Sponsored by
Villagers flock to see windfarm plans
The Straker family live at Plantation Farm next to the proposed site and helped man the Middleton Burn Action Group stand. L-R is Linda, Verity and Martin.
RESIDENTS turned out in force to view proposals for a major windfarm in north Northumberland this afternoon.
The company behind plans for a site near Belford, to be known as Middleton Burn, held a public exhibition in the village to provide more information on the scheme for 16 125-metre turbines.
And by mid-afternoon, there was a steady stream of people to see the display at the Bell View Resource Centre, which was rivalled by a separate display from Middleton Burn Action Group, which was set up to oppose the plans.
The group was holding a ballot to gauge public opinion on the turbines.
Jens Rasmussen, director of Middleton Burn Ltd, said that community benefit was a ‘key part’ of the scheme.
He also said the consultation was important so that they could find out what people want.
“The consultation is about hearing what they have to say,” he said. “We are here to listen to everybody and to be as factual as possible.
“We are here to engage and talk and go through the process, and we are very happy to hear feedback from anyone – positive and negative.”
Martin Straker, from the Middleton Burn Action Group, said that they had received a ‘very good response’.
“I would say the majority of people are against the proposal,” he said.
FOR FULL REPORT SEE NEXT THURSDAY’S NORTHUMBERLAND GAZETTE
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Northumberland
Thursday 24 May 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: 9 C to 14 C
Wind Speed: 8 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 15 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 7 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Gordon24
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:30 AMHorace. And there was I thinking that the point of your remark was fuel poverty. Or was it just abuse, as demonstrated in your latest contribution.
Gordon24
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:24 AMOne wonders how Rasmussen has the brass neck to claim that, “We are here to listen to everybody and to be as factual as possible". Anyone who attended his company's presentation knows that it was a PR exercise, pure and simple. It was summed up by the fact that a large proportion of the show (two large display panels, in the key entrance position) were devoted to pretty pictures of possible uses for the so-called community fund. As NLys says, this is not even a part of the planning application. I could give along list of the misleading and slanted information presented on the other panels. The most important will suffice: photomontages were used that Mr Rasmussen's consultants had prepared, they were designed to be used in A3 format, the ones used were half that size. This broke the rules. Nor was that all, the photomontages also broke planning guidance by failing to include information on how they were prepared, including what cameras and lenses were used. Just one other example of the way this company works: they presented a graphic from DECC's Mott McDonald report on energy generation costs. They claimed that this showed how competitive wind is with other generators. However, they failed to include the information with which Mott McDonald qualified this graphic - it did not include subsidies, it failed to include the additional supply and distribution costs to the Grid and it failed to mention backup and curtailment costs which are specific to wind. In other words, it was totally misleading, like much else in the room.
Horace
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:15 AMGordon24, as could be expected, you have entirely missed the point of my remark and use it to trot out the same old blah blah blah. Also, if you believe anything you read in the Torygraph and use it to support your argument, you are a fool.
Nlys
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 11:30 PMHerr Rassmussen is being disingenuous, so called 'community benefits' are not even a part of the planning application, so how are they "key parts of the scheme"? Secondly, the benefits Herr Rasmussen and his secretive cabal are offering are the bog-standard, lowest agreed sum that the wind industry trade body (RenewableUK) has agreed: £1K per MW of installed capacity per year. If the Middleton Scheme was a few kilometres north, in Scottish Borders, they would have to offer £2-2.5K per MW, per annum. If the scheme was in the Highlands it wouold be £4-5K per MW p.a.; in Powys it would be £5K per MW p.a. So, is a paltry £48K per annum worth the effects on the landscape, heritage assets, tourist businesses and property values? The answer has to be NO. Around the world wind farms are proven to damage property values in the immediate area by 20-40%. Herr Rasmussen's home country recognises this: Denmark has a government-run compensation scheme. In Australia and the US we see wind farm operators buying out homeowners whose properties have been badly affected by turbine noise and then selling those properties at a 40-50% loss. Google 'Ripley Five' and 'Waubra' to see the evidence. More locally, the 'Moorsyde' scheme, for only 7 x 110m turbines in a relatively less popular area for tourists, saw over £1 million in direct investment in tourist businesses in the immediate area of the site postponed or lost. See the Windbyte website for more information: www.windbyte.co.uk
Gordon24
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 08:00 PMHorace. Your remark backfires somewhat because the cost of wind production subsidies through the Renewables Obligation is a major factor in raising electricity bills and hence in driving fuel poverty and damaging British manufacturing and process industries. Don't take my word for it, listen to what Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the last Labour Government, now says: "[Talking of EU targets and fuel poverty];This is an issue which needs to be revisited and I say this as somebody who feels that we really have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions very substantially but in my view it is an expensive, and not a very clever route to go for 35 to 40% on wind turbines." ('Poverty fears over wind power', BBC News, 4 September 2008). There have also been endless warnings on costs, the latest just in the last few days from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce: "The costs of Alex Salmond’s green energy revolution are “going through the roof” and threaten to bankrupt companies by doubling energy bills, business leaders have warned the First Minister." (‘Alex Salmond's Green Energy Revolution "Threatens firms with Bankruptcy"', Telegraph, 29 September, 2011). ‘The costs of Alex Salmond’s green energy revolution are “going through the roof” and threaten to bankrupt companies by doubling energy bills, business leaders have warned the First Minister.’
Horace
Friday, September 30, 2011 at 10:18 AMAnne-Marie Trevelyan? We seem to have a bandwagon here. Before she continues, maybe she'll tell us what plans her mates at Tory Central Office have for providing local jobs and alleviating fuel poverty.
Anne-MarieTrevelyan
Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 05:59 PMThe exhibition was full of shiny boards with pretty colourful maps and a big £1.2 million "for the community". Very appealing perhaps. No mention of CO2 impact of the 1000s of tonnes of concrete to be produced, nor of the damage to bridleway and surrounding area up to St Cutberts Cave. No indication of real energy generation likely for the destruction of views of the landscape to Holy Island with 16 giant industrial turbines looming over a pristine and unique coastal landscape. Local jobs? Local reduction in electricity bills for local rural dwellers already in fuel poverty due to subsidy costs being passed onto consumers? No. No mention of huge profit streams in Air Farmers Ltd cashflows over next 25 years courtesy of the taxpayer. If the technology was efficient, effective and there were no other options, this landscape destruction might just have to be considered. But this application, for me, has no justifiable benefits for the permanent scarring of north northumberland which 16 industrial giants would do.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.