HERE

PS – 31:

A possible crumb of comfort, in the short term, for those seeking to exploit the tax payers to feast on subsidies at the expense of the environment, as they exploit the unscientific claims surrounding climate change, global warming and the efficacy of wind turbines for their personal profit at the expense of the community:

Wind turbine

During the five years of the Coalition, a popular question was what a Conservative government would look like if it were not restrained by Nick Clegg and his phalanx of balls and chains.

The early days of David Cameron’s second term offer many answers, but Amber Rudd has offered one of her own by announcing an end to Government subsidies for on-shore wind developments.

In the last Parliament the turbine-sceptic agenda was championed by Eric Pickles, who campaigned for local vetoes over new developments.

Along with gay marriage and aid spending, wind farms were part of an eclectic clutch of policies UKIP were attacking heavily on, and the Tories were keen to limit the damage.

To that end John Hayes was appointed Energy Minister, with instructions from David Cameron to “deliver a win for our people on windfarms”.

However he proved unable to loosen Ed Davey’s hold on the Department, and after what Politics Home describes as a “short but heavyweight reign” he was moved out of DECC after only eight months.

Of course, last month Davey’s grip on power was loosened decisively when he lost his seat to the Tories, who now have a chance to make good on their promises in this area as in so many others.

Yet the devil lies in the detail: the previous Government would often make an announcement that garnered impressive headlines yet delivered rather less than said coverage implied.

Indeed, the Telegraph reports that a ‘grace period’ loophole built into Rudd’s announcement could still allow for the subsidised construction of almost three thousand turbines before the wind farm support programme is finally halted.

In addition to predictable resistance by the wind energy industry, the Scottish Government looks set to pick a fight over the subsidies and has threatened possible legal action.

Rural campaigners and the Scottish Conservatives, who have campaigned against new wind developments, must hope that the Government sticks to its guns this time

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

PS – 32:

Some up to date stats & extrapolation thereof:

The figures below are based on the bulleted points of Ofgem, Renewable UK

  • 5,061 onshore turbines in the UK
  • 18,000 gigawatt hours of electrcity generated by onshore turbines in 2014
  • 5.5 million homes could run for a year on that power
  • 5.6% of the UK total electricity needs

One should be minded that the Conservatives also say that the onshore turbines “often fail to win public support and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires”.

Some reports estimate that almost 3,000 wind turbines are awaiting planning permission!

In very round terms that would push up the numbers to around 8,000 turbines and constitute around 9% of the UK total e;ectricity need showing that to convert to wind developed power we would require a total of some 80,000 turbines + of course a guarantee of exactly the right wind conditions to power them at 100% efficiency!

The downside of this entire farce when considered as a solution to our power needs that can be relied on is that however many turbines are imposed upon the countryside and whatever the damage thus done to the visual amenity and the health and well being of the populace at large, wind turbines will not only require a subsidy for ever but will also fail to provide a reliable source of energy!

With 100% of our electrical power needs theoretically supplied by 80>100,000 wind turbines, do be minded of the fact that based on current track record they will ALL have to be replaced every 12>15 years and we will have to build sufficient mnuclear power stations to match the 100% power needs as wind turbines can not be relied on – Wind turbines are thus little more than an extraordinarily expensive, politically correct luxury and to many a curse!

One is forced to ask firstly whether there is in fact, in these constrained times, either the political will or more practically the hard cash to fund these tokens of panic, when clearly they still leave us with the bill for building nuclear power stations and seeking other inexpensive energy sources such as fracking.

Withdrawal of the subsidies are bound to cause shock waves to those parasitically feeding off the tax payers, not least of whom are Scotland with some 3,000 turbines
Scotland has more than half the UK's onshore wind turbines, according to official figures
who enjoy a £3Bn a year turbine subsidy at the expense of the British tax payers!

This shows a subsidy cost of around £1Bn per 1,000 turbines thus clearly we would be unable to continue subsidies as that would amount to around £100Bn a year when cheaper, more practical and less damaging nuclear power stations still need to be built due to the unreliable inefficiency of wind power!

.

PS – 33:

House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS42)
Department for Communities and Local Government
Written Statement made by:
Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Greg Clark)
on 18 Jun 2015.
Local planning:
I am today setting out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto.

Subject to the transitional provision set out below, these considerations will take effect from 18 June and should be taken into account in planning decisions. I am also making a limited number of consequential changes to planning guidance.
When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:
  • · the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and
  • · following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.

In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the local planning authority.

Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has already been submitted to a local planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites, the following transitional provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.
To view this Government statement at source CLICK HERE

PS – 34:

Press release

Giving local people the final say over onshore wind farms

Local residents must have the final say over whether onshore wind farm applications get the go-ahead in their area.

Local residents must have the final say over whether onshore wind farm applications get the go-ahead in their area, Communities Secretary Greg Clark announced.

While onshore wind now makes a meaningful contribution to our energy mix, they are often imposed upon communities without consultation or public support.

From today new planning rules change that and mean wind turbines should only get the go-ahead if they have been clearly backed by local people in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan.

Any application to build wind turbines will then need to have the clear backing of the community – with any planning concerns clearly addressed.

Power in the hands of local people

Radical reforms to the planning system have put power in the hands of local people, enabling them to have a greater say in the future development of their local area through Local and Neighbourhood Plans.

Today’s planning rules mean that when considering a planning application for wind turbines in their area, councils should only grant permission if:

  • the site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy as part of a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and
  • following consultation, the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore has their backing

This second test will ensure the planning concerns of local communities are addressed – even if they give their backing for wind farms in their area through the Local or Neighbourhood Plan.

If a planning application has already been made for wind turbines in an area where the local plan does not identify suitable sites, the council will only be able to approve the application where it addresses the planning concerns of the affected community and therefore has local backing.

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Greg Clark said:

Our One Nation approach is about backing people on the issues that really matter to them and we are today delivering on our manifesto commitment to give local people the final say over onshore wind farm applications.

Further information

Details of the new planning changes have been outlined in a Written Statement to Parliament.

Office address and general enquiries

2 Marsham Street
London

SW1P 4DF

Media enquiries

Open Government Licence

PS – 35:

A Legal Caveat To Councils, Officers & Councillors:

Onshore wind farms – locals to have final say

Following today’s announcement that subsidies for onshore wind will be cut from 1 April 2016, Communities Secretary Greg Clark has now revealed that local residents will have the final say as to whether applications for onshore wind farms are successful.

From today, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:

  • the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and
  • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and the proposal has their backing.

It is important to note that these provisions do not only apply to large scale wind farm developments; local planning authorities will be bound by these criteria in relation to planning applications involving one or more wind turbines.  This effectively means that all onshore wind development, even that of a very small scale, will be affected.

If a planning application has already been submitted, it will not automatically be refused if the development plan does not identify suitable sites. However, the local planning authority must be satisfied that the project has the backing of the local community.

Although this was expected following a commitment in the Conservative election manifesto, it is interesting to see that Mr Clark has not opted for a referendum on each individual scheme which might have been the worst case scenario.  However, this does move some of the battle from individual schemes to the Local and Neighbourhood Plan process, which will be a new arena for wind farm developers.

Contributor: Alexandra Holsgrove Jones
 
This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at June 2015. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases; we cannot be held responsible for any action (or decision not to take action) made in reliance upon the content of this publication.

TLT LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales number OC 308658 whose registered office is at One Redcliff Street, Bristol BS1 6TP England. A list of members (all of whom are solicitors or lawyers) can be inspected by visiting the People section of this website. TLT LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 406297.

To view the source document CLICK HERE

PS – 36:

HANSARD: Debate of Wind Turbine Subsidies re Onshore Turbines.
It would seem clear that ALL onshore Turbines that are not granted planning applications by 18-Jun-2015 will find themselves without subsidy! This will almost definitely bring a halt to onshore turbine development as wind turbines are an inefficient, unreliable, environmentally costly failure in economic terms for producing electricity. Particulary those ‘passed off’ a so called ‘Community Projects’.

22 Jun 2015 : Column 617
Onshore Wind Subsidies
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on ending new subsidies for onshore wind.
The Government are committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon emissions and to continuing to make progress towards the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets. The renewable electricity programme aims to deliver at least 30% of the UK’s electricity demand from renewables by 2020. We are on course to achieve that objective. Renewables already make up almost 20% of our electricity generation and there is a strong pipeline to deliver the rest.
As we decarbonise, it is imperative that we manage the costs to consumers. Although renewable energy costs have been coming down, subsidies still form part of people’s energy bills, and as the share of renewables in the mix grows, the impact gets proportionately larger. One of the Government’s priorities is to bring about the transition to low-carbon generation as cost-effectively and securely as possible.
The levy control framework, covering the period up to 2020-21, is one of the tools to help to achieve that. It limits the impact of support for low-carbon electricity on consumer bills. We have a responsibility to manage support schemes efficiently within the levy control framework to ensure that we maintain public support for the action we are taking to bring down carbon emissions and to combat climate change.
Government support is designed to help technologies to stand on their own two feet, not to encourage a permanent reliance on subsidies. We must continue to take tough judgments about what new projects get subsidies. Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is an important part of our energy mix.
In 2014, onshore wind made up around 5% of electricity generation, supported by around £800 million of subsidies. At the end of April 2015, there were 490 operational onshore wind farms in the UK, comprising 4,751 turbines in total. Those wind farms have an installed capacity of 8.3 GW—enough to power the equivalent of over 4.5 million homes.
The electricity market reform delivery plan projects that we require between 11 and 13 GW of electricity to be provided by onshore wind by 2020 to meet our 2020 renewable electricity generation objective, while remaining within the limits of what is affordable. We now have enough onshore wind in the pipeline, including projects that have planning permission, to meet that requirement comfortably.
Without action, we are very likely to deploy beyond that range. We could end up with more onshore wind projects than we can afford, which would lead to either higher bills for consumers, or other renewable technologies, such as offshore wind, losing out on support. We need to continue investing in less mature technologies so that they realise their promise, just as onshore wind has done. It is therefore appropriate to curtail further subsidised deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore developers with those of bill payers.
22 Jun 2015 : Column 618
This Government were elected with a commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to change the law so that local people have the final say on onshore wind applications. Colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and, additionally, my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), have led the way in calling for this. Six weeks into this Government, we are acting on that commitment. Alongside proposals outlined within the new energy Bill to devolve decision making for new onshore wind farms out of Whitehall, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has set out further considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development in England so that local people have the final say on onshore wind farm applications.
I set out to Parliament on 18 June proposals to end new subsidies for onshore wind, specifically in relation to the renewables obligation, which will be closed to new onshore wind from 1 April 2016—a year earlier than planned. My Department’s analysis indicates that, after taking account of an early closure, onshore wind deployment under the RO will be in the region of 11.6 GW. With that capacity, and the capacity of onshore wind projects that have received support through the new contracts for difference, we expect about 12.3 GW of onshore wind to be operating in the UK by 2020, supported by the levy control framework, which will provide about 10% of electricity generation. That puts us above the middle of the deployment range set out in the EMR delivery plan, which provides our best estimates of what we will need to meet the planned contribution from renewable electricity for our 2020 targets.
I have proposed a grace period that will continue to give access to support under the RO to projects that, as of 18 June 2015, had planning consent, a grid connection and acceptance and evidence of land rights for the sites on which their projects will be built. We estimate that about 7.1 GW of the onshore wind capacity that has been proposed across the UK will not be eligible for the grace period and is therefore unlikely to go ahead as a result of the announcement on 18 June. That equates to about 250 projects, totalling about 2,500 turbines, that are unlikely to be built.
Therefore, by closing the RO to onshore wind early, we are ensuring that we meet our renewable electricity objectives, while managing the impact on consumer bills and ensuring that other renewables technologies continue to develop and reduce their costs. Consumer bills will not rise because of this change. Indeed, the onshore wind projects that are unlikely to go ahead could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. I believe that we have drawn the line in the right place.
In advance of this announcement, I and other Ministers and officials discussed the proposals with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We want to hear the further views of the devolved Administrations, as well as of industry and other stakeholders. This is just the beginning of the process, and we will continue to consult them as we move towards implementation.
The changes to the renewables obligation do not affect remote island wind proposals, which would not have been in a position to receive RO subsidy even under the
22 Jun 2015 : Column 619
previous timelines. I will say more about how future CfD projects will be treated in due course. However, I am conscious that 68% of the onshore wind pipeline relates to projects in Scotland. I will continue to consult colleagues in the Scottish Government. Indeed, I am meeting the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, on Wednesday. Because we are implementing these changes through primary legislation, they will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including by Members representing Scottish constituencies.
On contracts for difference, we have the tools available to implement our manifesto commitments on onshore wind and will set out how we will do so when we announce our plans for further CfD allocations. I will shortly be considering options for future support for community onshore wind projects that might represent one or two turbines through the feed-in tariff, as part of the review that my Department is conducting this year. I do not wish to stand in the way of local communities coming together to generate low-carbon electricity in a manner that is acceptable to and supported by them, including through small-scale wind capacity. However, that action must be affordable as well as acceptable.
Clean energy does not begin and end with onshore wind. Onshore wind is an important part of our current and future low-carbon energy mix, but we are reaching the limits of what is affordable and what the public are prepared to accept. We are committed to meeting our decarbonisation objectives. The changes that I have outlined to Parliament will not change that. I look forward to having meaningful discussions with industry, other stakeholders and colleagues in the House and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on how we will move forward.
3.43 pm
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement today at 2.22 pm.
It is only four days since I heard the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme, explaining her Government’s policy changes to onshore wind. That was followed by a written statement later that morning, along with a written statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the same subject. Today, she has been forced to come to the House because of the confusion and concern that she has caused. There is concern about the Government’s commitment to our renewable targets and to supporting value for money. There is confusion as to how her policy will apply in practice, and confusion across the renewables sector, where certainty to encourage investment is paramount.
I made clear to the onshore wind sector before the general election that, although I did not support a cap, a clear pathway to being subsidy-free was an outcome I wanted, so why do I have doubts about the Secretary of State’s announcements? We know, despite the fact that something like 69% of the public support onshore wind—it is the most popular of the renewable energy-generating supply technologies—[Interruption.] It is true. We know that the Secretary of State wants to appease many of her Back Benchers, who seem to hate onshore wind, although one of them is making money out of a solar farm. The election promise of a cap on onshore
22 Jun 2015 : Column 620
wind was music to their ears, although they were probably not aware that nearly 1,000 projects had planning permission. It is not clear to me and many others whether the sum of all the Secretary of State’s rhetoric really adds up.
The Secretary of State has proposed a grace period for projects that, as of last week when the written statement was made, had in place planning consent, access to the grid and land rights. Can she confirm that, according to her statement today, that means something like 75% of onshore wind projects with consent will go ahead? The changes to the rules will have to be done through primary legislation, and it could be at least six months between last week’s statement and Royal Assent.
Can I ask the Secretary of State whether, as part of her consultation, she is open to projects that have planning consent, a grid access offer and all land rights sorted before Royal Assent, being able to continue with the RO arrangement to 2017? In last week’s press release, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said that up to 5.2 GW of onshore wind power could still qualify, but other estimates are much lower.
In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to 11.6 GW, putting us in the mid-range of fulfilling our 2020 targets for renewable energy. Does that include the 5.2 GW figure? If 5.2 GW is an overestimate, that presumably makes meeting our target less likely. Given that we found out last week that we have already missed our interim 2020 EU renewable targets, that is extremely concerning. What discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about how many local or neighbourhood plans are required to identify areas suitable for wind energy? What additional costs may be incurred by councils from having to pre-empt planning applications to avoid a company challenging a decision? Out of interest and in the interests of a logical argument, why do these changes to planning policy not apply to all energy generation?
UK-wide energy policy has enabled all of us to share the risks and rewards of developing new and old forms of energy. While Scotland makes up just over 10% of UK households, over 30% of operational onshore wind projects are located in Scotland because of the amount of wind and the contribution of UK-wide bill payers, so it is understandable that Scotland will be worried about the impact on jobs and investment there. What will the Secretary of State do to give confidence to colleagues in the devolved institutions that there will be a genuine process of consultation?
Despite the Prime Minister’s warm words on tackling climate change in this most important year of global negotiations, this Parliament has hardly begun, but the cheapest form of renewable energy is already under attack and other renewable investors are worried that they will be next. I want our country to go forwards, not backwards. This debate is not about hot air; it is about jobs, manufacturing and investment opportunities at risk across the sector. In her answers today, the Secretary of State needs to convince us that she understands what is at stake.
Amber Rudd: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. May I first take the opportunity to remind her that this policy was well set out before she heard me on the “Today” programme? It was in the Queen’s Speech, in the manifesto and the Prime Minister had referred to
22 Jun 2015 : Column 621
the fact that a Conservative Government would take this action. I have in no way been forced to come here. I chose to come here to make a statement after a number of colleagues wanted the opportunity to have their voice heard in support of what is happening. I am delighted to give them the opportunity to do so.
The right hon. Lady chose to question the Conservative party’s commitment to addressing our climate change obligations. Fortunately, she gave me the opportunity to talk about that just 10 days or so ago, when one of the first Opposition-day debates of the Parliament was about climate change. I was able to tell her and the House about the Government’s commitment to meeting the targets and the commitment of the Government and the Prime Minister to getting a deal in Paris this year. We are committed to ensuring that we deliver on our decarbonisation targets but, just as importantly, we are committed to getting a global deal. We do not want to do this alone. We need to provide leadership in the EU and internationally to ensure that our effort is truly leveraged so that we can get that result at the end of the year.
It is disappointing that the right hon. Lady chooses to throw confusion where none exists. I think I was very clear in my statement about the gigawatts involved and the range that we were targeting, but I repeat for her that we hoped to have 10% of electricity generation from wind by 2020, and we are reaching that target early. That is a key reason for ending the subsidy for onshore wind now. We wanted to fall in the middle of the range, and in fact it looks likely that we will be slightly towards the upper end. Having achieved that, it is right that we do not put further pressure on people’s bills. Unlike her and the Labour party, we believe that we can do this in a cost-effective way. We are absolutely committed to supporting renewables, but we want to do it by the most low-cost pathway we can.
In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question about regulation, and particularly planning permission for different sources of energy, it is right that different sources have different types of regulation and fall under different planning regimes. Part of what we are trying to do is to encourage new energy sources, in order to meet our targets and lead to cost reductions. That is why we have different set-ups for different sources—to get the best outcome for both our targets and bill payers.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me about Scotland. I have no doubt that I will be answering questions from Scottish National party Members, and I look forward to taking them and addressing them. I have had many conversations with the devolved Administrations, and I look forward to taking further questions from them.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and encourage her to ignore the hot air coming from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the Opposition on this subject?
I thank my right hon. Friend for all she is doing to prevent Lincolnshire from being carpeted with wind turbines, which nobody in my constituency wants. Will her Department be prepared to publish on its website a list of all the projects that her announcement will affect, so that people in Lincolnshire and across the country
22 Jun 2015 : Column 622
who do not want to see the countryside carpeted with turbines know whether individual projects are going ahead?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his question. I know that he has felt, representing his community, that there has been too much deployment in his area. I recognise the support that he has provided in helping us to develop our policy.
Each developer will need to contact the Department for us to give a complete answer, and we will work with developers to ensure that it is clear which projects are within the provisions and which are not. At some stage —my hon. and learned Friend will have to give me a little time—that will be published on the website.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for early sight of it.
The Secretary of State said that, six weeks into this Government’s time in office, they were acting on this policy, and of course they are, but that does not make it right. She said that we were reaching the limits of what is affordable. We agree—we have reached the limits of what is affordable in the strike price and subsidy for nuclear. She said that we have reached the limits of what the public are prepared to accept. I think the public have already reached the limit on the failure to decarbonise and tackle climate change.
This decision is simply wrong, and the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) was instructive. The Government are prepared to publish all the projects that are pulled; I hope the Secretary of State will also publish all the jobs that are lost and the investment forgone because of the decision. [Interruption.] I hear a lot of chuntering. I think we are getting to the truth now—Government Members simply do not like renewables. They would rather see the costs of nuclear decommissioning passed on to future generations.
We are concerned mainly about the damage that the decision will do. The announcement places at risk a huge investment pipeline conceived in good faith by developers under the rules previously in place. Is the Secretary of State aware that the decision has a disproportionate impact on Scotland, and that it puts investment at risk? She appears to be aware that around 70% of the onshore wind projects in the current planning system are in Scotland. On that basis, is she aware of what Niall Stuart, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, has said? He said:
“Cutting support for onshore wind would be bad for jobs, bad for investment and would only hinder Scotland and the UK’s efforts to meet binding climate change targets.”
Is the Secretary of State not concerned at all that, currently, £3 billion-worth of onshore wind projects in the pipeline in Scotland are at risk with so sudden a closing of the renewables obligation, that that will do incredible damage, and that it will put at risk investor confidence not simply in offshore wind, but in the wider UK energy sector?
I agree with the Secretary of State that the subsidy cost of renewables must decrease, so that both renewables and climate targets are achieved at the lowest cost and so that consumers are protected, but is she not concerned about the danger of a headlong rush to scrap subsidies
22 Jun 2015 : Column 623
for onshore wind, the cheapest large-scale renewable technology? Has she ignored comments from the industry, not least from Keith Anderson, the chief ScottishPower Renewables? He said:
“Onshore wind is clearly still the most cost effective large scale way of deploying renewable technology in the UK. Economically, you would therefore question, why in God’s name would you want to bring that to a premature halt?”
Mr Speaker: Order. I feel confident that the hon. Gentleman is in his last sentence, and much nearer the end of it than the beginning.
Stewart Hosie: I am indeed, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State said last week that up to 5.2 GW of onshore wind capacity would be eligible for a grace period. We found out later that that figure was only 2.9 GW. Today, she said that 7.1% would no longer be eligible for subsidy. Why did she not come clean last week with the proper figures?
Amber Rudd: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe he has failed to accept any of the points I have made about the Government’s commitment to addressing climate change, our commitment to keeping the bills down and our commitment to delivering a variety of renewable energy sources. It is not just about onshore wind.
The hon. Gentleman also failed to acknowledge that, in some environments, there is too much pressure on communities in respect of onshore wind. I gently quote to him Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism. In 2007, he said:
“Wind farms have…a very heavy environmental footprint”
and
“also…release…substantial quantities of methane from peat landscapes…many other forms of renewable energy are the future—not unconstrained wind farms”.
I agree with him on that. We must recognise that, sometimes, when Members of Parliament choose to fight for their community, they take a different view from that of the national party. I am here representing the views of Members of Parliament as well as the national party. We believe that our policy addresses communities and keeps bills down.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that, although this is a welcome measure, other things will be needed to control bills and tackle fuel poverty? Is it not interesting that only the Conservative party in the House cares about the consumer and wants to get the bills down?
Amber Rudd: My right hon. Friend is characteristically on the money. Addressing that is absolutely our aim. We are trying to reduce emissions and give a variety of renewable energy, and to ensure that individuals who look at their bills when they get home see that they continue to come down.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): How much investment and how many jobs will be lost to the economy of the south-west of England as a result of the Secretary of State’s decision?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 624
Amber Rudd: The investment in renewable energy over the past six years has been £7 billion a year. We are committed to ensuring that the UK is the leading country in developing renewable energy. We have been particularly successful in offshore wind—we have more offshore wind than the rest of the world put together and hope to become a serious exporter of it. Renewable energy is important for jobs and important for building on our commitments.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and it is great to hear that we are on course to meet 30% of our electricity generation from renewables. She is right to divert the resources into less mature technologies, but can she reassure my constituents that that will not mean that we see a further expansion in very large-scale field solar across south Devon? Perhaps we will see more support for community energy schemes, and I hope that she will take me up on an offer to visit Totnes to see how those work in action.
Amber Rudd: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend and her constituents sound very similar to mine. We support the desire to make sure that we address the issue of climate change: the problem is that we do not want large-scale solar. In fact, large-scale solar has already been taken out of the renewables obligation, but we are trying to support solar so that we have as much as possible through community energy, on people’s houses and on other buildings. There is a great opportunity there.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): The IMF recently reported that Britain subsidises its fossil fuel industry to the tune of more than £1,000 per household, whereas onshore wind is just £10 a household. If the Secretary of State is serious about affordability and climate change, why is she not tackling fossil fuel subsidies, instead of slashing wind—one of the most popular and affordable of the energy sources?
Amber Rudd: I urge the hon. Lady to take a look at that report. I also saw those statements and found them so extraordinary that I asked for a copy of the IMF report. I would be happy to have a discussion with her about it. It is not a direct subsidy in the way that we understand it, although it is an important point. It is right to reduce fossil fuel, especially in its dirtiest form, but the real danger is health and environmental impact, and that is why we need to get rid of the subsidies.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): At the planning stage, a photomontage never really gives an accurate picture of the visual impact of turbines. Will the Secretary of State consider making it compulsory for applicants to fly a blimp in order better to show the real height of any proposed turbine?
Amber Rudd: That is a novel suggestion to me: I am not familiar with the workings of blimps. I look forward to further advice on the issue.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Last Wednesday, tens of thousands of campaigners came to London to ask us to do more on climate change. What do we tell them now about the Government’s priorities when they cut subsidies for renewables and increase them for fracking?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 625
Amber Rudd: I also met constituents and leaders of the march in my Department. I think we should tell them the truth, which is that the Government continue to be the greenest Government ever. We will deliver on our climate change targets, and we are committed to getting a deal in Paris. I urge the hon. Gentleman to stick to the truth.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Now that my right hon. Friend is abolishing subsidies on the least uneconomic form of renewables, may we now assume that she proposes to make corresponding reductions in subsidies for offshore wind, which impose a two or three times greater burden on the cost of living, especially for poor households?
Amber Rudd: I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but we will not reduce those. Now that we have a market-led system through the CfD, we are able to push for a reduction in prices—I know he will approve—and in the CfD auction last year that was very effective in getting the price down.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): May I suggest to the Secretary of State that it would be really helpful if she could publish as much information as possible on the risk analysis she has made of the decision to phase out the subsidy early? Some fear that as we are already behind on the interim targets for the 2020 renewables targets, and given the jeopardy that might put on our climate change obligations, we need to see how well the proposal has been tested, given the risk that some of the projects might fail and undercut it. There might also be a transfer to more expensive renewals should any projects fail. It would help my Committee and others if as much information as possible could be published, so that it can be properly examined.
Amber Rudd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I look forward to getting to know him better. I am sure I will have the opportunity to do so at that Committee.
We do not agree that we have not met our targets. I understand that it was reported as such and I will take an early opportunity to write to him to set that out. I take to heart his advice to make sure we publish as much as possible, above all to win everybody’s confidence that what I am saying is absolutely achievable.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, which I assure her will be widely welcomed across north Wales. Does she agree that onshore wind power has for too long been the low-hanging fruit of renewable energy and has therefore been grossly over-subsidised? Does she agree that her statement today opens the way for advancing more innovative forms of renewable technology, such as, for example, tidal lagoons?
Amber Rudd: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support. I agree that this should give us the opportunity to diversify into other forms of renewable energy—that is one of the key reasons for doing this. We do not want to continue to spend too much money on onshore wind, while we have to harbour our resources, look after the bill payer and make sure we have the greatest opportunity possible to support other forms of renewable energy.
22 Jun 2015 : Column 626
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP): The strike price agreed for nuclear power is £92.50 per MWh at Hinkley Point, which is more expensive than the £82.50 per MWh for onshore renewables. Onshore renewables do not leave future generations with the cost of decommissioning nuclear facilities and waste. Why are the UK Government proceeding with such an irrational decision?
Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to make two points in response. First, our energy needs to be a mix. We cannot purely have renewable energy; we need the base-load stability of having nuclear or some oil and gas to make sure we can deliver regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. That is still an important part of our mix. Secondly, the decommissioning issue he raises is included in the price.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con): May I join hon. Members from across the House in welcoming the Secretary of State’s statement, which will certainly be popular in my south coast constituency? Does she welcome the £9.5 billion investment in offshore wind since 2010, showing that that area of the sector still has lots of room to grow?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Offshore wind has continued to deploy very successfully and prices are coming down. We are delighted that the UK is such a leader in this area and has the real prospect of exporting to other countries as a leader in renewable offshore energy.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): By ending support a year earlier than the right hon. Lady’s Department promised only eight months ago, the Government are sending yet another message to investors that the UK is not a stable regulatory regime in this area. Does she accept the calculations that show onshore wind is not only the cheapest form of new low carbon energy, but that for every pound of development cost, 98 pence is spent creating new jobs in the UK—jobs that were projected to double to 37,000 by 2023 had that support continued?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman fails to incorporate the fact that all that support costs money. We cannot ignore the fact that, obviously, people want subsidies if they are on the receiving end of subsidies, but we have to ensure that we get the good measure of it. He is wrong to say that this Government said this and that Government said that. The fact is that we said, in our manifesto, that if we had a Conservative majority we would deliver this. The industry was not surprised by the outcome here: we committed to ending new subsidies for onshore wind and that is exactly the promise we have kept.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned our hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), my parliamentary neighbour. He and I have worked both individually and together to ensure the best interests of our respective constituents in relation to unsightly and unwelcome wind farms. Will she ensure, in discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, that there is imposed on future wind farms a minimum distance between the wind farm or the turbine, and human habitation—from dwellings?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 627
Amber Rudd: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has been an active campaigner on this issue. As he will see, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is present, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken his comments to heart.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): May I return the Secretary of State to the issue of job losses? Would she like to put on the record how many of the 19,000 people who are employed in the onshore industries will lose their jobs as a result of what she is proposing?
Amber Rudd: The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that the United Kingdom is one of the leaders in renewable energy. We continue to invest and to support a variety of renewable energy sources, and they will continue to provide jobs. It is up to the Government to ensure that we spend the money wisely to maximise the delivery of renewable energy, and, of course, the delivery of new jobs as well.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con): This news will be welcomed throughout North West Hampshire, not least because the Secretary of State has said—twice, I think—that the final say will be given to local communities. Can she reassure those worried communities that that means that they cannot now be overruled by the Planning Inspectorate?
Amber Rudd: Yes, I can.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): Investor confidence is key. On the day that this announcement was made, I was in north Wales for the opening of Gwynt y Môr, the second biggest wind farm in the world. All that the investors could see was a Government who were not committed to wind and renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State tell us, for the benefit of the onshore wind industry—including companies such as West Coast Energy, which is in my constituency—whether there will be a new round of contracts for difference, and, if so, whether onshore wind will feature in any part of it?
Amber Rudd: I said in my statement that, in respect of contracts for difference, we would be implementing the terms of our manifesto.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con): As it is local communities that will have to deal with the visual impact of wind farms, should they not have the final say on this and other visually intrusive forms of renewable energy, such as large solar farms?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the key purposes of this arrangement is to involve local communities so that they feel that they have a right to say how their environment is being affected.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab): Has the Secretary of State carried out an economic impact assessment to establish how the small business community and the supply chain will be affected by this abrupt and confused change in Government policy?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 628
Amber Rudd: One element of small business that will probably be pleased with the outcome is the tourist industry. Many Members campaigned against the expansion of wind farms on the basis that they affect tourism, which is important to many small businesses.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): As the Secretary of State will know, since 2010 our country has increased renewable energy production by 300%, or a factor of three, and has increased it by more than any other OECD country. However, we must also make progress with other forms of decarbonisation. Is the Secretary of State still committed to the advancement of Hinkley Point C, which will produce more carbon-free electricity than all the wind farms that are currently being deployed?
Amber Rudd: The answer is yes. We need new nuclear energy in order to provide stability. We need to expand our renewables while at the same time having stable alternative sources of energy, and we are committed to Hinkley Point.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op): Can the Secretary of State tell us how cutting subsidies for onshore wind energy is providing leadership in the EU on the decarbonisation of our economy, as she claimed in her statement?
Amber Rudd: Providing leadership in the EU—and, indeed, internationally—means meeting our targets, demonstrating that we can meet them in the most cost-effective way, and liaising with other countries in order to show them how we are doing that. The point of the announcement is that we will still be meeting our targets.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Obviously I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for it, but does she recognise that the way in which onshore wind subsidies and developers have gone about their business has destroyed people’s faith in renewable energy as a whole? Indeed, in communities such as Winwick, Kelmarsh, Watford and Crick, which are in my constituency, one struggles to find people who support any type of renewable energy, given the way in which it has been handled by onshore wind developers.
Will the Secretary of State please tell us how many of the wind farms that are in the pipeline will be connected to the grid? That could provide relief for a host of communities that might be affected by onshore development in the future.
Amber Rudd: May I, again, pay tribute and homage to my hon. Friend, who campaigned so hard and led on this issue? I know his constituents will be delighted with this outcome, although I am disappointed to hear that the impact of wind farms has made them negative about renewables in general. I hope we can win them back by our policies that will increasingly involve them. I urge individual Members who want to know what the impact is on developments in their constituency to write to me and I will try to get that information.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): The Secretary of State said that the Government’s priority was
“to bring about the transition to low-carbon generation as cost-effectively…as possible.”
Does she not recognise that onshore wind is the most cost-effective renewable energy production form?
22 Jun 2015 : Column 629
Amber Rudd: I would make two points on that. I ask him to recognise that as part of our target to have affordable renewable energy we aim to have 10% coming from wind by 2020, and we are on schedule to deliver that. We have to harbour our resources. There would be no point in saying, “It has come down in price. Let’s put all the money over there.” That would be the wrong thing to do. We have to deliver a mix of renewable energy. Offshore wind is beginning to come down in price, we have plans for carbon capture and storage, and new initiatives are coming out the whole time. This is an exciting, changing area and we need to harbour our resources to make sure we can support the right outcomes.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): I just want to tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents will be delighted. I am thinking of those in the north whose villages have been blighted by the Cotton wind farm—they cannot sleep and cannot sell their houses. In the south of my constituency, we have large solar farms coming at us left, right and centre. She will have made a lot of people very happy, so we thank her.
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab): Which would cause more environmental damage to the Cheshire countryside: a wind turbine or a fracking rig?
Amber Rudd: I am happy to say that a single wind turbine will still be allowed, if a community wants it. We are very keen to support community energy. As for shale exploration, we are at an early stage and we will have to wait to see how the community responds.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Constituents on the north of the Isle of Axholme, who will shortly be surrounded by 100 turbines, will be very happy with this announcement. I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but I urge her to go further on individual turbine applications. Many landowners in my constituency put in one application and get approval, and then put in another and another, so it is death by 1,000 cuts.
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I will look out for that eventuality.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab): The established wind farm on Scoutmoor, adjacent to my constituency, has a lifetime of only 25 years. What is the Secretary of State’s long-term plan for renewable energy when existing wind farms have to be decommissioned?
Amber Rudd: The extraordinary thing about renewable energy is that it is such a fast-moving field. Nobody knows which will be the dominant renewable energy, able to supply cost-effectively, in 20 to 25 years’ time—no, less, in 10 or 15 years’ time. Perhaps we will have developed storage—perhaps carbon capture and storage will be coming on line. There are so many unknowns in this area, so I urge the hon. Lady to keep an open mind about different sources of renewable energy, just as this Department does.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State for a very clear statement and for her responses on communities and tourism. My constituency contains a
22 Jun 2015 : Column 630
mountain range known as Mynydd y Gwair, forming a backdrop to the first area of outstanding natural beauty. Planning permission for one of Wales’s largest wind farms has been granted by Swansea’s Labour city council, against the wishes of a clear majority of local residents and farmers. Does she agree that that cannot be right and that remedying such absurd decisions by allowing communities to decide these sorts of things is essential?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend’s experience seems to validate the approach that we are taking, whereby local communities will have much more involvement and choice in those decisions.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP): Notwithstanding anything the Secretary of State has said this afternoon, the pipeline of projects in Scotland is now at risk, as are the jobs of 5,400 people employed in the sector. Will she look again at the impact these proposals will have on Scotland and the wider UK economy, and think again?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Lady must bear it in mind that this is a manifesto commitment. The UK has made the commitment—[Interruption.] I appreciate that she would like a different arrangement, but the arrangement that we have put in place will impact on subsidies throughout the UK. I am happy to listen to my Scottish counterparts on how different arrangements might be put in place within the changes that I have set out.
Mr Speaker: Order. Mr McDonald, for an aspiring statesman, frenetic gesticulation is a tad unseemly.
John Howell (Henley) (Con): I welcome the statement. As my right hon. Friend knows, I had a role in the development of neighbourhood plans at the very beginning. If local communities decide not to pursue wind turbines, will she reassure me that she will give precedence to those neighbourhood plans over anything else in the planning system?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I know that he was the great man who developed the neighbourhood plan. He is absolutely right that the neighbourhood plans will be the central tome on this, and they will allow communities to have the authority that they need on the planning decisions that would be impacted in this situation.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State explain how she reconciles giving local people the right of veto over wind turbines, but denies them exactly the same right over shale gas fracking or a nuclear power station next door?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this right being given to communities was not in place when wind farms were originally introduced. We now have enough wind farms, and that right has been put in place. The same is the case for other sources of energy that do not need it now. It is right that we have a different approach for a different type of energy that is at a different level of maturity.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con): May I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this great decision? I pay homage to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), whose fight
22 Jun 2015 : Column 631
to get rid of these wind farms has been exemplary. Have there been any thoughts on decommissioning these wind farms over the next 15 years? Some have been up for 10 years now, which is probably longer than many nuclear power stations.
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. It is in part of the proposals. We are aware of, and involved in, the decommissioning plans. No one quite knows when the decommissioning will take place, but we will keep a careful eye on it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): Given the Prime Minister’s respect agenda, may I ask what cognisance, if any, the Minister took of the impact of her decision on Scotland, particularly on my constituency of Argyll and Bute? Is she aware of, and does she care about, the damage that this decision will have on the fragile rural economies of Scotland and the inevitable job losses that will follow?
Amber Rudd: I have had several discussions and meetings with Fergus Ewing, and I will continue to do so. Jobs in the UK are incredibly important. It is Britain that is open for business. We will continue to ensure that renewable investment flows.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con): May I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement? I thank, too, the previous Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who fought an incredible rearguard action, calling in such applications that would have blighted the view of Southwell Minster for generations to come. If communities are to have their say, to keep it simple, would the Secretary of State encourage and support Rushcliffe Borough Council, which wants to declare itself a wind turbine-free council and protect the vale of Belvoir for ever?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion. Councils will have the final say. If that is how they put it, that is up to them.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Is the Secretary of State not a little bit concerned about the impact on investor confidence that this decision might have not just with regard to onshore wind but across the renewables sector? Given that onshore wind and its supply chain accounts for £1.7 billion of gross value added, how does she anticipate filling that gap in investment?
Amber Rudd: Investors will have seen the manifesto and will have heard the words of the Prime Minister last year when he said that, under a Conservative Government, there will be no onshore wind subsidies. They will have known that our target was 11 GW to 13 GW by 2020, and they are likely to have known that wind was deploying faster and more effectively than people had thought, partly because it was on the receiving end of those subsidies. Continuing to get investment in renewables and ensuring that Britain is open for business and remains at the front of delivering renewable energy will continue under this Government.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): May I take the rare step of agreeing with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? She said that Back Benchers would be pleased with this statement, and I
22 Jun 2015 : Column 632
assure her that I am absolutely delighted with it, but most importantly, so will be the vast majority of my constituents and those across mid-Wales and further afield. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the amount of money that scrapping the renewables obligation will save this country?
Amber Rudd: I am delighted to make my hon. Friend and his constituents happy. Closing the renewables obligation one year early is likely to save hundreds of millions of pounds.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): The Secretary of State has not said whether she has been apprised of any particular implications in the context of Northern Ireland, not least in the setting there of a single electricity market for the island. She has promised consultation and says that she wants consultation with the devolved Administrations, industry and stakeholders, but given her certitude, how might that consultation have any influence on her position?
Amber Rudd: I have had meetings and conversations with my opposite number in Northern Ireland. I will continue to do so and I respect the views of those involved, which differ from ours on what we are trying to implement. I have been working with them to see whether it is possible for Northern Ireland to implement and fund the subsidy.
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that the cost of an application can be vast, including seeking approval from national air traffic control systems. When such applications meet ferocious local community opposition, is there any way in which she can assist applicants to withdraw the application? They often press on with the application to try to recover the cost of gaining air traffic control approval as well as other environmental assessments.
Amber Rudd: I do not think that there would be a role for Government in that. Having heard the announcement today, however, developers might take a different view.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP): Given the consultations and discussions with the Scottish Energy Minister that the Secretary of State has outlined, what have the Scottish Government been advised will be the impact of the proposals on Scotland’s target of generating the equivalent of 100% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020?
Amber Rudd: I am happy to say that this change to the subsidy regime will not impact on the UK target. I have had no further discussion with my Scottish counterpart on the Scottish Government’s target.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Large numbers of my constituents in Montgomeryshire will welcome today’s statement with huge relief. Mid-Wales has been saved from desecration. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that onshore wind subsidies will not apply to any proposed wind farm that does not currently have planning permission?
Amber Rudd: As set out in my statement, the onshore wind subsidy grace period is available only to wind farms and wind farm applications that have planning consent, a grid connection and land rights.
22 Jun 2015 : Column 633
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab): I, too, had several constituents come to see me for the climate change lobby last week and the Secretary of State’s statement will leave them at a loss. Will she respond to the CBI’s comment that
“cutting the Renewables Obligation scheme early sends a worrying signal about the stability of the UK’s energy”
market?
Amber Rudd: I would say to the CBI, which I will be meeting and with which I am sure I will discuss this issue among other things, that this is a stable environment for renewable investment, as we have set out the ranges and targets we would like to achieve and we are meeting them. This Government are the first to have set out a levy control framework so that investors can see exactly how much money we are committing. It is partly because we as a Government are determined to look after money so carefully that we are making this change to ensure that we stay well within the levy control framework.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker: Order. If I am to accommodate remaining colleagues in the exchanges on the statement, brevity is now of the essence.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): A former Secretary of State, who went on to become Leader of the Opposition, once said that to object to onshore wind farms was akin to antisocial behaviour. Thank goodness we now have a Secretary of State who listens to constituents in rural areas like mine. Inevitably, councils will be challenged at appeal by highly paid barristers. What assistance will the Department give to small councils, so that they can fully understand the new powers that they have been granted?
Amber Rudd: I say to my hon. Friend, who has done so much to campaign against wind farms in his constituency, that the statement is very clear. If his councils want any further clarification, they should write to me and I will make sure they get a clear response.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Last week, in his encyclical on climate change, the Pope said,
“continuity is essential…policies related to climate change…cannot be altered with every change of government.”
With him, I would like to ask the Secretary of State this question: what would induce anyone at this stage to hold on to power, only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it is urgent and necessary to do so?
Amber Rudd: I urge the hon. Lady, when she has the chance to talk further with Pope, to let him know that we will meet our commitments, and today’s announcement is part of our plan to make sure that we do so. There is no change to this Government’s, this Department’s and this Prime Minister’s commitment to addressing dangerous climate change.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): I welcome today’s statement, as will many residents of my constituency, which has borne more than its fair share of the brunt of the wind turbine industry. Will the Secretary of State
22 Jun 2015 : Column 634
consider a “two strikes and you’re out” policy for developers who keep coming back again and again and tweaking their applications, costing local councils hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees and causing prolonged distress for local residents?
Amber Rudd: I think my hon. Friend, who makes a good point, will find that under the new regime as announced today and last week, the community have the final say, and councils will be in a much stronger position to make that clear to any developers that approach them.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): Is the Minister aware that another of the “best of both worlds” offers to the Scottish electorate was the onshore subsidies? Given the effect of the proposals on investment in Scotland, that is a challenge, as pulling investment was not part of her party’s manifesto. Does the Minister agree with me that this announcement is the equivalent of another broken promise to the Scottish electorate?
Amber Rudd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Having Britain open for business is incredibly important. Scotland has a lot of wind farms and has received a lot of investment. I am sure that with this Government in charge, investment will continue to flow to Scotland in all sorts of ways.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): My constituents will be delighted that we now have a Conservative Government, as under a coalition Government we would never have had this statement or this excellent Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. I have it clear in my mind, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Borough Council of Wellingborough turns down a planning application for a wind farm, its decision cannot be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?
Amber Rudd: Yes, I can confirm that.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): Labour Members are rightly concerned about job losses and job insecurity, and that is not restricted to onshore. Given that the doubling of carbon tax by this Government on 1 April is likely to be the final nail in the coffin of the coal mining industry—almost 1,000 jobs at Hatfield—does the Minister recognise the need for a long-term plan to identify a diverse energy mix in the interests of the nation?
Amber Rudd: I share the hon. Gentleman’s view on the need for a diverse energy mix. We want to support renewables to make sure that we meet our renewable targets and encourage diverse forms of renewable energy, but we also need certain other types of energy to ensure we have the base-load available at all times of the day.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): The Scout Moor wind farm, to which the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred, dominates the skyline for thousands of my constituents. An application to extend it even further has been submitted, but not determined. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the extension will attract subsidy?
________________________________________
22 Jun 2015 : Column 635
Amber Rudd: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to write to me about that example? I will make sure that he gets a reply.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): We worked very hard in Hull to bring Siemens to the city to develop the offshore renewables industry. Does the Minister understand how the current approach, and the previous approach in relation to solar, are not at all helpful to long-term investment in renewables?
Amber Rudd: I am slightly amazed that the hon. Lady chooses to approach the matter in that way. It is a great success of the previous Government that we now have the Siemens plant in Hull, and we support that, the employment it offers and the export potential that we hope will develop there. We are encouraged by the fact that there is more investment coming into offshore wind and we will continue to support it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): In the mix of renewable energy, tidal energy has huge potential, popular support, leisure sector spin-offs, innovative technology and export potential. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the direct and indirect potential for job growth from tidal energy will be hugely greater than any job losses from her announcement today?
Amber Rudd: I certainly agree that tidal and marine energy is an exciting part of a future energy mix. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are continuing to do our due diligence on various tidal projects.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP): I associate myself with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). The Secretary of State will be aware that the position of the Scottish Government is that technology such as tidal power and wave power, which were prevented from being properly developed by a former Conservative Government, are where the long-term future of our energy lies. Can she therefore confirm that the entire value of the subsidy that is going to be clawed back from wind farms will be reinvested in the accelerated development of these long-term permanent technologies, or are we simply seeing a repeat of what her party did to Scotland in the 1980s, when a flourishing and potentially world-leading renewables energy sector was deliberately sacrificed to get it out of the way of the nuclear power lobby?
Amber Rudd: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the proposal, which is that the onshore wind subsidy will not go ahead after March 2016. That is not money that is being clawed back; that is money that is additionally not being added to people’s bills. On another matter, I agree with him that we would like more success in the whole marine energy area, and it is
22 Jun 2015 : Column 636
partly because we want to make sure that we have sufficient support available for other technologies, such as marine and tidal wave, that we have to make this choice.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): In response to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the subsidy regime for large-scale solar farms was also going to be cut. What is there to stop an applicant for a large-scale solar farm parcelling up that application into four or five separate applications, thus qualifying as a small-scale unit?
Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is right that we have ended the large-scale solar farm issue in terms of applications for the renewables obligation, but I have concerns about exactly the possibility that he has raised, and I will address it in the feed-in tariff review that I will be conducting this summer.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): The Huddersfield Civic Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Natural England, National Trust, local artist Ashley Jackson and the Campaign to Protect Rural England have major concerns and are opposing a huge wind farm development high up on moorland in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that local people will have the final say on this major development?
Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for that list of supporters and I can indeed give him that confirmation.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): In south Wiltshire the primary concern is about large-scale solar farm applications. Can the Secretary of State outline the implications of today’s announcement for residents of Downton who came to see me about this recently?
Amber Rudd: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier. We will be looking again at how solar farms get access as part of the feed-in tariff review. They are no longer eligible to access under the renewable obligations.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con): I refer Members to my declaration of interests. I welcome the announcement. On Friday my constituent, Peter Stephens, asked whether the forthcoming international deliberations on climate change would have the effect of unpicking the changes that the Secretary of State set out today. Perhaps she could clarify that.
Amber Rudd: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend and his constituent that we remain committed to our targets under the Climate Change Act 2008. We remain committed to being the greenest Government ever and to making sure that we are the No. 1 place for renewable energy investment.

To view the source document CLICK HERE

PS – 37:

It is of note that there is yet another vehicle with its front end smashed in, an orange car, abandoned in the ditch near Hanley Farm shop!

I have not heard the extent of injury of those involved as yet but will add the detail if I find out!

Further facts have come to hand:
I am told that a car had broken down and was in Hanley public lay-by – a friend called from Lydney to help arrived and indicated intent to turn into Chepstow end of Lay-by and stopped facing oncoming traffic within a few seconds a car drove into the back of his car and shortly after that the orange car drove into the back of the two static cars!

The 3 car crash happened just before 17:00hrs., Police attended and all 3 vehicles were removed by 20:30hrs., fortunately, I am told, with no consequential injuries.

Photos to follow.

There have been 2 fatalities and various very serious injuries within view of Hanley Hill in two fatal accidents so far this year and a total of 5 fatalities within sight of Hanley Hill in recent years, plus of course numerous other accidents on this particularly dangerous stretch of road with its multiple junctions and the particularly dangerous Hanley layby which itself has multiple junctions and much increased traffic due to commercialisation as a multiple occupancy office venue, a farm shop and a single dwelling converted to multiple occupancy!

It is legitimate, since the primary cause of accidents according to The MoT/DVLA, is distraction – just imagine how we can expect the fatality and serious injury rate is likely to escalate as traffic levels increase with the 5,000 new houses already with planning approval granted from Lydney to Chepstow if the gross iresponsibility of granting and installing a wind turbine 337 feet above the River Severn on Hanley Hill is granted next to the A48 – the most dangerous road in Europe in terms of fatalities per mile travelled.

There was also an accident nearby earlier in the week – sadly as yet I have no further details.

The cost to the public purse of these accidents likely to be caused by the distraction of a wind turbine pale into insignificance relative to the subsidies payable on a wind turbine or any potential theoretical benefits and thus I would contend that such a scheme/scam would only be undertaken by those with an utter disregard for the area and the lives of others.

PS – 38:

I gather the applicants have been very actively using their ‘farm stall’ in Chepstow as a marketing venue to solicit support for their proposed industrialisation of Severndale Farm with potential customers being asked to sign standard petition letters – regardless of their location or involvement with Hanley Hill and Stroat and based upon no clear understanding of the implications or the huge subsidies and dangers nor the inefficiency of Wind Turbines and their damaging environmental costs.

However Julia Joseph, a professional planning consultant has been asking some interesting questions and making further astute and pertinent comments to the Planning Authorities on our behalf!

FROM: Julie Joseph [mailto:julie.joseph@jcpc-ltd.co.uk]
SENT: 08 June 2015 12:01
TO: Stephen Colegate
CC: Tony Pope
SUBJECT: Planning Application Wind Turbine Severndale Farm Tidenham
Chepstow P0365/15/FUL

Dear Mr Colegate

I have been appointed by several local residents to represent them in
relation to the above planning application about which they have strong
objections. It would be helpful if I could understand the proposed
timescale of the application . I understand it appears to be scheduled
for committee in July but at present there are number of key consultees
who to date have not yet responded. It also appears that a number of the
reports including the bird surveys and the screening opinion were
carried out some time ago and as such may well be out of date. The bird
survey in particular was carried out 3 years ago and as such will be
fundamentally flawed and not an appropriate basis for a decision to be
made. I also understand that Historic England have requested more
detailed analysis is carried out.

I have checked your website and to date the comments from your
ecologist, landscape team and Environmental Health officer have not been
provided. (when I clicked on your Sustainability Team Response this came
up as a blank page) These are key in the decision making process and it
would be extremely helpful to have a copy of these for analysis .

I am aware of the recent appeal decision by the same applicant however
would like to point out that this should not set a precedent for other
applications which should be determined on their individual merits.
However I also appreciate you will to a certain extent be guided by the
Inspectors comments.

My understanding of the application is that the Resilience model is
offering community benefits but this is not done through a planning
obligation because this would not meet the required tests for
obligations. I would refer you to a recent decision Planning appeal ref
APP/U3935/V/14/2216792 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATION BY SWINDON COMMERCIAL SERVICES LTD: LAND AT SCIENCE MUSEUM,
WROUGHTON, SWINDON SN4 9LT APPLICATION REF: S/13/0809 which was subject
to a call in by the Secretary of State. Whilst the appeal for solar
panels was approved, the Secretary of State agreed with the inspector
that the proposed financial community benefits in the Undertaking fell
outside the scope of Section 106(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 and that they fail the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended. The Secretary
of State therefore gave no weight to the Undertaking in determining this
planning application. On this basis the community benefits of the
proposed scheme can not be controlled or enforced and carry very limited
weight. As such there is no guarantee that such a scheme will be brought
forward by the applicants as opposed to an alternative energy company
and as such the application should be considered purely on its merits
and not as a community model.

With regard to the economic benefits locally, again these appear to be
largely over stated and the local authority can have no control over the
potential suppliers of the turbines. It should be noted that in many
situations the turbines and motors are imported from Europe. As such we
believe little weight can be given to the economic benefits of such a
scheme.

With regard to the visual impact on the closest residential properties,
the applicants have failed to take into account the fact that there is
an extent approval for 3 live work units at Wibdon Farm, Stroat . The
majority of windows will have significant views of the development and
the report needs to assess this impact accordingly.

Given the above I would be grateful if you could advise me of timings
for the application to be heard by Planning Committee and when you
anticipate further information and your ecologists and landscape
officers comments to be available.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

JULIE JOSEPH BA (HONS) MRTPI

DIRECTOR

JCPC LTD

SPECIALISTS IN RURAL PLANNING

TEL 01989 770258

MOB 07920 770735

FROM: Stephen Colegate [mailto:Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk]
SENT: 15 June 2015 11:30
TO: ‘Julie Joseph’
SUBJECT: P0365/15/FUL

Dear Ms Joseph

RE: P0365/15/FUL

Thank you for your representation to the above application which is
hereby acknowledged and will be recorded appropriately.

Regards

Stephen Colegate

Senior Planning Officer

Forest of Dean District Council

Tel: 01594 812375

Email: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk

Subject: RE: P0365/15/FUL
Date: 2015-07-01 09:35
From: “Julie Joseph” <julie.joseph@jcpc-ltd.co.uk>
To: “‘Stephen Colegate'” <Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk>
Copy: <Tony.Pope@fdean.gov.uk>,

Thank you for acknowledging my email. It would be helpful if you could
respond to some of the points raised in particular whether any further
up to date reports are being submitted and when it is your intention to
take the matter to the planning committee.

I would also like to draw your attention to the recent ministerial
statement issued by DCLG ON 18 June 2015 which becomes planning policy
and thus a material consideration . This states quite clearly that :

“When determining planning applications for wind energy development
involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should
only grant planning permission if:

· the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind
energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and

· following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning
impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully
addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.

In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy
development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or
Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind
turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the
backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the
local planning authority.

Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has
already been submitted to a local planning authority and the development
plan does not identify suitable sites, the following transitional
provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can
find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are
satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected
local communities and therefore has their backing.”

Given the high level of objection on this proposal and the comments of
the Parish Council it appears very evident that the proposal does not
satisfy the planning impacts identified by local communities and as such
does not have the community backing. As such the proposal is clearly
contrary to the recently published ministerial statement which in effect
is planning policy and the application should either be withdrawn or
refused.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

JULIE JOSEPH BA (HONS) MRTPI

DIRECTOR

JCPC LTD

SPECIALISTS IN RURAL PLANNING

TEL 01989 770258

MOB 07920 770735

PS – 39:

I note a new grossly inefficient wind turbine has been erected dependent on public subsidy and not just polluting the view amenity of the Severn Estuary but also undeniably environmentally damaging both to wildlife in its operation and to the planet in its construction.

This new damaging industrial instalation is to the left of Oldbury Power Station on the South Gloucestershire side of the river located on high ground near Rockhampton alongside the Thronbury > Rockampton > Falfield road just as you leave Rockhampton – it was installed on 25-Jun-2015 and is clearly polluting the rural view from miles around!

PS – 40:

HoC BRIEFING PAPER 04370 Item 01

HoC BRIEFING PAPER 04370 Item 02

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04370.pdf

PS – 41:

DECC to David WARREN 06-Jul-2015

It is worthy of note that this confirms the statement to Parliament by The Minister Concerned (Amber Rudd), in which she additionaly stated that no further planning application not granted on or before 18-Jun-2015 would receive any Government subsidies.

PS – 42:

A cautionary tale for Conservative District Councillor Maria Edwars & her partners Resilience of Woolaston!

You will note the details of the Planning Officer were vbery similar in the case of the Severndale application to industrialise as those supported by the appeal

Devon wind turbine appeal dismissed by inspector

Plans to develop a 50-metre wind turbine in Devon have been dismissed by a planning inspector who ruled that the harm to the landscape and setting of heritage assets substantially outweighed the benefits of the proposals.

An application had been submitted to build a 50m turbine with ancillary equipment at Bryony Hill Farm in Winkleigh, Devon, but it was rejected by Torridge District Council.The applicant appealed, but the decision has been upheld by a planning inspector.The planning inspector ruled that the harm identified to the setting of important heritage assets, the qualities of the landscape and to living conditions substantially outweighed the benefits of the proposal.Penny Mills, chairman of CPRE Devon, said: “This wind turbine in the beautiful ‘Warhorse valley’ quite clearly did not have the support of the majority of local people, as the overwhelming majority objected to it.”This proposal has been like a dark cloud hanging over the area for a very long time – it’s two years since the screening opinion was first submitted, so this decision is a great relief.”

Plans to develop a 50-metre wind turbine in Devon have been dismissed by a planning inspector who ruled that the harm to the landscape and setting of heritage assets substantially outweighed the benefits of the proposals.

An application had been submitted to build a 50m turbine with ancillary equipment at Bryony Hill Farm in Winkleigh, Devon, but it was rejected by Torridge District Council.

The applicant appealed, but the decision has been upheld by a planning inspector.

The planning inspector ruled that the harm identified to the setting of important heritage assets, the qualities of the landscape and to living conditions substantially outweighed the benefits of the proposal.

Penny Mills, chairman of CPRE Devon, said: “This wind turbine in the beautiful ‘Warhorse valley’ quite clearly did not have the support of the majority of local people, as the overwhelming majority objected to it.

“This proposal has been like a dark cloud hanging over the area for a very long time – it’s two years since the screening opinion was first submitted, so this decision is a great relief.”

To view the original article in ‘Planning Resource CLICK HERE

You will note that the appeal dealt with above was somewhat smaller than the monstrosity advocated by the applicants to blight our parish and increse the probability of extremely costly fatalities and serious accidents on our stretch of the already dangerous A48!

PS – 43:

I note from the web site of Resilience, partners in the application for this turbine with District Councillor Maria Edwards the following link to a statement by their lawyers, Mssrs. Burges Salmon of Bristol, regarding their far from successful industrialisation by Resilience of Anthony Cooke’s farm Great Dunkilns:

Resilient Energy Great Dunkilns (REGD) is a joint venture between The Resilience Centre of Woolaston and Mr Anthony Cooke of Great Dunkilns Farm, St Briavels, created to install and operate a 500kW wind turbine at Mr Cooke’s farm.

The ‘community scale’ wind turbine will be capable of producing up to 1,200,000kWh per year, which is the equivalent of 300 residential dwellings or 10% of the electrical demand of St Briavels parish. It will generate electricity for use both on site at the farm and for export to the local grid, qualifying for payments under the government’s Feed in Tariff scheme for wind projects too.

to view the full statement CLICK HERE

It will be noted that far from concentrating on renewable energy Burges Salmon have a division working to promote Nuclear Energy also, thus clearly prostituted to commercial expediency rather than principle; I understand also that Resilience have little actual interest in renewable energy as I gather they have notably opposed the proven technology of solar panels yet promote the largely failed technology of wind turbines with their weather dependency, high cost, inefficiency and short lifespan (averaging 12>15 years at present!)!

To extrapolate Burgess Salmon’a and Resilience’s claims: Clearly on optimum output the turbine, as it produces a mere 10% of the power required for St. Briavels would require 9 more to produce sufficient for the village – however at Tidenham parish Council meeting the applicants informed those present that the St. Briavels turbine was only 20% efficient thus for supply of power for the village WHEN THE WIND CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT the village would seem to require 50 turbines to be effective!

When one considers that in 2012 Resilience was seeking ‘crowd funding’ with just one turbine for this scam to the tune of £1.4M – it would seem that power generation for St. Biavels, without inflation, would cost in the region of £70,000,000 plus of course the annual subsidy Resilience informed the parish amounted to in the region of £150,000 per turbine or £7,500,000 – little wonder the Government has announced it intends to bring an end to this ‘scheme’ in terms of both foisting the monstrosities on the public and enriching the applicants via the taxes of others!

Little wonder that the public in the ‘community’, in the case of the Tidenham application by the Conservative District Councillor Maria Edwards, have presented such resounding and reasoned opposition and that the ‘community’ opponents to this self serving and opportunistic application are in support of the recommendations of the Planning Officer designate and would vigerously oppose Resilience should they choose to seek to apeal a rejection of their application – though it is appreciated that such an apeal by Resilience would seemingly be being undertaken on a profit motivated basis, whether they were likely to win the case or not, as they are likely to be able to bill for their effort even when they fail!

PS – 44:

FORESTER 08-Jul-2015 01 ROAD SAFETYThe timing of this article is excellent as it highlights the very real danger on the Stroat section of the A48; thus supporting our claim that industrialising this section further, with a very overbearing and distracting Giant Wind Turbine would be an act of dangerous folly that would likely lead to additional very costly deaths and accidents.

Fatalities and costs that are in no way compensated for those involved or our community by the opportunist planning application of Conservative District Councillor Maria Edwards and her commercial partners – seeking personal profit at the expense of the community and tax payers.

PS – 45:

Below is a copy of a circular to the ‘community’ from FoDDC Planning Department soliciting further objections in support of the ‘Community’, the Parish Council of the ‘Community and the appointed Officers of FoDDC on behalf of the ‘Community’ – all of whom have opposed the opportunistic application to further industrialise Severndale Farm by the owners including the applicant Councillor Maria Edwards of FoDDC Planning Committee!

FoD to Occupiers 15-Jul-2015

Dear Sir/Madam

Town and Country Planning Act,1990 (As Amended)
Severndale Farm Tidenham Chepstow
Change of use of agricultural land to wind turbine and installation of a wind turbine to generate renewable energy, including grid connection and ancillary works.

I refer to my previous letter informing you of the planning application. I am now in receipt of additional information. Any comments submitted that make representations for or against the application will be taken into account when the Council reaches its decision as will any previous representations made.

You can look at the additional information on the Council’s Website at http://www.fdean.gov.uk . Simply click on ‘planning’ then ‘View planning applications’’ and then the Public Access link. Click on the simple search screen and add the reference P0365/15/FUL you can then see a summary of the application details. If you wish to view plans and documents submitted with the application, click on the Documents tab. If you want to view any comments please click on the relevant tabs on the search screen.

Details may also be inspected on a computer at the Council Offices, High Street, Coleford during normal office hours (Monday – Thursday 9.00 a.m. – 4.45 p.m and Fridays 9.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) Alternatively, as a copy has been sent to the Parish Council, you might like to contact the Clerk to see if arrangements can be made to view the plans locally.

You can make comments on any application in one of three ways:-
1. Through the website by clicking on ‘View Planning Applications’, then Public Access, enter the Planning reference number in the search field. Click on comments and complete the Log In process as instructed on the screen. In order to make a comment you must register and log into the system. This is the Council’s preferred method of communication and also gives you the opportunity to track progress with the application and view the Council’s decision.
2. By sending an e-mail to planning@fdean.gov.uk
3. By sending a letter to the Planning Office.
Any comments should be made in writing quoting the above reference number by
29/07/15

Please note that only planning matters relating to the application can be considered by the Council when making their decision. These could include highway safety, national and local planning policies such as those included in the Council’s Core Strategy and design and amenity issues (privacy, overshadowing, noise etc). Matters that cannot be taken into account include loss of view, reduction in value, or comments on personalities or private rights of way. Please refrain from making personal references in respect of third parties or comments which may be defamatory or breach data protection legislation. The Council retains the right to redact any such content from your representation.

In view of the amount of correspondence that we receive as a result of representations made for and against planning applications, it is not normal practice to enter into correspondence concerning any specific questions or queries you may have.

The Council has also introduced public speaking at its Planning Committee Meetings. Details of the operation of public speaking are available from the Council’s web site. Click on ‘planning’ on the home page and a guide is available for downloading on the right hand side of the page. If you make any representation you will be notified in writing if it is to be determined by Committee.

Finally, I must advise you that under the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, 1985, your comments will be available for anyone to read, including the applicant(s). In addition any correspondence will be displayed on the Council’s website and in the event of an appeal all representations received will also be relayed to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant in accordance with appeal regulations.

Yours faithfully,
Business Administration Apprentice

PS – 46:

On the strength of the request for further submissions as shown in PS-45 above I have submitted an additional detailed and reasoned objection to the opportunistic planning application made by Councillor Maria Edwards:

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)
At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Dear Sirs,

my comment to the Comments section, re Application PO365/15/FUL, having been truncated I request my opposition to this application as submitted below, is accepted directly, and will feature in the documents section.

Please note section:
IN ADDITION re Applicant’s Late Submissions

I thank you,
Greg_L-W.

Herewith my objection to the application:
AS A HOME OWNER, RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER
In the Parish of Tidenham
AT:
Home Cottage,
Stroat,
Tidenham,
The Forest of Dean,
Gloucestershire,
NP16 7LR
01594 – 526 337

21-Jul-2015

FODDC,
COUNCIL OFFICES,
HIGH STREET,
COLEFORD,
GL16 8HG

PLANNING Department: planning@fdean.gov.uk

CASE OFFICER STEPHEN COLEGATE: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk
COPY:
MARK HARPER MP: fod@gloucestershireconservatives.com
PARISH COUNCILLORS clerk@tidenhamparishcouncil.co.uk
Re.: Planning Application PO365/15/FUL
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT of INITIAL WIND TURBINE
Severndale Farm, Stroat, Tidenham, NP16 7LL

Illustration:

• TOTAL HEIGHT ABOVE RIVER 337 Feet +
• Hanley Hill 22m
• Tower Structure 60m
• Blade/Sail 1/2 Diameter (54m) 27m
• + Concrete Mount Block ?
TOTAL 109m or 337 feet + mount

Dear Sirs,

please be advised of my extensively researched and implacable objection to the industrialisation of this Rural Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Fuller reasons and many details and links to accurate and proven facts opposing the installation may be found at:

https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat/

where many detailed factual arguments are raised, together with the views and opinions of many well informed individuals together with views and opinions of many local individuals.

It would clearly be deleterious of anyone involved in the decision making in this application not to study the details enumerated therein.

Minded of the constraints of time permit me to put the time required in perspective – a responsible finding of facts from the source quoted may take as much as a day out of YOUR life however by the proud boast of the applicant this monstrous carbuncle in our midst will be present and effecting many 1,000s of lives over the next 25 years and it is highly unlikely that the monstrous concrete block on which the 87m. high tower with its 158 foot span blades will stand will ever be removed!

I appreciate the Gadarene rush to profit from the subsidies, required to enable the pretence that wind turbines are cost effective, however like the Gadarene there is every probability that this will lead to a leap off the cliff for those effected!
I object to this application on the grounds that there is no proven case for installing these monstrous intrusions and any pretence that they may provide a ‘community’ benefit of any consequence is dwarfed by the many disadvantages to the ‘community’ in particular and to society as a whole, and thus appears to be little more than a sop, or to put it more clearly a bribe!

A measure of the dishonesty of this application, which strengthens my resolve to oppose it is:

01. The headline figure of the height of the industrial structure is 60m. it is only when one drills down in the small print that it becomes apparent it is not a mere 60m. but will tower over the Severn Estuary in splendid un camouflaged isolation (until of course this precedent may be granted, permitting seried ranks of them) by 337 Feet!

02. It is claimed dishonestly, by the applicant, that there has been public consultation – there has been absolutely no public consultation, it would seem to be that the applicant seeks to mislead the planners by alluding to a sales presentation made by themselves, to an invited audience some 3 years ago! After which the applicants withdrew their application, no doubt in the realisation they had failed to convince!

O3. It would seem that the applicants seek to further mislead by claiming that an environmental study has been presented when no such adequate current environmental study has been made as:
A. The study has not considered the deleterious effects of their proposed industrial action to the reed beds between their proposed installation and the river, which are the gathering ground for migratory birds, which gather to feed, and thus fatten to provide the necessary energy, prior to their long migration south to warmer climes for the winter – birds which WILL be slaughtered in consequential numbers as the turbine blades smash them from the sky from the rotation side – the report pays no conscience to the differences of impact at different seasons.
B. The study has made no allowance for the distance of travel of noise, light flicker or safety lighting, particularly on the rising ground of the Forest approaches behind it – where many homes and farms and their livestock WILL be effected. It should be noted that the low frequency hum from the turbine, which they admit will be between 35 & 45 DB on a substantial radius of ground & homes below, it will be likewise travel considerably further on a level with the source!
Sound tends to travel further in a set pressure (altitude) density of air, particularly low frequency, long wave pattern sound, thus can cause considerably more damage to a wider radius stretching for several miles –
eg the low frequency communication of elephants which can be detected over 20 miles away!
C. I have been unable to trace a single solitary risk assessment of the damage done to micro organisms and their predatory food chain in soil, yet it is known that the continuous low frequency vibration radiates in the soil, causing a falloff in both micro-organisms and the worms and the like that feed on them, including the larvae of the many insects on which the migratory birds are utterly dependent. The loss of such life and the vibration leads to compression of the soil and a form of soil cancer.
D. I appreciate that the RSPB has made no objection nor any serious consideration however I would suggest that without implementation of an FoI report it would be wise to discount their input, or failure to input, as it is widely believed the Wind Turbine promoters are amongst their substantial donors!
E. There would seem to be absolutely no consideration given to the impact on the many raptors in the area and even more significantly to the many owls that patrol this territory at night, with no hope of seeing the rotating blades until they are struck and killed – leading to a damaging increase in both mice and rats!
F. Astonishingly the so called environmental report fails to even mention the Environmental Agency’s flood warning maps that show Severndale Farm WILL potentially be effected!

04. I also object to these plans being put forward at this time, which so redolently smacks of ‘A good time to bury bad news’!
The planning application was validated on 17-Apr-2015, after Parliament had been prorogued – thus from then forward the peoples of this community were without meaningfull representation and all in the political diaspora were involved in the flux of election.
We had no MP representing us until 08-May-2015 and beyond during which the new Parliament was coming to existence as a Government.
We had no meaningfull Councillors as they were seeking election or re-election and even now have not been accurately listed on the web site of FoDDC. In fact I believe they have not been sworn in yet, let alone selected for the various committees – particularly planning!
We are as yet unrepresented by Parish Councillors who are due to be sworn in on 20-May-2015 and the first occasion on which they can consider the matter before the, to be selec ted, planning committee is the 27-May-2015!.This is clearly a shoddy and unsatisfactory manner in which to pretend to a democratic process.I incline to believe that the application was made at this time deliberately to suit the applicant and thus I believe the Council has little option but to act with integrity and extend the period by at least the 37 days that have been lost from the 17-Apr-2015 until the 27-May-2015.
Fortunately with her last two clear days the outgoing councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick acted decisively and with integrity and at my request ‘called in the plans’.

05. I am also minded to oppose this application as, although within electoral law, the candidacy of Mrs. Maria Edwards for a council seat is of some moral turpitude as although she was standing as a Conservative Councillor she seems to have overlooked the gathering opprobrium of her own party for the siting of wind turbines on land and the stated intention of providing nil public funding for all applications that were made and not granted prior to the election. I incline to the understanding that Mrs. Edwards failed totally to make it clear to the electorate that were she elected it would prove potentially fortuitously profitable for her as the wife and thus partner in the application for the wind turbine at Severndale Farm – had she told the truth to the electorate I believe she would not have stood any chance of being elected and unseating a candidate with the community’s interests at heart!
I believe Mrs. Edwards’ position to be morally repugnant and her status as being out of keeping with the very principles of democracy regardless of the fact she may declare her interests at a later stage it does appear she obtained her position by deception.

06. I appreciate that in return for the massive subsidies enjoyed by installers of this failed concept of power generation hereto fore there is a limp and implausible attempt to claim a ‘community benefit’ when quite clearly there is no meaningfull benefit gained that even begins to compensate for the damage such an industrial installation in so clearly a rural AoONB and loss of visual amenity for so many 1,000s of people, minded this edifice will be visible from Gloucester and much of South Gloucestershire and of course much of the FoD, being some 337feet high when Gloucester Cathedral is a mere 229 feet high!The pretence of a community benefit is palpably little more than an effort at justification by the applicants. much beyond the very personal member of the community and his own bank account.To justify this statement may I point out the public accounts of one of the applicants. who also has a similar interest in the wind turbine at St.Briavels which values that interest of around 50% as being £500,000 – perhaps besides free/subsidised electricity for Severndale Farm the applicants could make clear the relevance to the community of the small sop they offer relative to the £! Million value of their subsidised installation with a mere 20% efficacy and thus were it 100% effective the value would doubtless be in excess of £5 Million!I regret that a pretence at a ‘Community Benefit’ seems little more than an insignificant bribe relative to the huge benefit for the applicants developing this industrial installation and the damage done to this AoONB not to mention the loss of amenity, potential health risks, damage from noise, flicker and safety lighting not to mention the visual damage resultant from this installation – bear in mind that The Forestry Commission advise me that the largest genus of tree that grows in the FoD is the Douglas Fir which in our climate grows to a height of just over 115 feet or one third of the height of this 337 foot wind turbine with its 158 foot blades!
I do not include the value of property as it would seem that the loss of property value for possibly 100 people is of no planning significance when measured against the gain of one or two individuals! – it may not be a planning issue but to any individual with one wit of morality it is a very clear issue!

07. A particular reason I am opposed to this application is both personal and public in that as a user, on a regular basis, of the A48 which besides being designated as a Roman road is recognised as the most dangerous road in Europe based, I understand, on death rate per mile in terms of vehicle miles.
Minded that a principal cause of accidents is ‘distraction’ there can be no more convincing an argument against this industrial installation, being both close to the road and clearly inappropriate in such an open rural setting as it towers over the river by 337 feet and is a moving object dominant in line with such beautiful views – a half seen and even more distracting object at night with its alarm security lighting for the very many low flying light aircraft and the many helicopter flights in its immediate proximity – flights which are frequently below the height of this moving edifice. An even more dangerous object and distracting installation in the dense sea mist that frequently rolls up The Severn Estuary.

08. One should also be minded that in consideration of the Roman ruins in the immediate area it is worthy of particular note that in ajoining fields there is the platform of what is believed to be a Roman temple, also of a Roman villa there is also I understand a Roman Mansio (a Mansio being the stopping point for Roman troops distanced by the marching regime of Roman Centurions on the move) this particular Mansio was the point at which troops gathered to await the right tide when crossing the Severn south or mustering to dry out and get in good order after crossing from South Gloucestershire.
It is likely that there are other features as yet undiscovered.
It is also worthy of note that Hanley Hill is known to be the Moot and as such was the meeting point for residents of Tidenham and thus has both medieval and pre medieval significance.

09. It is also worthy of note that there was at one time an electricity pylon sited on Hanley Hill which was removed as it was considered unsightly and the cabling was diverted, as were other pylons in the community area.

10. Please also be advised of the letter of objection to a similarly sited, though better camophlaged, application locally, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which contains many relevant points significant to this current application, which can be read at:
http://www.aylburtonvillagehall.org.uk/P1396_CPRE_Objections.pdf
An application which was granted on appeal as it lacked the strength of opposition this current site has from the community and the clear support of Government policy which now pertains.

11. This installation is far too close to the river, thus on the open historic flood plain and sticking out like a sore thumb and visible for miles around, this huge industrial structure, which will be over 150 feet taller than St. Mary’s Church in Lydney and 3 times the height of Nelson’s Column in London, with its related noise and visual impact is far too close to residential properties and will effect far more properties than were it is situated, like most other such structures, as being in a valley many more properties are effected on a level with the structure and its visibility will be for miles around being on so prominent and open a site.

12. I also object to this and other similar applications on purely ethical grounds as there is something particularly distastefull and morally bankrupt about the funding of these ‘white elephants’ as they are part funded by taxing the poor, through their unavoidable electricity bills, and then handing the cash to landowners and the wealthy – I find this to be utterly reprehensible.

13. I am further opposed to these installations, particularly in such an inappropriate position when it is now well proven that wind turbines are not only an ecologically unsound method of generating electricity but greedy in two natural resources in short supply, namely the excess use of copper, which is an increasingly diminishing strategic resource and rare earth extracts available from only China where it is increasingly extracted, utilising this scarce resource in an irresponsible manner in the manufacture of the turbines.

14. These applications should further be rejected as it is increasingly apparent that they are so inefficient that the Government finds itself in the ludicrous position of subsidising owners with taxes levied even on the poor to fund subsidies to pay owners to take their turbines off line – turbines which those very same tax payers were taxed to fund the construction of.

15. I further reject the idea of constructing this wind turbine in the light of the many 100s of truck movements that will be necessitated on the already overcrowded and dangerous A48, which clearly to judge by the numerous potholes Gloucester highways cannot afford to properly repair leaving the tax payer with unsound and unsafe roads and increased wear and tear, not to mention direct damage, to vehicles – indubitably a fairer and more intelligent use of subsidies than these follies as applied for.

16. I am additionally opposed to this industrial installation in the light of the inevitable need for a service road with either a 110 or 150 tonne load capacity to allow for access by heavy lift crane facilities – a service road that will require an unsightly bell mouth junction on the A48 in the proximity of Hanley Farm shop and the property of Wibdon Farm some 60 meters in extent!

17. In support of the rejection of this application I also believe that the probability that this application may prove a precedent if it is irresponsibly accepted for the erection of many more similar industrial installations despoiling the rural banks of the River Severn and its estuary and their visual amenity for its people and its visitors.

18. I am also opposed to this application on the very real danger to jobs in the area, many of which are dependent on tourism and day visitors to the area all of whom will find their enjoyment of this AoONB with its many wonderful viewpoints debased should this and similar installations be approved, this application alone will be visible from many of the classic view points in the FoD and almost all such viewpoints in South Gloucestershire – we have a duty of care for future generations to ensure they can enjoy the unbefouled FoD we have all enjoyed.

19. I believe that it is unprincipled to believe there is any sound motivation to grant this application funded in part by unwilling tax payers who can ill afford the subsidies to enrich a few selfish individuals. The concept of smaller investors being able to participate is debatable in that that may bring no local benefits as the investment will be open via the internet to the world at large as is the applicants fatuous petition orchestrated on the internet and accessible around the world, in the realisation that petitions are prone to abuse I understand local residents decided it would be unethical and counter productive to raise a petition, just as they have it would seem extended their encouragement to comment to local residents only.

20. It is important to note, in deciding to reject this application, the claimed green aspects of such wind turbines – firstly their justification is grounded in the widely discredited IPCC report of Al Gore & Rajendra K. Paschauri where many of the claimed supporters have requested removal of their names and the signators to exposes of the theory far outweigh the supporters in their denunciation of the IPCC Report with the leak of East Anglia dUniversity documentation encompassing some 20,000 eMails that proved beyond doubt that much of the detail in the IPCC report was downright dishonest at worst and largely unsound being based on selective use of data!
Do also note that Rajendra Paschauri with his close partisan associations with Tatta Industries has recently been ousted from his job and Al Gore is now soundly discredited and the report itself has been accepted in Court to be insufficiently accurate to teach as a science in schools in Britain.

21. Penultimately in considering this application it is important to accept the fact that any concept of benefit to the green carbon footprint is far outweigjhed by the enormouse level of carbon output in the production of the cement alone let alone the carbon footprint of transportation of the required other ingredients of the concrete block that will act as the mount, let alone the carbon footprint of the manufacture, fabrication and construction of the enormous industrial structure.
On optimum output it will take at least 10 years to ‘repay’ the carbon cost of construction and as even the applicant’s claimed figure projects a 35% of optimum output, which can be considered optimistic as their other wind turbine at St. Briavels has an output of around 20% – thus reducing profitability to allow a mere £8,000 for so called ‘community benefit’ which was originally projected at £20,000 where £8,000 to £20,000 is likely to be the cost in lost value for any single property in its damage zone in terms of noise and loss of visual amenity and constant flicker day and night whether from sunlight or safety lighting!

22. Finally let us consider in my opposition to this application the obvious fact that if the applicant had a genuione concern for the environment, as his recent award would show in 2014 one wonders why he did not advise the competition organisers that he was on the verge of despoiling the natural beauty of the area and installing a dangerous and overbearing industrial installation 337 feet above the River Severn ajoining the already overcrowded A48 adding to the likelihood of fatalities for people and birds alike.

Were there a genuine interest in alternative energy rather than enrichment via subsidies, surely the applicant would have clad his many relatively new barns with solar panels, which would have been considerably less visually damaging to the area at large, would pose no additional danger to road users and wildlife and which have a proven track record of being cost effective without public funding from taxation!

With regard to my opposition to this application as a resident in the immediate locality of this proposed industrial installation please be assured that together with the 22 reasons for my opposition it would be relatively easy to identify a further 78 reasons giving 100 sound reasons why on scientific grounds, amenity grounds, danger grounds and wildlife grounds this application is not only unsound but morally unsupportable, further as you can see from the web site:
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat
appropriate links to supportive documentations for such a selected 100 reasons to oppose the installation can readily be provided.

It is for these many and varied reasons that I oppose the application and would ask that as responsible planning authority that the applicant would seem to have a paucity of sound and proven benefits to offer to justify the application beyond narrow personal interests without ‘community benefits’ or benefits for society at large that would in any way counteract the harm done were this application to be approved, be that now or at appeal – an appeal the applicant would be likely to lose were they minded to persue a rejection, in the light of the change of policy of Her Majesty’s newly elected Government with its undeniable and clear majority – a policy change attested to both by the Minister concerned Michael Fallon prior to the election and by the party manifesto.

Thus I call upon all the relevant authorities to responsibly represent and uphold my opposition to this application.

IN ADDITION re Applicant’s Late Submissions

I appreciate the fact that the application did not come before the FoDDC Planning Committee on due date as a result of a late submission of data from the agents of the applicant FoDDC Councillor Mrs. Maria Edwards of the Planning Committee.

The data supplied would not seem to give cause to alter one word of the Officer’s Report and recommendation to refuse the application – further if this material was to be considered it could well have been provided long before this date, however irrelevant it would seem to be:
eg. A lengthy diatribe regarding horses which presents data regarding ‘bridleways’ when there are absolutely zero bridleways in the parish of Tidenham and no addressing of the damage to the visual amenity to footpaths of which there are 65 kilometers in the parish!

There is also tacit acceptance made by the agents that horses may well be ‘spooked’ by the turbine, but will in the fullness of time become used to this monstrous edifice with its constant and irregular motion! Perhaps they can provide a script to the nearby equestrian centre to accommodate the possibility that during that period of adjustment of their existing horses or at a later date additional horses, if a child may be thrown from a ‘spooked’ horse and killed and they are required to explain the event to distraught parents!

I also note having been the direct agents of delay in presenting the matter to the FoDDC Planning Committee, by their late supplication and submission of data, which requires due diligence from the FoDDC, those same agents are now seeking to bring pressure for an early hearing!

This seems based upon the fact that the Government may lower the ‘feed in tariffs’. As a weapon to seek to seemingly bribe the FoDDC they are claiming their thinly veiled, if entirely legal bribes, in the form of claims of community benefit payment have not only rocketed in size, all be it the total amount they claim though they do not contractually undertake would be unlikely to cover the cost of a single multiple fatality accident, in the next 20 years, on the adjoining A48 where the distraction of their industrial and opportunistic installation is likely to be the cause, on more than one occasion, during the probable 10 to 15 years life expectancy of their project (12 to 15 years being the current actual life expectancy of such turbines based on actual installations elsewhere to date!).

Not only is the FoDDC and the community expected to tolerate the bribes and bullying but now the application would seem to be attempting to blackmail the community – the very community whose overwhelming number of actual letters from actual members of the community as opposing the application, as opposed to the many standard forms garnered via ‘social media’ and soliciting signatures from uninvolved parties with apparently little understanding of the inefficiency of wind turbines as power generations and the massive subsidies required from the tax payers at the cost of more valuable and important demands on the public purse than subsidies enriching the wealthy – such as the NHS, Policing, education and defence!
The community whose local Parish Council resoundingly rejected the application, the community whose legally appointed representative Officer recommended strongly and in detail to refuse the application!

Where is the support of any consequence or validity in the community and in keeping with announced government policy that such applications MUST have local support!

These are just some of the reasons why I oppose this industrialisation of this rural area and though apparent blackmail is not I presume a planning matter neither I understand is any claim of cash handouts or apparent bribes to any in the community be that immediate or within a 5km. perimiter, which is as morally repugnant to me as direct payments to members of the planning committee to buy a result.

For these reasons and others I reserve the right to act jointly or separately with others to seek a Public Enquiry should this application progress in any form, and would willingly assist others facing the same threats in the region.
.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins
eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com
Phone: 01594 – 528 337

Opposing A Wind Turbine:
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

PS – 47:

I have also made the more specific objection re the application, as follows:

From: Greg Lance-Watkins (Greg_L-W)
At: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

PLEASE RECORD THIS MY OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION PO356/15/FUL
In the light of the identified further submission on behalf of the applicant Councillor Maria Edwards

Hi,

Perhaps this letter from the agents of the applicant FoDDC Counciller Mrs. Moira Edwards, item 168 on the schedule of documents presented on the FoDDC planning web site, relevant to the opportunistic and clearly unpopular industrialisation of Severndale Farm, should perhaps have been more appositely titled:

Severndale Community Wind Up – P0365/15/FUL

I appreciate that this thinly veiled, morally questionable, apparent bribe is within the law, although it is, under law, neither to be considered a ‘Planning Issue’ nor is it contractually valid or enforceable by law!

However compounding this insult to the intelligence of all, the situation would now seem to have escalated to a situation that it would not be unreasonable to call blackmail.

It was after all late submission of data that led to the deferment of the application, which was scheduled to be heard by FoDDC Planning Committee on the 14-Jul-2015 and would have been decided on then, had not this submission arrived in skeleton form on Friday afternoon previous, together with a 27 page attempt at rebuttal of the Officer’s report to the committee!

The continued allusion to this being a ‘community’ project is little more than an attempt at aesopian linguistics with a view to exploiting Neural Lingusistic Programming (NLP), it has all the validity of the pretence that aparteid in South Africa was for the benefit of the indigenous peoples!

The continued use of the style ‘a Community project’, ‘a Community benefit’ or the like is an opportunistic, dishonest and misleading pretence, as the ‘Community’ locally has soundly rejected the scheme individually in reasoned correspondence also via its Parish Council and via its Officer’s report, just as the National Community, by the pronouncements of the recently elected majority Government, have rejected the concept as laid out in the Conservative manifesto, for which the majority of voters voted in the recent election.

I appreciate that the applicant Councillor Edwards was voted into office as a Conservative to ostensibly uphold that manifesto yet it is she who seeks to exploit the subsidies that used to pertain for this proven ineffectual, inefficient and unpleasant source of power.

Personally I am of the opinion that Councillor Edwards’ position is untenable and she should consider her resignation to avoid further embarrassment to The Conservative Party, our MP, our District Council, our Parish and our ‘community’, none of whom does she seem to represent in this matter, nor in principle!

Herewith submission 168 on FoDDC Planning web site from Councillor Edwards’ agents at ‘The Resilience Centre Ltd.’:

Mr Peter Williams
Group Manager Planning & Housing
Forest of Dean District Council
Council Offices
High Street
Coleford
GLOS
GL16 8HG
Your Ref: P0365/15/FUL
15th July 2015
Dear Mr Williams,
Severndale Community Wind – P0365/15/FUL
With regard to the above planning application we would like to clarify and formalise our committment regarding the proposed Community Ownership structure and can confirm that the project will be brought forwards as a Community Benefit Society, if planning consent is obtained. Furthermore the project would commit a total fund of £500,000 of Community Benefit directly to the local area over the first 20 years of o peration of the project, to be distributed by a locally self appointed panel of stakeholders plus any additional surplus from the operation of the Society, estimated to be an additional £600,000 over the first 20 years of operation, a total of up to £1,100,000 in direct community bene fits. However, the ability to meet these commitments is time critical as in the recent budgetary announcement the Chancellor instructed the Energy Minister to c omplete a mid season term budegtary review of Feed in Tariffs, currently underway and exp ected to deliver a revised degression ahead of the current Feed in Tariff degression date of 30th September. As such the project is only able to commit to these benefits if planning is approved before 31st August 2015. After this date the project would have to re view the reduced income from the project due to Feed In Tariff degression and reduce the Com munity Benefits accordingly. We therefore request your help in achieving an earlier Planning Commitee date than the one currently proposed for 8th September in order to protect these Community Benefits.
Andrew Clarke
Director
The Resilience Centre Ltd
.
Judging from the overwhellming response of opposition, by original letters, from informed and concerned members of the community, from the Parish council, the FoDDC designated Officer’s report and from Government policy; I do believe that should the application ever be heard there are no moral nor public commercial reason why the project should be granted.

However should there be any attempt to continue bullying this application into being or effort to overturn a decision in favour of the community’s objection to this application, a full public enquiry should be held, with the applicant being responsible for placing a bond to cover any and all costs likely to be incurred by such an enquiry, particularly in the light of her failure to uphold the policies for which she was ostensibly elected and in the light of the fact that her position as the applicant was never announced in her election material or to the electorate at large.

Let it be noted that I endorse the tone and recommendation of the Officer’s Report and wholeheartedly object to the application PO365/15/FUL and similar applications on well documented planning and factual grounds.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Greg Lance-Watkins
eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com
Phone: 01594 – 528 337

Opposing A Wind Turbine:
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com/2015/05/17/60m-wind-turbine-eyesore-application-for-stroat

PS – 48:

At a meeting held in the Community by members of the Community on Monday 20-Jul-2015 it was appreciated that as Councillor Maria Edwards’ application was likely to be turned down it was likely that she, through her agents and partners Andrew & Sue Clarke who are ‘Resilience’ an appeal was likely. It was also probable, should the application be, for some vexatious reason, be approved then a Public Enquiry or Full Judicial Review would be called for by the Community.

It was therefore agreed by those present that there was a growing need to formalise the opposition to this prospective threat to our Community and the area at large. To this end it was agreed to call the ‘Group’ opposing the Giant Wind Turbines applied for on HGanley Hill, opposite Hanley Farm Shop between the A48 & the river, towering 337 feet above The Severn on Councillor Maria Edwards and her husband Lyndon Edwards’ farm Severndale Farm.

The name chosen was:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group

PS – 49:

It has become apparent, as a result of an enquiry, responded to by Councillor Helen Molyneux, that it would seem that FoDDC have acquiesced to the apparent implied blackmail on behalf of Councillor Maria Edwards of FoDDC Planning Committee made by her agent Andrew Clarke as shown in PS-47 above, as the planned date of 08-Sep-2015 for consideration of the application as scheduled has been brought forward to 11-Aug-2015.

The other reasonable assumption, if one does not consider the apparent blackmail has been effective, could be that FoDDC find their position to be acutely embarrassing in that the applicant is a councillor on the planning committee who was recently elected yet failed to advise the electorate that she would be making a planning application contra her party’s election manifesto, an application in her own right which has proved very strongly opposed by the ‘Community’ she perports to represent!

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

PS – 50:

Letter from
The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group
to members of the community

Dear Resident,
Severndale Farm Wind Turbine – Planning Update
As you may be aware, the Forest of Dean District Council Planning Committee is now meeting to make a decision on this application on 11th August. The application was scheduled for the earlier Planning Committee meeting in July, but was withdrawn at the last minute following a very late and lengthy additional submission from the applicants.
You may already have received a letter from the Council dated 15th July (see attached), which sets out how you can make further comments before the Planning Committee meets in just over two weeks.
These comments need to be made quoting PO/365/15/FUL by 29th July 2015. So we have less than one week. The applicants requested that the meeting was brought forward hence the need for urgent action.
The purpose of this letter is to bring this matter to your attention again, as you have previously submitted Objections to the application. Like you, we are a Group of concerned local residents who are firmly opposed to the Application and wish to ensure that the Council’s Planning Committee are fully aware of the local community’s very real concerns and reservations.
The good news is that the Council’s Planning Officers are recommending the Application be refused. However, the final decision rests with the Committee members voting on a majority basis on the 11th August 2015 and nothing can be taken for granted.
It is therefore vitally important that as many residents as possible submit additional objecting comments, as set out in the attached letter, to ensure that the Committee members are fully aware that the Application does NOT have the backing of the local community. Under the latest Planning Guidelines issued by the UK Government in June 2015, this is a key consideration that the Committee must take into account.
We would therefore urge each member of your household to submit additional comments clearly stating again your objections. Please ask similar thinking neighbours to do the same especially if they have not previously commented. These can be sent as before via the FDDC website ’Planning Applications’ or by e-mail or post and need to include your name and address to demonstrate th