[ exact phrase in "" ]

[ Google-powered ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

The true impact of windfarms  

Credit:  By Iain Ramage and Cameron Brooks | The Press and Journal | 2 Jul 2015 ~~

A new report has revealed people living close to windfarm sites are being kept in the dark about the impact they could have on their daily lives.

A Scottish Government-commissioned study found developers are underestimating how much noise will be generated by their schemes and how badly they will blight the landscape.

The results of the two-year investigation have prompted campaigners to call for a full inquiry into the “health hazards” posed by turbines.

A review of windfarm planning was branded “a whitewash” by campaigners last night.

The two-year investigation by consultants commissioned by the Scottish Government found that guidelines were not consistently followed in the development of major turbine schemes.

They focused on 10 sites – three in the north and north-east – to consider visual impact, and the noise and “shadow flicker” of turbines.

The first study of its kind compared today’s reality with what developers had promised in their planning applications.

It found mos “mainly followed planning guidelines”.

But the 192-page document reveals that some guidelines “were not consistently followed” and that developers’ claims “were not consistent with actual impacts”.

The report also says that “assessments and public engagement did not always adequately prepare residents for the impact of visual, shadow flicker or noise”.

Consultants ClimateX-Change selected 10 windfarms of varying scale and regions for monitoring. The 10 represented 4% of the total number of built onshore windfarms at the start of the inquiry, in 2013.

The most northerly schemes it studied were SSE’s 19-turbine Achany windfarm near Lairg in Sutherland, the 21-turbine Baillie windpark operated by Stratkraft at Thurso in Caithness, and Stuartfield Wind Power’s three-turbine West Knock project near Mintlaw in Aberdeenshire.

Retired construction consultant Stuart Young, who used to live near the Baillie scheme, said: “The review was an obvious ploy not to come up with an answer to inform Scottish planning policy.

“Why it took two years to look at windmills is absolutely beyond me. It was just a whitewash.”

The Scottish Government and trade body Scottish Renewables are content that improvements to the planning system have followed and that “high standards are in place to ensure the right developments are in the right places”.

That contrasts sharply with windfarm objectors’ reading of the document.

Each side of the divide agrees, however, that the exercise was necessary and illuminating.

The study identifies improvements already made to the planning system and recommends other steps that could ensure more consistency in predicting, measuring and documenting visual, shadow flicker and noise impacts throughout the design and operational phases of windfarms.
The researchers heard from residents affected by turbines and concluded that “the majority of assessments at planning stage identified and mainly followed guidelines”.

But, for some of the case study windfarms, “guidelines were not consistently followed and-or the impacts predicted in documentation submitted were not consistent with the actual impacts as assessed in this study or as reported by some residents”. It adds: “Assessments and public engagement activities have not always adequately prepared residents for the impacts of the operational windfarm. in terms of visual, shadow flicker or noise impacts.”

Climate XChange project manager, Ragne Low, said: “The findings point to several possible improvements in planning guidance.

“Some have been implemented.”

Source:  By Iain Ramage and Cameron Brooks | The Press and Journal | 2 Jul 2015

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User contributions

Share:


« Later PostNews Watch HomeEarlier Post »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Formerly at windwatch.org.

HOME
Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share