Resource Documents: New Zealand (18 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Author: New Zealand Environmental Court
 In an Interim Decision dated 1 December 2016 the court granted consent to Windflow Technology Limited for a wind turbine at Gebbies Pass, Banks Peninsula, subject to conditions which would be confirmed in a final decision.
 This decision finalises the conditions of consent and, subject to any issues as to costs, resolves this appeal.
 By way of background this is an appeal against a decision to re-consent an existing wind turbine at Gebbies Pass, Banks Peninsula. The turbine was made operational in 2004 and, as we recorded in the Interim Decision, the residents in the neighbouring McQueen’s Valley have experienced noise from the turbine which has intruded upon their general enjoyment of their properties and for some, disturbed and disrupted their sleep.
 During the tenure of the original consent, Windflow did not undertake compliance monitoring within McQueen’s Valley to confirm whether the turbine was operating within the conditions imposed on its consent. Instead it relied on predicted noise levels in the valley based on measurements undertaken at the turbine site. We were greatly troubled by this and by the reliance on the turbine’s attainment of the noise limits in the New Zealand Standard 6808:201 O as this proved inimical to an enquiry into the experience of noise within McQueen’s Valley which, in contrast to the turbine site, has a very low sound environment.
 Disengaged with the persons living within the receiving environment, Windflow has been met with strong opposition to this application. To its credit, at the conclusion of the hearing Windflow proposed restrictions on the hours of operation of the turbine in response to the parties’ concerns, although it maintained these measures were not mandated by the evidence.
 The court reached a different view on the evidence. Noise from the turbine, including amplitude modulation, was a particular feature of this case because of its adverse effect on the amenity of the residents in the low background sound environment of McQueen’s Valley. Overall, we concluded the restrictions on the hours of operation and ceasing operation of the turbine if verification measurements identified penalisable levels of amplitude modulation or tonality were an appropriate response given Windflow’s duty under s 16 of the Resources Management Act 1991 to avoid unreasonable noise. …
3. Hours of Operation:
i. The turbine shall not be operated on any day of the week between the hours of 1900 and 2200 except when the wind speed measured at the hub height of the turbine exceeds 10 metres per second [22 mph] …
6. Verification measurements
In terms of the verification measurements required by this condition: …
v. If the verification measurements indicate the sound power level at the reference position at hub height wind speed of 8 m/s is 65 dB or greater, or contains tonality or amplitude modulation which would be penalisable under NZS 6808:2010, the requirements of Condition 7 shall apply …
7. Restricted operations
i. Should the criterion of Condition 6(v) apply, operation of the wind turbine between 1700 and 0500 hours shall immediately cease …
8. Compliance monitoring
In conjunction with the verification measurements required under condition 6:
i. The consent holder shall undertake compliance monitoring and confirm that the wind turbine is operating within the noise limits [LA90(10min)] set out in the following table when assessed at the measuring points defined in condition 8(ii) below.
|Background Sound Level||424 Gebbies Pass Road||McQueen’s Valley|
|>35 dB||Background + 5 dB||Background + 5 dB|
|30-35 dB||40 dB||Background + 5 dB|
|<30 dB||40 dB||35 dB|
Download original document: “Pickering v. CCC: Final Decision of the Environmental Court”
A: Under section 285 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Environment Court orders:
(i) the Christchurch City Council is to pay the sum of $3,605.00 to Luke Pickering; and
(ii) Windflow Technology Limited is to pay the sum of $10,815.00 to Luke Pickering.
B: Under section 286 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the District Court at Christchurch is named as the court this order may be filed in for enforcement purposes (if necessary).
Grounds for the application
 Mr Pickering submits it was necessary for him to pursue an appeal because the Council’s decision to grant consent did not offer reasonable protection to the surrounding neighbourhood.
 He has found the entire process stressful, and needless to say very costly. From Mr Pickering’s point of view, he approached mediation in a conciliatory manner and his desire was to reach early, meaningful resolution. During that time, despite requests not to, Windflow continued to operate the turbine without consent.
 The need to carry on with the appeal has resulted in considerable financial costs for Mr Pickering and he seeks to obtain fair recognition of these costs.
Discussion and findings …
 Pursuant to s 16 of the Act, every occupier of land and every person carrying out an activity on it is to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise from that land does not exceed a reasonable level. The experts advising the City Council and Windflow have assumed the adverse effect of noise is acceptable provided that the wind turbine complies with the guideline noise limits in the New Zealand Standard 6808. We disagreed. Whether the effect of noise below the guideline limits is adverse is sensitive to the receiving environment in which that the noise is experienced.
 Background sound levels in this deeply incised Valley are very low relative to the sound levels on the windy ridgeline where the turbine is located. Turbine noise is the dominant noise in the Valley. The turbine noise is clearly audible above background sound, even though the level of turbine noise does not exceed the guideline limits in the New Zealand Standard. The particular character of this noise and its unpredictability has had an adverse effect on general enjoyment of the properties and for some disturbed their sleep.
 Windflow’s and the City Council’s assumption that the effect of noise below the guideline limits is acceptable was inimical to an enquiry into the actual experience of noise within McQueen’s Valley. This assumption was challenged by Mr Lewthwaite, the expert called on behalf of Mr Pickering.
 Because Windflow (and the Council) relied on expert advice, we do not go as far as to say Windflow neglected its duty. That said, the offer to amend the proposed conditions by providing residents respite from the noise of the adverse effects came very late, on the last day of the hearing. This is a significant improvement on an offer evidently made to Mr Pickering prior to the commencement of the hearing recorded in a letter from Windflow’s counsel to lawyers acting for a second appellant who later withdrew.
 Knowing of the residents’ concerns, I find that Windflow failed to adequately explore the possibility of settlement where compromise could have been reasonably expected. Given the above, I am satisfied that there are grounds to exercise my discretion and order costs against Windflow.
The Council …
 [T]he decision of Commissioner appointed by the Council to hear and determine the resource consent application records the Commissioner’s unease with the noise and its characteristics. He thought it possible that localised topographical features may make turbine noise more intrusive than what modelling might otherwise indicate. He was also critical of the failure of the Council to independently review Windflow’s assessment of noise and its effects. The Commissioner’s intuition as to the cause of the adverse effect was sound.
 At this hearing the Council engaged an independent expert on the topic of noise. The public’s interest is at the forefront of the Council’s role but it did not make enquiry into the actual experience of turbine noise within McQueen’s Valley. The Council did not appreciate that the New Zealand Standard is a guideline and instead relied on its expert’s advice that the effect of noise below the guideline levels in the Standard is always acceptable. For these reasons I am satisfied that there are grounds to exercise my discretion and that it is fair in the circumstances that the Council recompense Mr Pickering for a share of the costs that he has incurred. …
 Given the modest sum claimed I am satisfied that a contribution of 75% costs ($14,420.19) is appropriate here.
 I will order Windflow to pay 75% of those costs and the Council to pay 25%.
Download original document: “Pickering v. CCC: Decision of the Environment Court on Application for Costs”
Author: Stichbury, Paul
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. —Plato
Guinea pigs are endearing animals but just a few can eat you out of house and home. On a regular excursion around Palmerston North, New Zealand, my wife and I happened on a stretch of road harbouring a rich source of grass to keep our son’s pets well supplied. It was here that we found for sale a residential rural section which gave us the opportunity to take our Bed and Breakfast business to the next level.
This was an exciting investment for us but little did we know that we faced a multiyear one-sided battle with our local Council [PNCC] and the Government by proxy through its then State Owned Enterprise, Mighty River Power [MRP]. Our building site, and hundreds of other properties inside the city boundary we were to learn several years later, was smack alongside a proposed wind farm of 131, 125 metre, 3 Megawatt turbines. This appeared to be a world first with the placement of a gigantic 14 km long industrial complex in a protected native bush reserve and off limits water catchment, towering over approximately 2,000 properties and directly affecting about 10% of city residents. 60, 40 story turbines have been approved but the plan is to later “fill in the gaps.”
PNCC, parroting the buzzword “sustainability,” is signed up to ICLEI, the stalking horse for the UN’s Marxist Agenda 21,which informed people now know puts property rights at the mercy of the whims of monolithic Central and local government and its rent seeking hangers on. The city and its recognised ONL, outstanding natural landscape, were to be sacrificed to the NZ emissions trading scheme [ETS] and to Kyoto “obligations”
The people behind this outrage were confident of success. Every step was carefully planned. PNCC as a revenue receiving landowner/partner had been secretly planning since 1995 for a wind farm, subsequently approving the subdivision of residential land right beneath the turbines, taking development fees and property taxes, land which we and many others unwittingly bought.
“Fraud has to be ferreted out by carefully following its marks and signs, for fraud will in most instances, though ever so artfully and secretly contrived, like the snail in its passage, leave its slime by which it may be traced.”
Tennessee Supreme Court 1835 Floyd v. Goodwin
The marks and signs of fraud literally began with signs, signs of spinning turbines, which out of nowhere adorned billboards at city entrances, PNCC vehicles, stationery and its website. The slime of psychologically softening up the locals had begun. I later wrote to PNCC lawyer Annabel asking how this happened, what public input there was and who was behind it. He pretended I had asked about an earlier logo but later admitted there was no public consultation and declined to discuss the matter further. In November 2015 Mighty River Power in its submission opposing social impact assessments in the PNCC District Plan brazenly confirmed the implementation of their psychological tactics on ratepayers stating:
“A Social Impact Assessment can be useful where a proposal may have a significant impact on demographics, such as schooling or other social issue, but the results are likely to be far less useful or conclusive where the community is pre-conditioned to the type of development, such as wind farms in Palmerston North.” [emphasis added] Note: there are no wind farms in Palmerston North City.
The wind turbine logo appeared on what looked like an innocuous document distributed throughout the city in August 2006, which asked for comment on a change of purpose for the Turitea water catchment. Almost all households would have consigned this document to the trash as yet another inconsequential PNCC missive, but we read it. The then Mayor, Heather Tanguay, had signed off on a deliberately deceptive, amateurishly written, horror story. This fraudulent document is a prominent element in the conspiracy against Palmerston North. It lauded a proposed eco-park, the ultimate bribe for the low information ratepayer, contained deceptive imagery of the Turitea Ranges inside the city boundary and made ridiculous promises which were never going to be kept, including battery powered boating on the city’s water supply dams and an Eco lodge right under the turbines.
We immediately distributed flyers throughout the city pointing out that PNCC had sold out both its ratepayers and environment, jeopardizing the city’s water supply and was to rubberstamp approval in just a few days. The flyers forced PNCC to open consultation with ratepayers who turned up in such large numbers over a number of evening public meetings that PNCC had to hire security guards. The opposition to the lies told by PNCC and its councilors was overwhelming and despite ratepayer after ratepayer berating them for their treachery they went ahead and approved the change of purpose to the reserve. In November 2006 Tanguay was reported in our local paper.
Mayor Heather Tanguay said she did not agree there has been a lack of information about the wind farm proposal: “I think the information (available) has been very substantial.”
- the number of turbines
- their size
- their location
- where the so called “eco park” was.
This led to a failed and expensive legal challenge which sapped protestors’ resources. By now the head to head confrontation between several local landowners participating in the scheme and PNCC had turned ugly. To keep the local Fairfax newspaper “The Manawatu Standard” on a tight leash PNCC withdrew all advertising to punish it for reporting which had come too close to the bone. The paper knew something ratepayers didn’t know, something which will be revealed later.
Apart from future very restrained local coverage of the wind farm debacle the rest of the New Zealand media was completely silent on this issue. I soon found out why. The Dominion Post ran a story which gave me the opportunity to post a moderate reader comment about the proposed wind farm in the Turitea Reserve and to link to a website I ran opposing it. The comment was deleted. The website sitemeter recorded a visit from Mighty River Power which showed beyond any doubt that MRP was, with the approval of Fairfax, deleting and censoring comments about the wind farm. I shared the page showing this visit with two opponents, fully realizing its great importance. Our home and work computers were then hacked and the incriminating evidence deleted along with numerous files and emails. Fortunately the page was able to be retrieved from one recipient who had been Bcc’d.
Fairfax CEO at the time was one Joan Withers who had prior to joining Fairfax been a director of Meridian Energy, another state owned enterprise. Withers went on to chair the board at MRP. The deception and manipulation was there for all to see but what media organization in light of her extensive involvement in radio, TV, and newspapers was ever going to report it? Withers was clearly “too big to fail” but she is not alone. From now on I knew I was a marked man.
RadioLive contacted me to participate in an interview over the proposed wind farm. Joining the interview was MRP CEO Douglas Heffernan. I was introduced as a detractor of wind farms. This was not true. My issue was specifically with the Turitea wind farm which would ruin Palmerston North. At this point no one in the community knew the full extent of the wind farm and Heffernan when asked the size of the wind farm lied stating that it was of a similar size to the nearby Te Apiti wind farm. In reality it was 4 times bigger. Heffernan went on to lie at the Call-In with impunity. The interview which was placed online was subsequently deleted but in a site upgrade many months later accidentally reinstated.
Repeated requests to PNCC to provide us with information were rejected, even insisting that we pay the Council for their time. One day a lawyer at Chancery Green emailed me to set up a confidential meeting with MRP to show my wife and I secret photomontages withheld from all other affected parties. We were shocked at what we saw. A map identifying a great swath of affected property was casually left lying around for me to see while MRP staff stood over us. When I said to employee, Mike Omer, that MRP must have a huge war chest, Omer gave a sick grin, turned away and stared out the window. At this stage New Zealand’s Resource Management Act was to be applied to the consent process with right of appeal to the Environment Court. The proposal was so extreme, that instead of this meeting encouraging us to sell up, as was obviously intended, it looked certain to be rejected by the court. At a later meeting, Omer, without prompting, told me exactly that.
To circumvent the Environment Court Environment Minister Nick Smith announced in December 2008 that the wind farm would be “called in” where a Board of Inquiry headed by a judge would make a binding decision which could only be challenged in court on a legal technicality. The local paper 24/4/2009 had this to say:
“At best, the documents obtained by this newspaper lay bare a woefully inept decision-making process. At worst, they are evidence of an orchestrated campaign to deceive the people of this region and usurp the council’s statutory role. Either way, the decision to call-in the consent application was a sham.”
After submissions to the Call-In had closed, MRP on 19/3/2009 admitted withholding information essential for the public to be able to make informed submissions.
“Asked about “negative” press coverage, Mr McDonnell said Mighty River Power had previously created an information vacuum through lack of communication. The company planned to be more forward in the coming weeks.”
Our city was now to be subjected to an utter farce which lasted from the 24th January 2009 until 6th September 2011 when the Board of Inquiry handed down its Final Decision after repeatedly bending over backwards for the applicant. Judge Shonagh Kenderdine was selected by Minister Smith to head the inquiry. Submitters did not know that the Board was rigged and that its members including Kenderdine were global warming fanatics who would deliver the city to Smith whose own carbophobic beliefs were well known. Kenderdine gave the game away when, after issuing the consent, as guest of honour at the 2012 New Zealand Wind Energy Association conference, she exposed the soft underbelly of her intellect in a speech describing how to place wind farms as close as possible to human habitation. Her PowerPoint was briefly placed on the for now triumphant NZWEA website where she concluded by quoting Sir James Lovelock:
“Global warming is now irreversible. Nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to live in with others sinking underwater by about 2040. Our only chance now is to: Start planning how to survive – Acknowledge we need more technology, not less.”
Lovelock has repudiated this utter nonsense. The NZWEA must have been laughing up their sleeves. There has been no global warming now for almost 19 years despite fraudulent downward revision of historical temperature records to seal a deal where the entire world on the basis of a bogus weather catastrophe bows to the UN’s Agenda 21. The New Zealand government had swallowed the fraudulent Michael Mann hockey stick graph, eliminating the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, hook line and sinker. The IPCC has since quietly abandoned it. Kenderdine was now nothing more than an enabler, a useful idiot.
To present a veneer of probity and democracy in action the Ministry for the Environment [MFE] dutifully put the voluminous Call-In proceedings online along with evidence from all parties. Very few would have looked at it but yours truly did and made startling discoveries. Two legal documents showed that PNCC in a secret agreement with MRP had agreed to cancel its statutory obligations by agreeing to pay Mighty River Power three million dollars if it offered any assistance to ratepayers affected by the wind farm and additionally should PNCC decide to oppose the wind farm that it would have unlimited liability. Kenderdine was fully aware of this outrageous, corrupt contract and so too was our local Fairfax newspaper. It was now a case of either bankrupting individual ratepayers or bankrupting the city.
The mafia-like jeopardy in this contract explained why everything had unfolded in the way that it had.
The second document which made a brief appearance on the Ministry website was a variation to this contract which stated that if a court ruled against the wind farm that PNCC would join in with MRP to overthrow the decision and subvert the Judicial system – see clause 3.2. The purpose of this variation was to avoid the possibility that a compliant judge, who could be bought to produce the desired result, might not be available. There is a clear implication that the Executive has in the past traversed the mandatory separation from the Judiciary to its advantage. The Ministry of Justice website states:
“The New Zealand system of Government is based on the Westminster model which provides for a separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. This separation ensures there are checks and balances within the system and that accountability and impartiality are maintained.”
PNCC was held hostage by secret financial milestone bribes it had already irrevocably taken and had to toe the line. Kenderdine by her refusal to publicly discuss this contract and its variation ripping up the social contract with all New Zealanders (I raised it in submissions) was engaging in an assault not only on the integrity of the judiciary but on the Bill of Rights and the country’s unwritten constitution. It is conceivable that both these documents on which the wind farm was founded were put online by a whistleblower.
The wind farm noise conditions were never agreed to but were imposed. These conditions were dictated by the applicant, MRP. Dr Thorne, acoustician, stated:
“In my experience it is very unusual for an applicant to write the approval conditions that it will agree to be bound by and ignore the legitimate professional opinion of a dissenting expert. The Environment Court code of conduct indicates that all experts must meet to agree to the conditions or provide dissent. My dissenting opinions to the earlier conditions have not been stated in the MRP draft conditions nor has the Board fairly and impartially evidenced the highly detailed alternative noise management conditions produced in evidence by myself and Huatau Marae.”
I presented research to the Board of Inquiry as to how the noise standard NZS6808 2010 was manufactured. The standard is fraudulent but Kenderdine let it pass without comment. Australia now recognises the damage being done to communities by audible noise and infrasound. How the noise conditions are being rigged by fraudulent means has been exposed by Senator John Madigan. Marshall Day Acoustics figures both in Australia and at Turitea.
For many years I taught natural hazards at a local secondary school. I became very familiar with the high seismic risk our city faced and had personal experience of this when altering and strengthening a building for our Bed and breakfast business. In my very first submission I raised and later expounded at length on the earthquake risk to the wind farm. To my amazement this was totally ignored by Kenderdine and her sycophantic board. The wind farm is directly on top of the Wellington fault line with the Northern Ohariu fault running through the Southern section and under a large substation. These faults deliver earthquakes in the region of 8+ on the Richter scale with very large horizontal and vertical movements. The next major quake, on average every 140 years, is overdue.
Minister Smith who forced the Call-In has a PhD in the geological sciences, specialising in landslides. The then project manager Mark Henry has a degree in geology.
PNCC after the devastation caused by the Christchurch earthquakes in 2011 is required to assess prominent local buildings and infrastructure. The assessments are alarming. The day after the big one strikes our city will be unrecognisible. As an example, former Deputy Mayor, John Hornblow, preacher at All Saints Church, who voted for the wind farm, has been forced to confront the 3% of code strength for his church, eight kilometres from the faults. The iconic church now closed has a very uncertain future.
Smith, now Housing Minister, in May 2015 announced new rules for earthquake strengthening. The areas where the wind farms are placed are identified as high risk seismic zones. Tests via drilling and the placement of explosives on and near the faults have recently been done. No results have been publicised. Smith has subsequently announced that seismic strengthening on potentially lethal buildings or demolition must be done much sooner.
Irrational global warming fears trumped even the most basic commonsense but there was another reason that the earthquake risk was ignored. The government all along planned to sell a 49% share of Mighty River Power to the public. I had exchanges with the Financial Marketing Authority and was assured that the risk to investors would be revealed. It was not. The fraud had now deepened and spread.
How could this possibly get worse?
When the Final Decision was issued on 6th September 2011 and we realised that none of our submissions on the Draft Decision were considered or even read we asked that the errors and omissions be corrected by Kenderdine, as she was the judge responsible and it was her statutory obligation. Letters to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner finally drew a very reluctant response which was nothing less than stunning…. Kenderdine was not a judge and had not been a judge for more than 13 months before she issued the final legally binding decision.
Letter after letter has been written to the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and to Attorney-General Finlayson who had permanently removed Kenderdine’s warrant on 6 August 2010. Two weeks later he rewarded her by appointing her as chair of the Historic Places Trust. None, if they answered at all, could provide a legal basis for Kenderdine, now just Ms Kenderdine, repeatedly signing off as a judge and being paid [over $500,000NZ] to impersonate one. This is state sponsored fraud. We issued a Scoop news release and reporters at the Manawatu Standard interviewed us for a local story. They were very nervous about reporting our comments. When John Adams went to lay a complaint of fraud with the police they took one look and said “this is going nowhere.” The government’s tactic has been to not respond publicly. I have not received any legal threats or a midnight knock on the door. When I posted that Kenderdine was a fraud the post was hacked right before my eyes. The website has been buried by Google who have made numerous, lengthy manual visits obviously at the Government’s request. Even the logo in link can no longer be found.
And what did Kenderdine do? On her consultancy website she lied about her time as a judge, adding one year and one month to her professional “history” The Department of Justice has done nothing about this and has made numerous visits to my website.
New Zealand legislation is very specific regarding secret commissions and the involvement, preparation and submission of faulty and deceptive documents to the Government. Kenderdine and others did just that with Government assistance, guidance and remuneration. So can charges be laid? Only if the Attorney-General, Finlayson, who is up to his neck in this fraud, gives his consent! The maximum penalty is two years in jail. But what of Finlayson’s legal obligations as a State employee? This is from the NZ Government Cabinet Manual:
4.3 The Attorney-General has particular responsibility for maintaining the rule of law. The Attorney-General has a responsibility to notify Cabinet of any proposals or government actions that do not comply with existing law and to propose action to remedy such matters. [emphasis added]
Keeping Kenderdine in the public eye gave both her and the Government an air of invincibility. When her term expired as chair of the Historic Places Trust on 31 July 2013 Finlayson illegally kept her on for almost another year until 22 May 2014. This incriminating webpage and all Call-In submissions on the MFE website were deleted by the Government but all survive on the internet archive.
In September 2014 Kenderdine received a QSO for her unspecified “services to the judiciary”
Kenderdine’s poisonous legacy lives on. She was Chair of the Board of Inquiry established by the Minister of Conservation to report on the 2008 proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Her fanatical global warming beliefs have filtered down to other specific localities.18, 000 homes in Christchurch were under the threat of being rendered progressively valueless on the basis of exaggerated claims of future sea level rise. Fortunately commonsense has prevailed [29/9/2015] as the Government has had to step in.
An announcement on the Law Society website dated 25 June 2014 detailed Kenderdine’s career. There was no mention of her chairing the Turitea Board of Inquiry so I emailed the Society to ask why and to also ask why when I emailed a link to the story the link returned a 404 page not found. The Society in its response lied to me and prompted me to complain if there was a lawyer I could identify.
So I searched Karen Price lead Counsel for Mighty River Power at the Call-In, the lawyer who had emailed me years earlier [December 2007] to see the secret photomontages. This led me to her website and to a wall to wall boast of her involvement with the Turitea wind farm from scoping through to consent as supervisor and strategist. Additionally Price exuberantly records her involvement and oversight of the Puketoi wind farm which will join up with Turitea. She hid her involvement from Turitea submitters by employing a sock puppet, David Kirkpatrick, to do her dirty work. Kirkpatrick suppressed submissions detailing the fact that Puketoi is also right on a major fault line and was duly rewarded with his appointment as an Environment Court Judge in February 2014.
Here at last was the person who had inflicted so much pain on our city and nobody knew she was right under our noses.
“Karen is recognised as a leader in climate change issues internationally. In 1991 she was part of the NZ delegation to the IPCC negotiations having written a master’s thesis on climate change issues and the dynamics of international negotiations.”
She was anointed by Labour Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and now Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), to be a blessed beneficiary of the monetisation of CO2. The third most powerful appointee to the United Nations, Clarke in 2015 was ranked by Forbes as the 23rd most powerful woman in the world. It was her Labour Government which introduced the Emissions Trading Scheme in September 2008. A month earlier, Clark in a highly questionable act on 8th August 2008 formally and effusively opened Price’s Law firm, Chancery Green. Astoundingly Environment Court Judges attended this partisan, political event in blatant defiance of judicial conduct rules defining bias, impartiality and independence.
In love with wind farms Prime Minister Clark opened White Hill in the South Island in 2007 and two right next to Turitea, Te Apiti in 2004 and Te Rere Hau in 2006. During Clark’s reign as Prime Minister Price drew up and signed off on the contract [Sept 2005] and Variation [Oct 2006] between PNCC and MRP. Price was until recently married to David Cunliffe one time leader of the Labour Party and aspiring Prime Minister. Cunliffe made a brazen plug for his wife’s carbon trading business in October 2012 when debating the halting of the expansion of the ETS.
“A bill stopping the expansion of the emissions trading scheme sparked impassioned debate, including claims from Labour MP David Cunliffe that his two “wonderful young sons” face “extinction” from climate change.”
Price acts for four of the country’s five major electricity generating energy companies including the following involved in wind farming, Contact Energy, Meridian and Mighty River Power. She founded the New Zealand Carbon Exchange in 2004 and was using her position at the Call-In to secure her trading position in carbon credits with Mighty River Power. She hid the fact that Turitea is on major fault lines by giving her star geophysical witness scripted, soft ball questions at the Call-In. Described as” notoriously privacy-jealous,” she stands to benefit handsomely from the Turitea and Puketoi wind farms. She knew Kenderdine was not a judge and continued with the rigged Call-In charade for a full 13 months. No one was ever supposed to find out. This is more than a conflict of interest.
I laid a complaint with the Law Society on 10 September 2014.
Price went to ground deleting all reference on the Chancery Green website to herself and her colleagues, banner advertising praising her ability as a “strategist” and to Turitea and Puketoi. For legal reasons I am not at liberty to reveal the secret response but I was then able to take it to the next level for review by the Legal Complaints Review Office [LCRO]. Note that when you make a complaint the membership of the Standards Committee handling it is kept secret. I was asked by Price’s lawyer, Les Taylor QC, if I would agree to a review “on the papers” as Price refused to appear before me or her peers. I found that unusual so I asked the LCRO Case Manager to email me Price’s written defence to the Standards Committee. She couldn’t because Price never entered any material in defence, nor according to the Jurisdiction Manager did she have legal representation. So how can the LCRO review this case when the lawyer under investigation entered no defence, didn’t even appear before the Standards Committee and the committee notes were not made available to me? One can assume that all Price did was make a phone call to her friends to the effect of “Get this bastard off my back!”
Doesn’t this sound like yet another Kenderdine kangaroo court? Taylor then sent a bombastic letter to the LCRO on Price’s behalf, where in her defence he quotes from cases of genital misconduct. There is no embargo. That this man is earmarked as a future judge should concern all New Zealanders.
Here is my reply. The decision by the LCRO is of course secret as publicly exposing Price’s role in this fraud would in turn expose a pantheon of panhandlers. The LCRO advised I would have a decision by June 2015 but then told me that I wouldn’t hear until an unspecified date in 2016. I forced the issue through a letter to Minister Smith and got it before 40,000 rent seekers landed in Paris to reorder the world economy to feather their nests, claiming “climate justice” while pretending to have made an agreement.
Ex Mayor Tanguay, darling of the left but captured by the right, had this to say as her parting shot when she left the city to live in Auckland.
“Yes, wind farms are contentious and yes, there have been mechanical problems that have made it difficult for the people living near to them, but if I had my time again I certainly would support them again.”
Finally there are just two minor details (1) the cost to Palmerston North and (2) the cost to the country.
The Turitea wind farm when applying the results of a UK study by the London School of Economics will devalue Palmerston North residential property by more than $100 million dollars. This will have a multiplier effect in weaker business activity and potential closures. The LSE study analysed more than 1 million UK property transactions over a 12 year period where dwellings were in the vicinity of wind turbines. This study, in part funded by the Welsh Government, did not take into account the effect of noise and infrasound. There are other studies which confirm this dire consequence.
The cost of a major earthquake crippling the intermittent, uninsurable wind farms on the Tararua Ranges and those yet to be built in the Wairarapa could easily top $1 billion and put severe stress on the grid.
The Turitea wind farm is a wealth transfer scheme, transferring ratepayer and taxpayer equity to the arrogant, sanctionless elite running the country. Any ordinary New Zealanders trying a scam like this would find themselves behind bars.
For further documentation:
© 2016 Paul W Stichbury
Download original document: “The Turitea wind farm corruption, fraud and aftermath”
Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Health, Massachusetts, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden •
Author: Green, Lilli-Anne; and Australia Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines
Ms Green: I am CEO of a healthcare consulting firm with a national reach in the United States. My company works in all sectors of the healthcare industry. One of the core competencies of the firm is to develop educational programs to help doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers to better communicate with their patients around the various disease states. Currently, as a volunteer in my town, I am secretary of our energy committee and a delegate to the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission as an alternate. Cape Cod National Seashore is part of the United States National Park Service. In the late 1970s, I built a passive solar superinsulated home. I directed an environmental education school for several years. I work seasonally as a naturalist interpretive ranger for the National Park Service. I have been interested and active in the environmental movement since the early seventies. Today, I speak as a private citizen.
CHAIR: Thank you. Could you please confirm that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence has been provided to you?
Ms Green: It has.
CHAIR: Thank you. The committee has your submission and we now invite you to make a brief opening statement and at the conclusion of your remarks, I will invite members of the committee to put questions to you.
Ms Green: Thank you. Until the beginning of 2010, I believed wind turbines were good and green. My town was interested in constructing wind turbines and a friend visited my office in early March 2010 to provide my husband and business partner and me with new information. Following the visit, I spent the next 10 hours researching wind turbines. That very day, after concluding my research, I was saddened but I became convinced there was credible evidence that wind turbines cause adverse health impacts for some people who live nearby. In the past, over five years, I have learned it is a global phenomenon that wind turbines make some people who live nearby sick and it is a dose response so these people become more ill over time.
My husband, who is now deceased, and I travelled to Australia and New Zealand in 2010-11 and subsequently created a film called Pandora’s Pinwheels: The Reality of Living with Wind Turbines. We then travelled around the world in 2012 and conducted interviews in 15 different countries. Most of the people we interviewed expressed that they were in favour of wind energy prior to wind turbine construction nearby. There are some common symptoms people the world over report who live and work too close to wind turbines. A good summary is found in the book Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD.
It does not matter whether people live in English-speaking countries or in countries where people do not speak English. People reported to us they are made sick when they live too close to wind turbines, no matter what country they live in. We interviewed people in both English-speaking countries and non-English-speaking countries alike who reported to us they were not ill prior to wind turbine construction nearby and after the wind turbines were operational nearby they were made sick.
We interviewed people in five countries – France, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden – who either needed an interpreter to speak with us or who spoke broken English. Some locations were quite rural with little or no internet connection. Still, the people we interviewed through interpreters expressed the same symptoms, others the world over described to us. These people with no or limited internet connection even used similar phrases, analogies and gestures, as others did globally to describe their symptoms. What we actually found is most people are reluctant to speak about their health problems.
In the United States, there are privacy laws regarding medical information. Culturally, people do not openly discuss their health problems with strangers. We found this to be the case in the countries we visited around the world. It was a brave person who opened up to us about their health problems. Usually, the people we interviewed expressed they wanted to help others. If anything, people tended to minimise their symptoms of try to attribute the symptoms to other circumstances. Even when they acknowledged a common symptom such as sleep deprivation, many people who experienced additional common symptoms were reluctant to attribute these other symptoms to the wind turbines nearby. Furthermore, people the world over reported that they and their healthcare providers puzzled over health problems that appeared after wind turbines were constructed near their homes.
Many endured a huge battery of medical tasks to try to determine what the cause of their health problems were. The medical tasks, at a huge cost to the healthcare system, only ruled out various diseases. Typically, the cause of their sickness was not diagnosed by their healthcare professional. Frequently, we heard that the patients would be in a social situation with others in their neighbourhood and eventually people they knew well confided they had similar health problems that recently appeared, or after research online about a different topic these people reported stumbling upon the cause of their health problems, which were the wind turbines constructed nearby.
We even interviewed people who lived for 11 years near wind turbines in a non-English speaking country – and that was in 2012. Several people came to an interview to talk about their property devaluation. It was only during the interviews when they heard others speak about health problems that the people realised they had been suffering because they lived too close to wind turbines. One man in his 80s sobbed during his interview. He had been visiting his doctor for 11 years trying to figure out what was wrong with his health.
The woman who invited us to interview her and her neighbours learned about health problems from wind turbines when she saw the film I produced Pandora’s Pinwheels, with interviews conducted in Australia and New Zealand, that was translated into her language. These people needed an interpreter; they did not speak English. She told me that her husband had passed away in the not too distant past due to heart problems. Before he died, he had complained quite frequently of common health symptoms people living near wind turbines experience. Although they visited their doctor frequently, no-one could figure out why he was so sick. She thanked us because, in seeing our film, it helped her to understand what her husband had been going through and why. It gave her closure that she did not have prior to viewing our film.
Another person at the interview told us she had to hold on to the walls of her house some days in order to walk from room to room and felt nauseous frequently. She knew she was unwell in her home and abandoned it. She did not know why until she saw our film. She came back to the area for the interview because she wanted to tell the world that wind turbines made her so ill that she sold her home at a huge loss.
One of the people I have known for the past five years lives in Falmouth, Massachusetts, which is very close to where I live – it is an hour and a half away. In 2010, he had recently retired to his dream home of many years. He was in great physical health, very fit and has over a 20-year record of normal to low to blood pressure. Since the wind turbines have been constructed in Falmouth, Massachusetts, he has reported that his blood pressure skyrockets to heart attack and stroke levels when the wind is coming in the wrong direction for him.
In Falmouth there are three wind turbines that are 1.65 megawatts near this person’s home. This person’s doctor, whom he has seen over the past 20 years, is in the Boston area and his doctor has been quite blunt. The doctor has told the patient that his life is in danger and he must move. Unfortunately, the Falmouth resident is crushed and cannot bear to leave his dream home at this point in time. He goes to other locations when the wind is predicted to be coming from the wrong direction. Others we interviewed in many different countries told us similar stories. Many reported they have abandoned their homes, sold their homes at a huge loss, purchased other homes to live in when the wind is coming from the wrong direction or in order to sleep in, and others spend time away from their homes at a huge and unexpected expense. People considered their homes as sanctuaries prior to the construction of wind turbines nearby. Now their opinion is not the same.
We have interviewed people on three continents who live more than five miles from the nearest wind turbine and are sick since wind turbine construction. I contend that we need honest research to determine how far wind turbines need to be sited from people in order to do no harm. People report to us that over time their symptoms become more severe. Many report not experiencing ill effects for some time following wind turbine construction, meanwhile their spouse became ill the day the wind turbines nearby became operational. They speak of thinking they were one of the lucky ones at first, but after a number of months or years they become as ill as their spouse. Not one person who stayed near wind turbines reported to us that they got used to it or got better; they all became more ill over time.
Since we are dealing with a dose response, we do not know over the projected lifetime of a wind turbine – say, 20 to 25 years – how far from people it is necessary to site wind turbines. To me, it is just wrong to knowingly harm the health and safety of people. There are responsible solutions to environmental issues that do not impact the health and safety of people nearby. Our humanity is in question when we continue to knowingly harm others. I thank you for your time today. I sincerely hope that you do take active steps to help the people in your country who are suffering due to living and working too close to wind turbines, and I am glad to answer questions you may have.
CHAIR: Thank you.
Senator LEYONHJELM: Good morning, Ms Green – I suppose it is not morning there. Thank you for your submission –
Ms Green: No, it is Sunday evening here.
Senator LEYONHJELM: Sunday evening? I am sorry to being interrupting your evening.
Ms Green: I am glad to speak with you.
Senator LEYONHJELM: You have interviewed people in 15 countries, I think you said, under all different circumstances and so on. I appreciate we are not pretending this is a gold-plated, statistical survey, but I am interested in your impressions because I think you have more experience of this than any other witness we have heard from. What do you think, based on your experience, are the common factors in the people you have interviewed in different communities living near wind turbines? What are the common factors to all of them?
Ms Green: I think we seriously do not have enough research to understand this problem fully. We saw the same symptoms. Slide 17 that I submitted has a listing of the common symptoms that Dr Pierpont lists in her book. I really believe that we just do not have enough information yet. But throughout the interviews, country by country, people described the same symptoms. Many times they used the same phrases to describe them and the same gestures – and they were not speaking English. There is a common thread here.
Senator LEYONHJELM: Do you get the impression that not everybody exposed to wind turbines is affected the same? Have you seen evidence of substantial individual variation?
Ms Green: I have, indeed. Just as some people are more prone to asthma and some people are more prone to lung cancer, let’s say, or any disease, we did see a variation. It appeared that if there were people who were, say, prone to migraine headaches, they were severely affected. But, again, there were people who did not seem to have the symptoms who were living either in the same house or nearby. I do not know whether it is a question of time, if over 20 years people become more sensitised and they will become sick. Very frequently we did hear the same theme running through the stories of the people we interviewed, where, say, the husband thought he was one of the lucky ones and six months later he could not sleep, he was experiencing ear pressure, ear pain and severe headaches or other symptoms.
Senator LEYONHJELM: We are aware of community groups in English-speaking countries who have expressed opposition to wind turbines, but we are not aware of that sort of phenomenon in non-English speaking countries. Have you encountered that?
Ms Green: Yes, indeed. We travelled around the world. It was a 10-year goal. We had it very well planned out and we thought it was for pleasure. But people kept emailing us and asking us to come and interview them. So we met people in a lot of non-English speaking countries, and they were such nice people, I have to say. They had just about any profession you would like to mention. They just wanted to tell their story. Many times these people wanted to talk to us for other reasons such as their house had been devalued because the wind turbines were nearby. As they were listening to other people in the room talking about their health problems, these people realised that they had been struggling with the same illness since the wind turbines were constructed nearby. They had never made that correlation before; in fact, they were quite frustrated. They told us that they would go back and back continually to their healthcare provider and talk about these symptoms, and they could not find a resolution or a reason. As I said, there is one man I recall quite vividly just sobbing – and that was in 2012; he was in his 80s. He had realised that since the wind turbines had been constructed nearby he was experiencing these symptoms that were the common symptoms.
Senator LEYONHJELM: Some witnesses have suggested to us that there is a relationship between not only the distance their residence is from the turbine but also the power of the turbine, the size of the turbine. Have you been able to come to any conclusions on that or is that outside your interest area?
Ms Green: No, it is not outside my interest area. In fact, it is quite alarming to me, because I have interviewed people who live near wind turbines that you in Australia would probably consider to be quite small and solitary – wind turbines that are 100 kilowatts, even – and they are experiencing health problems, even people living near a 10-kilowatt wind turbine. Frankly, it is the nearest wind turbine to where I live, and a number of neighbours are having problems, and not just with the audible noise but with the infrasound and low-frequency noise, based upon the symptoms they are reporting to me. It really is quite alarming. In my state, Massachusetts, there is a woman who has told me she lives more than five miles from the nearest wind turbine and she is quite ill. The onset of her symptoms was when the wind turbine was constructed. When she went on trips she was fine; when she came back she was ill, and it has only become worse over time. That wind turbine is not as powerful as wind turbines in Australia, and it is a solitary wind turbine.
Again, we travelled quite a distance in France – mid-south-eastern France – over a number of days at the invitation of the people in the area and visited several different communities where there were wind turbines. One of the situations is that the wind turbine is 10 kilometres from one of the neighbours who is very ill and 12 kilometres from the other neighbour. The person who lives 12 kilometres away reported to us that she had been very supportive of the wind turbines. She is very well known as an environmentalist in the area, has quite a reputation as an environmentalist and is highly regarded. But she is quite ill, and it was very difficult for her to speak with us.
The other person related a story of trying to detect what the problem was because he could not sleep and was becoming so frustrated that he would go in his car to try to find the source of what was keeping him awake. He talked about going night after night until he went into the wilderness. He could not imagine what was there, and then he found the wind turbines. They were creating a humming noise in his head at that point. He could actually hear this frequency. In our discussions with researchers, medical professionals and scientists, one of the scientists told us that what people hear is mostly a bell curve – that is the way it was described to us. Most people hear audible noise within a certain range, but there are people who are more sensitive to noise, and they hear sounds that most people would consider inaudible.
Senator URQUHART: I have a lot of questions. I am not going to get through them all, so I am wondering whether you are able to take some on notice at the end.
Ms Green: I will try. I am very busy, but I will try.
Senator URQUHART: In your submission you say you run a healthcare consultancy. Do you have any qualifications in health care or medicine?
Ms Green: I have a background in education.
Senator URQUHART: What is the name of your company?
Ms Green: I do not want that on the record.
Senator URQUHART: Can I ask why?
Ms Green: I am speaking today as a private citizen. I would be glad to give you that information if it is held as in-confidence.
Senator URQUHART: Okay. How many employees do you have?
Ms Green: My husband has passed away. He was my business partner, and I have scaled back the business. I am the only employee at this point in time. However, I will tell you that I have created in our company, with teams of people, educational programs that have been implemented throughout the United States. One of the oncology programs that was created by my team, which was quite a large team, interviewed over 100 oncology patients throughout the United States and numerous doctors and nurses and was mandatory for all of the nurses in the Kaiser health system in California.
Senator URQUHART: In your submission you say that 300,000 physicians have undertaken training through your company.
Ms Green: That is correct.
Senator URQUHART: What are the products or services? Is it communication? What is it that you actually sell?
Ms Green: There is a number of different core competencies in our company. One is developing educational programs around different disease states, such as oncology, diabetes, heart disease and various other disease states. Another path we have taken is to develop a service quality initiative. My husband was an extraordinary speaker and was often the keynote speaker for national conferences in all sectors of the healthcare industry.
Senator URQUHART: In your opening statement you talked about how you had interviewed many people from various countries. I could not find any of the transcripts, either in your submission or online. I am sorry if I have missed them.
Ms Green: You have not missed them. In the company we are still in the process of editing the films. It is a huge undertaking of many months, at huge expense. There is a lot of information that is still being edited.
Senator URQUHART: Are you able to provide copies of the transcripts and the full names of the people you interviewed?
Ms Green: No. It is on film; it is videotaped interviews, and the film is being edited.
Senator URQUHART: You talked about how you undertook the research after you had new information from people within your area who were concerned about wind farms. Was that the purpose of the interviews?
Ms Green: No. In my town, one month after we learned that our energy committee wanted to put a 1.65 wind turbine in our town – and we had conducted the research and people in our town were quite concerned – our board of selectmen, which is like your town councils, decided to not move forward with the project. I am on my energy committee, as secretary, and we are devising a plan to become 100 per cent electrical energy efficient without wind energy but using other alternative methods. Are you asking me what propels me to do the interviews?
Senator URQUHART: Yes. I guess my real reasoning was whether the purpose of the interviews was to inform the body of research on international attitudes to wind farms. Is that why –
Ms Green: No. It is not an attitude; it is to understand the realities of living near wind turbines – living, working, attending school, being incarcerated near wind turbines.
What happened was that my stepson was living in Australia and we went to Australia at the end of 2010. I knew there was a location called Waubra and I had seen the Dean report that had been recently published. I put out one little email asking ‘Do you happen to be in the Melbourne area and is it possible to meet some of the people that are living near the wind turbines at Waubra? Is it possible to see the Waubra area?’
It was amazing that I was connected with the people in that area of Australia. My husband and I drove to the area and we interviewed over 17 people in one day. They welcomed us into their homes. We did not know what to expect. We turned the camera on and we asked them questions, and they told us their story. We had no idea what we were going to find. We went to New Zealand and people emailed us after they had heard we had been to Waubra. They asked us if we would come and visit them and interview them. We did that in two different locations in New Zealand. When we came home we put together this film called Pandora’s Pinwheels –
Senator URQUHART: You interviewed people –
Ms Green: We just thought we would go back to Waubra and talk to the people at Waubra because we had been emailing them over the year. People around the world kept on emailing us and asking us to come and interview them.
Senator URQUHART: So you conducted interviews in 15 countries, as I understand it from your submission. Is that how you got the contact information on the people you interviewed?
Ms Green: I do not understand your question. Everywhere we were travelling people kept on emailing us and contacting us and asking if we would come and interview them and talk with them. They wanted to go on camera and tell their story. We had no agenda; we had no plan. We work in the healthcare industry; we talk about various illnesses and disease states, and we educate doctors and nurses about disease states. I am sorry; I want to retract that: we find a cross-section where patients are having issues with the communication around their disease state, and the doctors and nurses are having issues around communicating with their patients. We find those intersections and help doctors and nurses better communicate with the patients. So we are trying to improve patient care. That is what we do as one of the core competencies of our business.
When we found the health problems with the wind turbines and when we saw in every country we visited that people were saying the same thing, we wanted to get that word out to people like you who are hearing from your constituents that they are having health problems. That is all I want to do – to provide you with the truth.
Senator DAY: Ms Green, as you might imagine, we have received submissions from hundreds of people who have reported adverse health impacts and yet we are being accused of trying to destroy the wind industry. We are being accused of rigging this inquiry and of being engaged in a political stitch up. What has been your experience with such hostility towards genuine inquiry?
Ms Green: I really do not have a response for you, Senator. I have heard a lot of stories from people and I have experiences myself, but I really do not have a response on that topic.
Senator DAY: Okay. I will follow up then: you say that a number of governments around the world are realising there is a need for more or better regulation surrounding the wind energy industry. Which governments are doing better in this area, in your opinion?
Ms Green: I know that in my state, I have a new governor and my governor has a background in health care, and I am expecting that my governor understands that people do have health problems when they live and work too close to wind turbines in my state.
Senator BACK: Ms Green, I have just one quick question; I know that we are over time. In Australia, we are proceeding to have independent medical research undertaken for the first time. One of the proposals put to us is that they try and simulate this effect of either noise or infrasound, and do so in a one-off exposure in a clinically sterile circumstance for exposure times of somewhere between 10 to 30 minutes and an hour. From what you have learned and heard – and from interviewing people – do you think there would be anything to be learned in exposing somebody for a very limited period of time, and once only, in a sort of laboratory-type circumstance? Do you believe that is likely to lead to any reasonable outcome or result that we might be able to use?
Ms Green: Senator, I am not a researcher or a doctor. But given what I have heard from people and what people have reported to me, I find it highly unlikely that that would have any results that would have any validity.
Senator BACK: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you for evidence today to the committee, Ms Green. You will receive questions on notice and if you are able to come back to us with answers to those, that would be appreciated.
Ms Green: Absolutely. I would like to thank the committee; the chair, Senator Madigan, and the members of the committee, and also to thank you, Graham.
CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Green.
—GREEN, Ms Lilli-Anne, Private capacity
Monday, 29 June 2015, Sydney
Author: Shepherd, Daniel
I have been invited by Glenmark Community Against Wind Turbines, Inc to provide an evaluation of the impact of turbine noise on health and well-being. …
Relatively, wind turbines are a new source of community noise, and as such their effects on public health are only beginning to emerge in the literature. The recognition of a new disease, disorder, or threat to health usually follows a set pathway. First, doctors and practitioners attempt to fit symptoms into pre-defined diagnostic categories or to classify the complaints as psychosomatic. Second, as evidence accumulates, case studies begin to appear in the literature, and exploratory research is undertaken to obtain better descriptions of the symptoms/complaints. Third, intensive research is undertaken examining the distribution and prevalence of those reporting symptoms, the factors correlating with the distribution and prevalence of those symptoms, and ultimately to cause-and-effect explanations of why those reporting symptoms may be doing so.
In my reading of the literature the health effects of wind turbines are only beginning to be elucidated, and [are] caught somewhere between the first and second stages described above (Paragraph 1.8). The important point to note is that case studies (e.g., Harry, 2007; Pierpont, 2009) and correlational studies (e.g., Pedersen et al., 2007; van den berg, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2011) have already emerged in relation to the health effects of wind turbine noise, and so the possibility of detrimental health effects due to wind turbine noise must be taken with utmost seriousness.
Noise is a recognised environmental pollutant that degrades sleep, quality of life and general function (WHO, 1999, 2009; 2011). On the basis of data currently available in peer-reviewed scientific publications, it can only be concluded that industrial-scale wind energy generation, involving the saturation of an optimum number of wind turbines in a fixed area, is not without health impact for those residing in its proximity. Based on my experience of wind turbine noise, and my reading of the data available in the scientific literature, I recommend that all turbines displaced at least two kilometres (or more) from any dwelling be consented. …
30 April 2012
Download original document: “Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Against Wind Turbines”