|
What have they been smoking...???
"I received a letter from Newcastle Borough Council thanking me for
my letter of objection. Thing is, I never wrote a letter of
objection - so who did?"
We always thought that our
esteemed councillors were elected to give careful consideration to
the matters presented before them and to proclaim their judgements
with wisdom and gravitas.
Apparently not...
Exactly what they'd been
smoking before the meeting of 10 Feb 2009 beggars belief but the
clouds of marijuana in the council chamber coupled with the
anti-wind invitees filling the chamber (their 4x4s parked in
Sainsbury's carpark) gives a clue as to the way they were thinking.
The council offices had sent
invitations to the anti-wind protestors without them even asking
- which kind of gave the game away a bit. In the event there was no
debate - just a list of reasons for refusal which were nodded
through without further ado.
The Planning Officer's
report (you
can download it from here) had raised three issues which needed to be resolved:
1. The RAF - worried about
interference to their radar at the helicopter training school at
Shawbury.
(If RAF chopper pilots can't learn to dodge a few wind
turbines safely, then Lord knows what they're going to do when the
Taliban start firing missiles at them.)
2. An objection by Jodrell
Bank Observatory worried about microwave
reflections had not yet been resolved. (Actually the
comments from Jodrell Bank were a bit technical and obviously went
right over the Planning Officer's head. So they went on the list...)
3. The noise data was
incomplete due to an equipment failure and needed to be resolved.
(Not, you might notice, that the turbines are too noisy - but
that the technical data was incomplete. That's different - there is no
suggestion that the turbines would in any way contravene the
wind turbine noise regulations!)
But then the show really got going...!
Cllr Tompkins, ward
councillor for Loggerheads and Whitmore got on his hind legs and
moved that 7 more reasons for refusal be added to the list:
1. By reasons of location and elevation in the landscape will
harm and cause unacceptable visual impact inappropriate in an area
of landscape maintenance and incongruous within the landscape....
That's a mouthful. What it actually means is: "I don't like
the look of them."
2. Permanent loss of
significant trees and large loss of broadleaved trees unacceptable
Erm.... in case Cllr Tompkins hasn't noticed: Maer Hills is a
commercial conifer plantation - the trees around the turbine site
were felled over a year ago. And the only broadleaved trees in the
area near the turbines are
those which have regenerated naturally since the area was cleared.
3. Will not protect views
of the Maer Conservation Area
Interesting one this - especially as the planning Officer's
report had specifically said that this is not a problem.
4. Adversely affect the
setting of a listed building, namely Maer Hall
Strangely English Heritage never raised this one. Neither to the
best of our knowledge did the owners of Maer Hall.
5. Neither protect nor
enhance the Public Rights of Way
Yeah, we're trying to work that one out too. Presumably it means
that it has no effect on Public Rights of Way. So that must be OK
then.
6. Detrimental impact on
residential amenity due to the scale, height and design of the
turbines
Anyone willing to explain that one to us? Presumably it means
that some of the nearby residents think that the turbines won't
match their 4x4s. Perhaps they haven't they seen the Landrover
Discovery adverts with the wind turbines in the background to make
them look green?
7. Developer has not
demonstrated that won't affect protected species.
"Protected species" presumably means NIMBYs. Two statutary
reports submitted by the developer said that the development would
actually improve the wildlife habitat of the area. Yeah, he must be talking
about NIMBYs. We didn't even realise they were protected.
Cllr Maskery then started to see moving shadows so the weed was
obviously affecting him badly:
1. General harm caused by shadow flicker (harm to residents and
users of A51 and A53)
Erm.... perhaps Cllr Maskery's was hallucinating by the time he said
this. He obviously hasn't noticed that the A51 and the A53 are both to
the south of the turbine site, and so any shadows will be facing away from the road. Doh!
2. Harm to health and
safety from falling ice.
We couldn't think of anything intelligent to say about this one
either. In fact, since when has Health and Safety come under the
remit of the Planning Committee? Maybe one of the protestors is worried about falling ice
damaging the 4x4. Or dropping the ice bucket on the carpet. Any other suggestions on a postcard please...
let's face it: if global warming carries on the way it is, there
won't BE any ice!
Save Planet Earth |
