Questions for G2 Energy prior to the forthcoming Leigh on Mendip Village Open Meeting to Discuss the 0.5MW Single Wind Turbine Installation at Rockhouse Farm, Chantry, Mendip (including G2 Energy answers)

Note: These questions only concern the G2 Energy installation and not the four turbine installation proposed for Torr Works or other installations being proposed in and around the area.

Location

The ‘Core Planning Principles’ embodied in the National Planning Practice Guidance (27 Mar 12) includes statements such as “planning should …. be a creative way of finding ways to improve and enhance the places in which people live …. always seek to secure high quality design …. recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and support thriving rural communities within it”. It also states that key points when considering proposed developments include (amongst other things) the “relation to that of other adjoining buildings and spaces; the topography; the general pattern of heights in the area; and views, vistas and landmarks.”

The proposed single wind turbine is on high ground and is visible over a wide area and in particular, throughout Leigh on Mendip. Whilst the village is in a light industrial area – mainly farming, quarrying and supporting industry – planning has ensured that environmental banking, discrete location and sympathetic construction has generally preserved the uniqueness and beauty of this scenic area on the edge of the Mendip plateau.

The tallest buildings in the local area are typically the churches. In particular, the one at Leigh on Mendip with its over-square construction and tall slender tower is known as the ‘jewel of the Mendips’ and has a tower 28 metres high, some 36% of the height of the proposed wind turbine which is constructed on virtually the same 180 metre contour and about 1.5km away.

There are other tall vertical structures within a few miles of the village, in particular the slender communication masts adjacent to Cranmore Tower. However, these are not generally visible in the village and even if they are accepted as they carry a community benefit – mobile phone stations.

Q1: How can the proposed installation be considered to improve and enhance the area and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside?

A1: A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been prepared that accompanies the application. In summary , the LVIA concludes that the landscape is largely agricultural, consisting of undulating ridges and wide‐headed valleys that are often narrow with steep slopes. On the more level areas, arable farming is present but the dominant land cover is medium sized pasture fields. Although the LVIA also recognises that whilst the landscape is agricultural, the wider context of exploitative land uses dominates the character area. The proposed turbine would sit in this context of utilising resources and form part of the working landscape.

At a broader landscape level the proposed single turbine development at Rockhouse Farm would form a recognisable element in the within National Landscape Character Area 141. The overall sensitivity of the area is considered to be Medium because the landscape is relatively intact, but has some signs of degradation through the quarrying industry and industrialisation around larger towns. There would be a small adverse change as the proposed turbine would be a very small component of the wider landscape. The magnitude of change would be lessened by the surrounding quarrying activities.

Q2: How can the proposed installation be considered to support thriving rural communities when it brings no additional jobs or income to the area?

A2: In response to changing economic circumstances, almost 50% of farms in the UK have sought to supplement traditional incomes through some form of diversified activity in the farming business. It is widely acknowledged that farm diversification offers the opportunity to improve the economic viability of many farm businesses, with recent figures suggesting diversification can generate an average of £10,400 extra revenue per farm.

Diversification can reduce dependence on agricultural production and can also make better use of a farm’s physical resources and characteristics. The UK Government emphasis that by diversifying into other activities, farms can bring revenue to the area and create employment opportunities that are beneficial to the wider local economy.

There are few limits in place and farms can choose to diversify into agricultural or non‐agricultural related activities. In recent years, there has been increased recognition of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the installation of renewable technologies has grown in popularity. Whilst perhaps not affecting the immediate community at Rockhouse Farm it is important to recognise that the wind, wave and tidal energy sector directly employs 18,465 people full time. The sector also supports 15,908 indirect jobs, making a total of over 34,300 employees. Number of employees in offshore wind has doubled since 2010. More than 70,000 jobs could be created over the next decade. 91% of the industry’s jobs in the UK are currently filled by UK citizens. The offshore wind sector saw the biggest growth between 2010 and 2013, with the number of direct jobs doubling from 3,151 to 6,830. When including indirect jobs (companies that supply goods and services to the sector, such as gearbox component manufacturers) the wind, wave and tidal energy industries support the employment of over 34,000 people. Jointly commissioned by RenewableUK and Energy & Utility Skills, and compiled by Cambridge Econometrics in partnership with IFF Research and the Warwick Institute for Employment Research, this new employment data shows that 91% of employees in the UK wind and marine energy industry are UK citizens. This demonstrates how important the green economy is for providing and creating employment in the UK, often in parts of the country with high levels of unemployment. The research highlights the fact that women make up 20% of the sector’s workforce – this is lower than the proportion of women in technical and professional occupations in the UK, but proportionally higher than in the power sector overall, thereby demonstrating the sector’s success in attracting women into the energy industry1.

Q3: How can the proposed installation be considered to blend sympathetically with adjoining buildings and spaces; the topography; the general pattern of heights in the area; and views, vistas and landmarks?

A3: The accompanying LVIA set out in greater detail the assessed visual impacts of the wind turbine on the surrounding area. In summary, it concludes that the proposed turbine at Rockhouse Farm would be well screened by the high levels of mature vegetation that is present in woodlands and parklands surrounding the site. The undulating topography of the area increases the areas that

1 http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases.cfm/74-increase-in-uk-jobs-in-wind-and-marine- energy would be screened from views of the proposed development, although where areas of elevated ground are free from vegetation, they often have long and wide ranging vistas.

Important views in the local landscape are those that include the distinct Alfred’s Tower and Cranmore Tower. Both views of and from these towers are locally distinct although the towers themselves are only open to visitors on the weekends but offer uninterrupted views of the surrounding landscape. The proposed turbine would be visible from both Cranmore Tower and Alfred’s Tower although would not form a dominant feature in the expansive vistas available from the top. The proposed turbine would be unlikely to interrupt any key views towards the towers, although would feature in views from a number of local roads that include fleeting views of the towers.

The proposed turbine at Rockhouse Farm would feature in a number of views from roads and public rights of way but the undulating topography and the high level of vegetation that surrounds the site would limit the visibility for transient receptors. The majority of roads are lined by mature hedgerows that contain hedgerow trees and limit the visibility of receptors that pass along them. Visibility of the proposed turbine would be limited to temporary snapshots in varied views for transient receptors.

The majority of residential properties in the area are clustered in settlements with a small number of scattered isolated dwellings. Many of the settlements sit within a hollow or are surrounded by a significant level of vegetation that limits views over the surrounding landscape for receptors in residential properties. A small number of properties on the edge of settlements such as Chantry and Blacker’s Lane would have views of the proposed turbine where it would become a prominent feature.

The turbine would feature in a small number of long distance views from the AONB’s that surround the site but would be at such a distance that it would form a barely visible element in the wide ranging vistas available. A number of Registered Parks and Gardens (such as Mells Park) exist in close proximity to the proposed development site but the high levels of vegetation that surround them provide significant visual screening for receptors inside the grounds.

The wind turbine is on the north side of and quarry. Asham wood is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is the largest and most diverse of the ancient semi-natural woods in the Mendips. Despite recent partial destruction due to quarrying it remains one of the most important sites and has a range of unusual flora and fauna. There are various rare breeding butterflies - including grizzled skipper, silverwashed fritillary, purple hairstreak - and birds, including buzzards, sparrow-hawks, warblers, flycatchers, woodpeckers and peregrine falcons in the wood and adjacent disused quarry. There are also understood to be a notably varied population of bat (eleven species).

Furthermore, a 2010 survey of 70 quarries in Britain identified that 27% of the sites had breeding buzzards and kestrels and 21% had breeding peregrine falcons. It is thus probable that other quarries in the area, both working and dormant, have breeding raptors.

Q4: Has the existence of the rare breeding birds, bats and butterflies been identified and an assessment undertaken of their increased mortality from the turbine? If so, what is the anticipated increase in mortality rate?

A4: An Ecological Statement and Bat Report have been prepared and accompany the application. The summary findings of these reports are set out below.

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Scoping Survey were undertaken for the application site in May 2013. The ecological survey areas comprised a maximum of 90.0 hectares of farmland incorporating grassland, hedgerows and scattered trees and the adjacent woodland.

Overall the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Scoping Survey concur that the mature native hedgerows and the nearby woodland have intrinsic ecological value as connective features that provide potential habitats Hazel Dormice, Badgers, Hedgehogs, foraging and commuting bats. The Ecological Statement concludes that in light of the limited scale of the development and the distance between the proposed turbine and surrounding hedgerows, it is highly unlikely there will be any significant negative effects on several protected species / species of conservation concern.

The Ecological Statement identified 31 bird species breeding in the survey area of which 9 are categorised as species of conservation importance. However, the Ecological Statement concludes that the installation of the single turbine would not result in the direct or indirect loss of a significant area of habitat or pose a significant risk via collision to the local bird populations. The Ecological Statement suggests most species will experience very limited disturbance effects caused by the construction and operational phases of the wind turbine.

The ‘Bat Report' has undertaken a desktop review of relevant background records relating to bats and a scoping and ground‐truthing exercise to identify potential roost features, assess foraging habitat quality and delineate possible commuting routes/flight lines. The report concludes that the proposal is of low risk to bats, as it involves only a minimal loss of low quality habitat, which is unlikely to be used by any high risk bat species. No high potential roost sites, foraging habitat or commuting routes will be affected by the proposals. Accordingly, it is considered unlikely that the proposals will result in any adverse effects on local bat populations, and no specific mitigation measures are therefore required.

Noise

The noise requirements for wind turbines is that they accord with ETSU-R-97, a document produced by a noise working group set up in 1995 by the Department of Trade and Industry through its Energy Technology Support Unit. Whilst not generally considered to be very good guidance it has over the years been applied and given adequate results and the general consensus seems to be ‘although there are better ways, we can live with ETSU-R-97’.

Noise from wind turbines is generated by two mechanisms, the airflow over the structure and the mechanical noise from the rotating and supporting structures. Whilst gearless electrical machines, such as the one proposed for this installation, have reduced mechanical noise, airflow noise depends on the aerodynamic design of both static and rotating elements. Both sources of noise increase with wind speed, and not necessarily linearly.

Q5: Can G3 Energy confirm that this installation is aerodynamically identical to others they have previously connected?

A5: G2 Energy can confirm the turbine proposed for this site is aerodynamically identical as others we have connected.

Q6: Can G3 Energy provide ETSU-R-97 predictions for similar installations with both geared and gearless machines?

A6: No, providing this information would serve no purpose. The turbine manufacture provides Guaranteed Noise emission data and this is used in the noise calculations for the specific site.

Q7: Can G3 Energy provide any actual site measurements that validate their ETSU-R-97 predictions? A7: This is not necessary for the Rockhouse Farm Wind Turbine Proposal as all dwellings are a significant distance from the turbine. The closest receptor is Mendip View at 553 metres from the turbine and is predicted to receive a noise level of only 32.2dB at a wind speed of 9 m/s. A screen shot of the Noise Statement is included below for your convenience.

9 m/s is a Force 5 wind speed and at this level the background noise will be far higher than this. We would only be required to provide background noise measurements where the predictions are in excess of 35dB. On other sites where baseline noise checks have been carried out, a 9 m/s wind has resulted in a background noise level of 38.3 dB. In these cases, ETSU-R-97 allows the acceptance of noise to 5dB above this background noise level. The EWT Guaranteed noise emissions data is publicly available.

There is a view from a Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics that whilst people have different sensitivities and turbines have different noise characteristics, but as a guide in rural areas beyond 2km from the nearest turbine it will not normally be heard and, when it is, it would not be annoying. At 1km it is likely that turbine noise would be found annoying some of the time particularly in the middle of the night but probably not during the working day. Most of the houses in the parish of Leigh on Mendip lie between 1 and 2km from the single wind turbine.

Q8: Can GE Energy provide evidence that the view stated above is incorrect and that turbine noise will not be annoying, particularly at night, to parish residents?

There are various reports of noise generated from wind turbines causing health issues, variously known as Wind Turbine Syndrome or Vibro-Acoustic Disease (VAD). There seems to be uncertainty as to the cause but the two leading theories are that the low frequency noise (below the threshold of human hearing) is caused either by ‘beat frequencies’ between multiple wind turbines – not an issue for a single turbine installation – or by the different wind applied forces at the top and the bottom of the blade rotation disc. However, the former seems more likely since there appear to be some clusters of VAD in close proximity to wind farms.

A8: We would encourage people to visit a similar EWT installation where they would be reassured that they will not hear the turbine over background noise at any of these distances.

Local Authorities often include a condition in a planning consent that requires a wind turbine operator to investigate any complaint of noise within a stated period of time. The operator would carry out noise surveillance at the complainant dwelling amenity space to ascertain the actual noise levels. At the Rockhouse Farm site, a negative result on this data would mean that the turbine was malfunctioning and this would be corrected by the manufacturer.

Q9: Can G2 Energy confirm that they are aware of VAD clusters and confirm if there are any adjacent to their installations?

A9: G2 Energy are very careful in their site selection such that turbine developments are away from residential properties.

Blade Off / Ice Shedding / Ice Throw

There are many reports of blade failures on wind turbines of all sizes and in many countries. These are often attributed to poor blade design, incorrect connection of blades and material failures. Whilst no formula has been found to indicate the threat distance from a ‘blade off’ event a paper by GE Energy indicates that Ice Shedding / Ice Throw events for the installation could be a hazard out to 156 metres from the turbine. This distance would seem to include footpaths in Asham wood and the Old Wells Road.

Q10: Can G2 Energy confirm the minimum safety clearance to avoid harm from ‘blade off’, ‘ice shedding’ or ‘ice throw’ events and derive the probability of harm to humans arising from such events? Please see A11 below.

Q11: Can G2 Energy provide data of any blade failures in installations with which they have been involved? A11: None. I have included text from a recent risk assessment undertaken for your information.

Policy

The issue of public safety in relation to separation distances between wind turbine development and PRoW has been addressed in a recent planning appeal (Reference: APP/G2815/A/11/2156757) in March 2012. The case related to wind farm development, whereby two wind turbines were sited in close proximity to PRoW. The Inspector concluded:

“Government policy is broadly in favour of renewable energy schemes and it is difficult to see how onshore wind can be harvested to the extent envisaged in Government policy without some disruption to riders, and others, using rights of way, who prefer to avoid getting too close to wind turbines. In that context, the suggestion, in this case, that those who are concerned for their safety use an alternative route, does not strike me as unreasonable.”

Statistics held by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and RenewableUK demonstrates that no member of the public has ever been injured by a wind turbine in the UK2. TAN 8: Renewable Energy also indicates “there has been no example of injury to a member of the public.” 3

Recent guidance commissioned by HSE concludes that the risk of fatality from a larger 2.3MW turbine is low in comparison to other societal risks. In particular, it suggests the annual risk from turbines (either blade, rotor or tower failure) “is roughly equivalent to the risk of fatality from taking two aircraft flights per annum.”

The following diagram demonstrates that wind energy continues to provide one of the safest forms of electricity generation available. It presents considerably less risk to society than either fossil fuels or nuclear energy when considering the hazard that nuclear power plants pose should something go wrong.

Number of fatalities per gigawatt year (GWey)*

Source: Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) (2011)

The proposed wind turbine (EWT DirectWIND 54 500kW) has an impeccable safety record. There are 437 EWT turbines in operation across the world, with 69 EWT turbines located in the United Kingdom. There have been no incidences of:

 blade failure;  rotor failure; or  tower failure for an EWT turbine anywhere in the world.

Q12: How do G2 Energy ensure that the wind turbines are correctly designed, manufactured and installed and identify what post construction strength tests are undertaken, such as spinning to 120% maximum speed?

A12: G2 Energy are Civil and Electrical Design Engineers and currently hold Lloyds Accreditation (NERs), Achilles and ISO9001 National Business Standards (NBS).

Management Systems are audited regularly both internally and externally in all aspects of HSEQ by Lloyds Register, Achilles and ISO9001 National Business Standards. The company is currently seeking to achieve further ISO9001 standards and OHSAS18001 with a UKAS. It aims to be ISO14001 by the end of 2014.

Foundations are designed by our own in house Charted Civil Engineers. Strict control of foundation concrete is undertaken during the construction phase with samples being taken and tested during and after the pour. An independent structural Engineer witnesses crush test performed by the concrete supply to validate strength and characteristics.

Construction quality tests are undertaken throughout the build of the turbine components to ensure that everything meets the design standards.

In regards to the 120% maximum wind speed tests the DIRECTWIND 54*500 Wind Turbine is designed and tested for IEC class III operation.

Q13: Can G2 Energy identify how overspeed events are avoided, how rotational speed is monitored and controlled and how the turbine is braked and restrained in abnormal and failure conditions?

A13: The turbine operates automatically under all wind conditions and is controlled by an industrial PLC (Programmable Logic Controller). The cut-in wind speed is approximately 3m/s. When the rotational speed reaches the cut-in power threshold, the turbine is connected to the grid by the power converter.

The power converter controls the generator power output and is programmed with a power set- point versus rotor speed curve. Below rated wind speed the power output is controlled to optimise rotor speed versus aerodynamic performance (optimum λ-control). Above rated wind speed the power output is kept constant at rated value by PD-controlled active blade pitching.

The dynamic responses of the drive train and power controller are optimised for high yield and negligible electrical power fluctuations. The variable speed rotor acts as a flywheel, absorbing fluctuating aerodynamic power input. The turbine controllers are located in the rotor hub and the tower base (with remote IO in the nacelle) and carry out all control functions and safety condition monitoring. In the case of a fault, or extreme weather conditions, the turbine is stopped by feathering of the blades to vane position (blades swivelled to 90⁰ with respect to rotor‟s rotational plane).

There is a hydraulic brake to restrain movement in maintenance / failure conditions.

The turbine specification is: Wind class III according to IEC 61400 – 1 Max 50-year extreme 52.5 m/s Turbulence class A (I15 = 0.16) Maximum flow inclination 8° (terrain slope) Maximum mean air density 1.225 kg/m³ Max ann. mean wind 8.5 / 8.5 speed at hub height

Electrical System Design

The overhead power transmission lines in the area are exposed and have, in the past, been prone to failure with relatively frequent blackouts. Over recent years blackouts have become less common although there has been no evident uprating of the overhead cable capacity. As such, there is concern that connecting a 0.5MW generator, probably with a significant power electronic functionality, is likely to increase loadings on overheads and cause more blackouts in the area as well as reducing the quality of supply by voltage variation as the turbine loads and unloads, by increased total harmonic distortion and by voltage flicker.

As well as these normal operation issues there are a number of potential blackout sequences initiated by failures such as mal-synchronisation during start up and short circuits when operating

Q14: Can G2 Energy provide a single line diagram for the electrical installation up to the point of grid coupling, including protection and load flow information?

A14: No. This is not necessary. The local Distribution Network Operator has undertaken extensive electrical studies to confirm the stability of their network and the availability of a grid connection.

Q15: What is the power consumed by the installation in normal operation when there is no wind?

A15: Taken from the EWT specification:

Obviously these are maximum values and not constant and depends on conditions. In a no wind situation the consumption is minimal to power the battery charges.

Q16: Can G2 Energy provide a copy of their new connection agreement with the network provider (DNO) and any conditions that have to be met before full connection? A16: No as this will not provide you with any useful information, but I can inform you that there are no conditions.

It is understood that the generator is a gearless machine. Most gearless machines are permanent magnet asynchronous and require full converter connection to the DNO and as such have the potential to generate harmonic distortion, flicker and, with significant energy stored in filters, can contribute a significant fault current much more quickly than traditional switch gear can clear or contain.

Q17: Can G2 Energy confirm the type of electrical machine to be connected at the installation and the type of converter, filtering and isolation to be provided?

A17: EWT specifications are publically available. These matters have been reviewed by the DNO to ensure that the generator works within DNO network parameters.

Q18: Can G2 Energy confirm that Quality of Power Supply in the local area will not be degraded once their installation is connected?

A18: I can confirm that Quality of Power Supply in the local area will not be degraded once their installation is connected? More importantly it will reduce the reliance on volatile imported gas, oil and coal making the UK more energy independent and displace CO2 emissions by 500 tons per year.

Operation and Maintenance

It is understood that G2 Energy are to own the installation until it is decommissioned and the site cleared. To keep such installations safe requires continuing activity to monitor trip characteristics, tripping battery functionality, switch gear maintenance, site cleanliness, rodent activity and environmental protection.

Q19: Can G2 Energy confirm they are responsible, have a track record in undertaking such activities and have contingency plans in place to ensure continuity of support, and in particular decommissioning, should the company fail?

A19: G2 Energy are a Lloyds accredited Independent Connection Provider who have a number of Qualified and Chartered Engineers, Members if the Institute of Asset Management and collectively have hundreds of years of Distribution Network experience. We offer Operations and Maintenance Services to our clients, not just for our own turbines. Turbine Maintenance and Support is undertaking by the turbine manufacturer to validate long term guarantees. These are put in place with the manufacturer from the beginning of the supply contract. These are maintained throughout the life of the turbine whoever owns/operates the turbine.

Q20: Can G2 Energy provide a maintenance schedule for the installation?

A20: Inspections are carried out on a quarterly basis and maintenance is carried out six-monthly.

Turbine Flicker

One of the issues that authorities involved in planning are required to consider in the recent ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ released in July 13 is Shadow Flicker and Reflected Light. There are conditions when the suns interaction with the wind turbine blades may cause flicker or reflected light and this can affect properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines; most of the Leigh on Mendip homes are in this zone.

Q21: Can G2 Energy confirm that this has been considered and define the conditions when this may be a nuisance for Leigh on Mendip residents?

A21: G2 Energy is very careful when siting turbines to ensure that we dot impose this phenomena on people in the surrounding area. Please see the planning application Shadow Flicker statement submitted. There are no residences within a range of the turbine that will be affected by this phenomenon.

Q22: What amelioration has G2 Energy made to minimise the effect?

A22: None are necessary as there are no residences within a range of the turbine that will be affected by this phenomenon.

Air Traffic and Safety

The latest ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ released in July 13 advises that there are statutory consultation and advisory zones for wind turbines around civil and MoD aerodromes and air traffic radar.

Q23: Can G2 Energy confirm that there are none of these zones applicable to this installation?

A23: The only airport identified on the CAA aeronautical charts was Bristol airport, which has a consultation zone of 30 km. This turbine is located on the edge of the safeguarded area of Bristol Airport. Bristol Airport responded with No Objection to the proposal on the 17th April 2013.

RNAS Yeovilton is situated 28 km from the turbine location. It is not anticipated that the MoD will object to this proposal due to the distance.

The MoD’s low flying maps have been consulted and the turbine falls within a Low Priority Low Flying Area.

It is understood that there are air traffic control radars associated with Bristol and Cardiff civil airports as well as Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton. Any of these could be affected by reflected energy from a wind turbine. There are also small civil airfields at Halesland, The Park and Keevil that might operate radar.

Q24: Can G2 Energy confirm that an assessment has been done to identify the risk of reducing air traffic control radar performance from this installation?

A24: All assessments were carried out pre-planning application by our Aviation Consultants. The bodies that are stated in this question are classed as Statutory Consultees and as such are consulted automatically by the Local Authority.

Defence

The latest ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ released in July 13 advises that developers should consult with the MoD if a proposed turbine is 11m to blade tip or taller, and has a rotor diameter of 2m or more.

The is in MoD Low Flying Zone 2 and is the 7th busiest zone in UK with some 5,700 sortie hours in 2010 / 2011; many of these flights cross the hills in this area, particularly Hercules and Helicopter operations. RNAS Yeovilton operate Precision Approach Radar as well as Primary Surveillance Radars.

Q25: Can G2 Energy confirm that they have consulted with MoD concerning the installation of this turbine?

A25: The MoD’s pre-planning proforma was submitted on the 19th February 2013 but due to a two year backlog no response was received.

Electromagnetic Transmissions

The latest ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ released in July 13 advises that wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions and that typically a 100m clearance either side of a line of site link is required. It also advises that OFCOM acts as a central point of contact for identifying specific consultees relevant to a site.

Q26: Can G2 Energy confirm that they have contacted OFCOM and consulted with any bodies identified by them?

A26: Not required.

Wind turbines can cause attenuation and scatter of radio and television signals.

Q27: Can G2 Energy confirm that they have assessed the probability of signal deterioration to television and radio receivers in the local area?

A27: Single wind turbines have not been shown to cause interference to digital terrestrial television reception. You are referring to wind farms. We have communicated with Arqiva the body responsible for TV reception. They responded with no objection to the proposal on the 1st March 2013.

Sight Lines

Q28: Since the recent meeting a number of attendees have expressed concern about the turbine visibility from other parts of the parish. It would be appreciated if G2 Energy is able to include the site lines shown below at their next presentation.

A28: G2 Energy has consulted with the LPA Landscape Officer to determine where Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments should carried out from as part of the Planning Submission. The resultant assessment and photomontages can be viewed by reviewing the planning submission documents.

G2 Energy have also taken photographs and created photomontages from the majority of locations in the surrounding area where the turbine may have been seen from. These were shown to residents and the Parish Council on the 16th September 2013. It was shown that the turbine was barely visible at these locations. As such it would be pointless to take further pictures from further outlying sites.

Planning Conditions

Q29: Has the planning submission proposed a condition to ensure that the redundant turbine is removed and the land restored to appropriate use? What will happen to the concrete base?

A29: As stated in the presentation to the PC, the contract with the landowner ensures that the site is restored to its former condition (photographic evidence taken) after decommissioning. The concrete base and substation foundation will be removed to a depth of 1 metre and the area filled with soil of a similar standard to the surrounding area.

Q30: Has the planning submission proposed any community benefit should this unsuitable installation receive planning approval?

A30: As discussed with the PC, G2 Energy believes that communities that host turbines should benefit. We have offered a £10,000 lump sum to be used for Community benefits and that this should be made under a Section 106 Condition of planning. It is for the Community to suggest to the Local Planning Officer appropriate schemes on which the fund could be used.

Further Questions for G2 Energy prior to the forthcoming Leigh on Mendip Village Open Meeting to Discuss the 0.5MW Single Wind Turbine Installation at Rockhouse Farm, Chantry, Mendip

These questions have not been answered by G2 Energy

These are tranche 2 of the questions and continue with sequential numbering from Tranche 1.

The original questions 1 to 30 are attached at the end.

Q31: Contrary to para 4.1.1 of the Interim Bat Report, an Andrews Ecology report for Aggregate Industries identified noctule bats in a survey that included the SSSI of Asham Wood, adjacent to the proposed site. Has this been investigated and will it be incorporated in the Final Bat Report?

Q32: There are a number of specialists with unique knowledge of the Asham Wood habitat, they include Bob Crofts, the County Archaeologist, the County Ecologist Larry Burrow , Bob Corns the Natural England officer and the bat specialist Dave Cottle. Have they been invited by G2 Energy to comment on the proposed installation?

There is a statement in the Design and Access Statement (second para 4.16) that wind turbine technology has an impeccable safety record. This is clearly not so as the following extracts from a sample of press reports indicates: Cornwall 2006, part of a wind turbine blade weighing more than half a ton snapped off and crashed into a field during high winds; a Dutch company whose core business is blade repair state, “Rotor blade lightning damage is a common problem”; Peterborough 2008, shards of melting ice fell from the blades of a wind turbine and people had to take cover as huge lumps – some two feet long – showered them; Blyth April 2013, a blade failed on a 71m farm turbine at Low Horton; Dec 2011, a 30m turbine near Coldingham was deliberately collapsed after going out of control; April 2005 Lammermuir Hills, a 100m turbine experienced a catastrophic blade failure; Wearside December 2005, a 51m wind turbine went up in smoke in a massive blaze seen for miles; Co Londonderry July 2013, a wind turbine caught fire on Monday evening; Halifax May 2013,walkers had a narrow escape as blades on a wind turbine ripped off in high winds across common moor land.

Q33: Why does the Preliminary Risk Assessment not address failures such as those above and will they be addressed in the Final Risk Assessment?

Q34: There are a number of risks associated with the wind turbine that are not addressed in any of the documentation seen to date. When and where will the following risks and their mitigation be addressed?

1. There is a risk that blades or parts of blades may be ejected and injure people working on site or using adjacent paths, tracks and roads. A simple calculation indicates that the threat area could extend beyond 500 metres albeit a full 1.9 tonne blade is unlikely to launch that far even when operating at maximum rotor speed where tip velocity is in excess of 200mph. 2. There is a risk that ice may form and be detached from blades and injure people working on site or using adjacent paths, tracks and roads. A GE Energy paper indicates the threat area could extend to 156 metres. 3. There is a risk that the grease lubrication of the main bearing that takes the axial, radial and bending loads may fail causing overheating and fire in the residual grease and consequent ignition of other combustible material in the nacelle and tower. The turbine could then set fire to adjacent crops and hedgerows and propagate to threaten local residents. 4. There is a risk that a turbine fire cannot be extinguished by the fire brigade due to the height of the tower and nacelle. 5. There is a risk that the full power converter does not meet the extant National Grid Engineering Recommendation GR5/4 or the draft GR5/5 for Harmonic Distortion and Flicker with the existing harmonic background on the 11kV overhead at the point of connection causing damage to equipment supporting local residents. 6. There is a risk that the installation does not meet the ‘The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002’ and thus reduce the safety, quality and continuity of supply to local consumers sharing the same 11kV overhead and thus cause extended blackouts of equipment supporting local residents. 7. There is a risk that the full power converter, its power components and consequent energy storage could cause disturbances on the 11kV overhead that cannot be interrupted by either the site or the grid protective devices and thus cause extended blackouts of equipment supporting local residents. 8. There is a risk that a lack of preventative maintenance could cause a failure of the wind turbine, its generator, converter or the interconnecting sub-station and cause extended blackouts of equipment supporting local residents. 9. There is a risk that the Yaw System brake fails on and prevents the nacelle yawing as the wind direction changes in extreme weather conditions and this causes blade or tower damage and injures people working on site or using adjacent paths, tracks and roads. 10. There is a risk that the pitch system fails and, as no mechanical rotor brake is fitted, the turbine over speeds and sheds blades injuring people working on site or using adjacent paths, tracks and roads. 11. There is a risk that the Feed In Tariff is reduced such that the business is no longer viable and a lack of funds prevents the planned decommissioning.

Q35: Has the software embedded in the PLCs been designed as safety critical and if so to what standard?

Q36: Can G2 Energy provide a list of faults that have caused any Directwind 500kW turbine to shut down?

Q37: Harmonic Distortion is said to conform with IEEE 519 which is a North American specification. The UK methodology for controlling harmonic distortion is embodied in the National Grid Engineering Recommendation GR5/4 and unlike IEEE 519, this requires the site to not increase distortion levels beyond the statutory grid limits. How will G2 Energy ensure that the installation does not cause excessive Harmonic Distortion and cause damage to local resident’s equipment? If this is to be achieved purely by calculation, will G2 Energy compensate for any equipment damage they cause? Q38: Are the wind turbine grounding systems extended to the sub-station and how is the substation protected from a lightning strike?

Q39: Will the turbine power factor be varied during operation and if so to what profile?

Q40: How is the blade pitch control DC generated and how is redundant backup achieved? How long can the redundant backup system operate without an external power source? If the internal power source is a battery how is it maintained?

Q41: What other wind turbine applications do G2 Energy have within 20 to 25 miles of Leigh on Mendip and what state are the projects at, eg: proposed, application pending, rejected or approved?

Q42: The Planning Statement at para 5.03 quotes G2 Energy commitment to delivering a community benefit, to be identified in discussion with Council. What progress has been made and what benefit have G2 Energy offered?