Download “Union, Wisc., Testimony on Noise and Health” (17.3 MB)

Finally after 3 years of lobbying, and a hearing at the High Court in March 2008, a few weeks ago RES released the background noise data, and professional experts commissioned by Mike Hulme, who is spearheading the Group, have now carried out a preliminary analysis of this data.

This investigation shows that there are indeed serious errors in the data and in RES’ assessment of it. These errors mean that the noise impact of the development is actually greater than RES stated at the Planning Inquiry, and that the protective noise limits contained in the Planning Permission are set too high to offer protection.

Evidence from other wind farms shows that turbine noise CAN cause serious problems for local residents and that turbine noise CAN have impact on properties much further afield than RES has so far acknowledged.

The good news is that largely on the basis of this new evidence permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal has not only been granted but has been granted speedily and in emphatic terms — indicating that there is a strong case to answer.

The Court of Appeal has set a date of 24th and 25th of July 2008 and of course this means funding! Estimates are that a fund of at least £20,000 is required to underwrite costs, and donations and pledges to cover this are URGENTLY needed.

Support for the case to date has been tremendous, both from the local community and much further afield, showing the depth of feeling and concern over the building of an industrial-scale wind turbine power station so close to people’s homes. We have to defend our environment against this defective planning approval. Please help NOW by donating whatever you can.

Donations to the Appeal Fund (made out to ‘Den Brook Judicial Review Fund’) should be sent to: DBJRF c/o Nick Jewell, Lynderies, Heath, Spreyton EX17 5AN

For more information please visit our web site www.denbrookvalley.co.uk, email info@denbrookvalley.co.uk or telephone any of: Mike & Basia Hulme (01363 82220),
Bruce & Karen Everett (01647 231603), Nick Jewell (01647 231553), Claire Hodgson (01363 82628), Richard & Vicki Turner (01363 82876), Muriel Goodman (01837 82626), Ruth Harvey (01837 82838), Anne & Graham Ramsey (01647 24317).

We have many concerns after spending many hours researching wind farms here in the U.S. and abroad. Our primary concerns would be Wind Turbine Syndrome (the turbines being too close to residences), and there not being an adequate noise ordinance for this very rural part of the state; second diminished property values and inability to be able to resell our homes should we be forced to leave; thirdly, our concerns for the surrounding wildlife — elk and their huge migrations, antelope, deer, etc. and not to mention that our area is a major migration zone for the snow geese and sand hill cranes, not to mention the disturbances to our raptors, songbirds, owls, etc. This is an area of huge revenue for the state and large game hunting. And there is no local set-back ordinance on these big turbines. Our property line is less than 1/4 mile from the proposed site; and the other site is only 40’ from a private residence.

Several stories have been published in the Taos News, and the first of many meetings takes place at the Taos County Planning Commission on Tues. July 8, 2008 @ 6pm.

Permission has been given to appeal the recent high court decision and we go to the Court of Appeal in only three weeks time, on 24th July — the second time we’ve been through the court system in only four months The Appeal will crucially re-examine the ‘installed capacity’ balancing procedures along with a recently discovered invalid and flawed noise assessment undertaken by the developer here in Devon.

After persevering for nearly 4 years we at last managed to obtain the developer’s noise monitoring data only a few weeks ago. This was not available at the Planning Inquiry nor at the High Court Hearing. The judge at that Hearing, whilst not upholding our claim, was severely critical of the developer for withholding this data. It was subsequently handed over and we learnt useful lessons in the process — if you are seeking to obtain your background noise and wind-speed data in order to independently evaluate your developer’s noise-assessment, contact us, we would be happy to assist.

An independent professional evaluation of the noise data here has revealed an erroneous analysis and prejudicially flawed noise assessment by a supposedly leading developer with Queen’s and other prestigious awards bestowed upon it. This recently discovered hard and factual evidence leads us to be cautiously optimistic that the Appeal Court will uphold our legal challenge and overturn the planning permission.

Success would set an important precedent to assist all concerned about noise and the vagaries of ‘installed capacity’, and trying to gain some justice in this tortuous wind farm debacle.

It will come as no surprise that we are strapped for funds to underwrite the potential £20k costs exposure for the Appeal Court case. We have raised a massive amount locally and nationally over the past 4 years to get this far but we urgently need your financial support to ensure we are able to take this important legal challenge through to a conclusion.

For more information and for details of where to send your contribution please visit our web site www.denbrookvalley.co.uk.

Many thanks.

2nd July 2008

Mike H
Den Brook Judicial Review Team
info@denbrookvalley.co.uk

Donations made out to “Den Brook Judicial Review Fund” can be sent directly to:

Nick Jewell, Lynderies, Heath, Spreyton, Devon, EX17 5AN, UK

Event Description: Oral Arguments: Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines & F. Steven Lathrop v. EFSEC, et al. (Whether the court had jurisdiction to review a petition certified from Thurston Co. Superior Ct. regarding application for energy facility site cert.)

Runtime: 64 min

If you would like to present your views during the hearing, you must attend the opening session at 10am on the first day. The Planning Inspector will take your details and schedule some time for you to speak, probably during the second week.

Click here for more information.

Click here to listen to or download the MP3 file (18 MB).

Click here for videos of the testimony. Or watch them in the viewer below. There a total of 18, ranging in length from 2 to 5 minutes. Click here for partial transcripts by Rock County Tax-Payers for a Better Renewable Energy Plan.

Owing to the large attendance, the meeting was held at the town fire hall, which was full to near capacity.

After a recap by First Wind [UPC] on the proposed location and properties involved, residents and owners were allowed three minutes each to voice their opinions.

There is no doubt that the eminent domain issue has fueled a larger controversy than the wind turbine project itself. There were a handful of supporters of the turbines, one of which sold a parcel of land to First Wind for double its appraised value. Other supporters live in the town proper and are not directly affected by the construction or the site of the turbines, and they do not pay the largest share of the property tax base.

The majority of those in attendance were, by far, opposed to the eminent domain issue, evidenced by both by their comments and the outbursts and applause of the crowd. Resident after resident lambasted the board for their willingness to accept First Wind’s request, as speaker after speaker reminded the board that they work for the residents and property owners, not for First Wind. Many land owners, who are not residents and whose land is directly affected by the eminent domain issue, spoke out about the irresponsibility of the board. All were notified by certified mail by UPC regarding the eminent domain meeting on April 22nd, but these letters arrived one day before the meeting — too late to travel and attend.

Many residents accused the board of profiting from the project and not doing enough research to acquire the knowledge of a project of this magnitude. Some even compared it to Rochester’s Fast Ferry project, which is still being paid by the taxpayers of NY. The only board members who had the sense enough to vote No (Mr. Kula and Mr. Shick) until more facts could be brought to the table were outvoted by Supervisor McConnell and board members Stacey Bottoni and Sharon Quigley at last month’s meeting. Residents were not allowed to speak at that meeting.

The Board has to publish its “findings and determinations” within 90 days of the hearing. The determination and findings must set forth:

1. The public use to be served
2. The reason for the location
3. The general effect
4. Other relevant factors

If, as expected, the Board “finds” to condemn the properties, the “condemnees” have 30 days from the “notice of publication” to appeal. People from all across the state have been sending financial and emotional support to help those whose land is threatened. All donations should be sent to Advocates for Prattsburgh Box 221, Prattsburgh NY 14873.

Cohocton Planning Board, Leaseholders and UPC Court Actions

On Friday, August 31, 2007 three separate Article 78 legal actions were filed with the Supreme Court in Bath, NY. These law suits were brought by thirty-three residents and property owners in Cohocton, NY against the Cohocton Planning Board and its members. Also named are UPC Wind and their various LLC alias companies and fifty leaseholders who have agreements with the industrial turbine developer.

For the better part of eighteen months scores of Cohocton property owners have spoken at public meetings, submitted factual evidence and appealed to both the Planning Board and Town Board to take prudent and diligent caution in approving an ill-conceived wind project. As a member of Cohocton Wind Watch, the case against the UPC project has been made in the press and at countless Cohocton meetings.

The Planning Board has blatantly refused to incorporate any of the protective safeguards into their findings. With the approval of the factually flawed UPC findings in the FEIS and the issuance of blanket “Special Use” permits, the Planning Board has committed malfeasance. All residents and property owners bear the financial burden and risk of town insolvency coming out of a wind project that is doomed to implode.

The current administration and all their hand picked appointees have followed orders from the “so called” Albany town attorneys, paid with UPC funds, to fast track approval. The process has been based upon fraud and systematic violations of the law and regulatory requirements.

Two law suits have previously been filed. The town attorney acknowledged in court that Windmill Local Law #1 did not follow the SEQRA requirement, which ostensively is the reason for the need to pass Windmill Local Law #2. Supreme Court judge Furfure has yet to rule on WLL#2, but the Supervisor stated that his administration is not concerned about any ruling by the judge. The UPC project is the legacy of the incumbent administration.

Zigenfus’ dictatorial policy prohibits public comments before the Town Board, endless correspondence go unanswered and official documents are concealed, altered or destroyed. This arrogant abuse of authority has left no other alternative than to file actions with the court. This round of litigation most likely will be only the beginning of a flood of actions coming from parties unrelated to us or CWW.

Shakespeare said it best when Mark Antony spoke: “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him; The evil that men do lives after them.” The blame for this entire deceitful scheme to defraud Cohocton rests squarely within the collusion among the incumbents, their appointed boards, the leaseholders, UPC and their paid consultants and unethical lawyers.

The public support of families whose roots go back generations in being part of these lawsuits is testimony of widespread public outrage. Cohocton has been sold out with phony promises by corrupt town officials. Stand up for justice and accountability. Vote out the entire incumbent cabal. Turn out for the Public Informational Meeting on Tuesday, Sept 11th at the Cohocton Elementary School 7:00-9:00 PM.