Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Response to Consultation (Non statutory Consultees) A significant number of representations have been received both for and against the development. The following is not a scientific analysis of all the correspondence but provides Members with a summary that indicates the quantity of responses; what the major issue were and examples of what was raised. Petition One petition was received that was signed by 3081 people. It stated the following; ‘I, the undersigned, would like to register my strong objection to the proposed Bullington Cross and Woodmancott wind farm developments in Hampshire. This is due to the concerns of air safety in the area of intense Micro light activity and intense military aircraft. There are great dangers of mid-air collisions, or engine failure on take-off, due to the excessive height of the 415ft wind turbines.’ Oppose (1329 received 1st May 2013 and 20th May 2014) There were no obvious duplicate letters of objection but the following sentence was used as the start of a significant number of the letters, with some contributors then adding more. ‘As someone who values the countryside I Object to the proposed wind farm near Bullington Cross because these moving industrial structures will spoil the tranquillity and scenic beauty of the Hampshire landscape.’ Visual impact / Landscape (1052) • Price is too high; the detrimental impact on the landscape outweighs any benefit • Hampshire known for countryside and Hampshire villages, this will only have a negative impact. • North Hampshire countryside is not renewable • Negative impact on landscape character • Ruining a truly special area of English countryside • Heritage environment; numerous conservation Areas and Listed buildings • Dominate landscape and townscape of surrounding villages and towns. • Need house extensions to meet conservation standards, why would this be different as they are going to be a feature in lots of CA. • Between an AONB and a National Park, this is a significant landscape. • Cultural significance with Watership Down; Jane Austin at Steventon; William Cobbett (1830 describe area as ‘one of the finest spots in England’); Robert W.F. Potter 1977 – Hampshire Harvest – A Travellers Note Book); Harry Plunkett Greene 1924 – Where the Bright Waters Meet • Represents cultural vandalism • They are ugly and monstrous • Urbanize the countryside • Industrialised landscape • Precedent and lead to further industrialization • Peaceful intimate landscape ruined • Over bearing out of scale and character with anything else in the area • Height of the London eye • HCC won’t have them on their land • Never go – bases remain • Modernisation; propose 14 @ 126m now and this will morph into 10 @ 200m due to technology, precedent set and would be hard to refuse. • Impact on future generations, will ask why we did it. • No details on grid connection – impact could be worse with pylons • Won’t go back to same as concrete bases not removed, left with dead wind farm • Affront to the natural beauty of the area • Happy to do bit but catastrophic impact for very little unreliable energy. • Seems hypocritical to destroy the countryside for green reasons Impact on Amenity of the area (332) • Tranquillity of this area spoilt by the sight, sound and vibration of the turbines. • Too many, reduce number so away from people and paths • Bullington Cross is the gateway to the Test Valley • Danger in inclement weather • Negative impact for walkers, cyclist and horse riders. • Impact on amenity of lots for the benefit of few • Nothing to do with a farm; industrial activity on agricultural land. • Simple pleasure of going for a walk would be ruined • South east is full, very few places for people to go for peace and space – this is one of the few • Fly fishing on the River Dever and Test would be spoilt • Horse riding is popular in the area, horses can be spooked by turbines • We are all so busy need to value the countryside very few spaces with unencumbered views • Countryside is squeezed what we have is precious Impact on people (399) • Proximity to dwellings, 2km separation distance required between turbines and houses • Lights at night • Less desirable place to live • Danger to humans –low frequency noise, flicker and vibration • Cruel impact on local residents • Residents nearby will find them intimidating • Loss of sleep; noise, low frequency noise and vibration felt more at night when roads are quiet. • Health – have to consider current generation not just future • Evidence is mounting that ETSU-R-97 is insufficient to protect residents and noise can be heard kilometres away which is rhythmic and irritating. • Distress and financial loss - how will they be compensated 2 of 8 Impact on ecology (328) • Known that turbines have a negative impact on birds and bats. • Birds - stone curlews, ospreys, buzzards, red kites, various owls, other birds of prey all in the local area. • Bats – lots in the area and damaging for them • Rare plants • Tonnes of concrete will have an impact on ground ecology Impact on the economy of the area (159) • The turbines will make the area less attractive for visitors, walkers, cyclists, fishermen, horse riders • Less visitors will have a negative impact on local business, eg bed and breakfast, hotel, cafes, pubs, restaurants, garages etc • Why should small businesses suffer when a large company and one land owner makes massive profit? • Detrimental impact on the wedding venue at Tufton Warren, The Clock Barn. This is a popular and growing venue and employs a number of people and brings money into the local economy. • Other venues impacted Silk Mill, Hurstbourne Priors village hall, Popham and Lasham airfields, local shoots, liveries and stables • Hampshire countryside is an economic resource Amount of energy / efficiency (410) • Inefficient use of resources, 25 years produce too little energy to warrant investment • Only generate when the wind blows; not a windy area • Require100% back up • Inefficient source of sustained power supply, this unreliability makes surety of supply worse not better • In 10 -15 years it will be replaced by better renewable and these will be left as costly and inefficient. • Relatively small, expensive and intermittent energy supply • Effect of carbon savings is miss leading due to construction / decommissioning carbon impact; concrete foundations are far from green • Marginal wind area • What about energy to get rid of them in 25 years • Financial scam / money making exercise doesn’t make financial sense and independent financial advice must be sought. • Can’t work in low or high winds – not efficient • Inefficient, expensive and ugly • Better ways of making small amounts of electricity • Many countries re thinking their approach to wind and no longer investing Subsidy (115) • No economic benefit when remove subsidy • When subsidy withdrawn will be seen as a folly • Wouldn’t be built without subsidy because they are not cost effective 3 of 8 • Expensive opportunistic white elephant • Rely on subsidies’ • Whole lot of tax payers’ money to back up inefficient power source • Don’t want my taxes to pay for subsidy • International company spoiling local environment to take advantage of subsidies based on flawed energy policies Profit Driven (81) • No local benefit; benefit few with cost to a lot • No job creation, doesn’t employ local people • Long term financial benefit to the community is questionable • Profit only for the land owner and EDF • Profit not ecological benefit driven Other green energy (105) • Alternative are better, off shore, wave or solar • Wind farms off shore, more efficient as more consistent wind and less impact on people • Look at micro scale; heat efficiency on houses and buildings individuals benefit • All new buildings should solar collect, local production – 10000’s houses built this wouldn’t be a small contribution. • EDF dismantling wind farms in favour of solar farms Impact on Popham (430) • Danger to aviation • One of the busiest general aviation airfields in the country, on weekend 1300 movements • Already busy airspace • Applicants own expert describes it as ‘probably one of the most complex aviation areas in the country’ • Military zones already restrict airspace • Not in controlled airspace but it is a choke point; Popham, Lasham, Thruxton, military etc • Bullington cross is a visual fix for many aircraft • Compromise safe flying, even an increased risk isn’t acceptable, no amount of electric generation is worth a life • Reputation for being awkward, if not dangerous, then people will stop visiting which will have a negative impact. • Might be ok on normal days but emergency would be a disaster • Micro light flying from Popham, they are susceptible to turbulence. • Micro light school at Popham, not everyone is experienced and turbulence put inexperienced at increased risk. • No set distance as to when turbulence is and isn’t an issue, most reviews on larger aircraft. • Still awaiting CAA review on turbulence; premature to determine application while unknown. • Experienced wind farm turbulence when flying 3miles away from an operational wind farm 4 of 8 • Close to the take-off / landing strip • Won’t be able to clear turbines after take off • Impact on circuit pattern, height of turbines is height of circuits • Prevailing wind makes impact worse • Bad weather makes landing dangerous only a matter of time before a collision • Not just an airfield but a community place, asset to the area • Starlight Foundation, for sick and terminally ill children, charity days at Popham to raise money for this organisation. • Vintage lightweight aircraft and historic planes shown and flown; Sole surviving Hawker Hurricane to have served in the Battle of Britain is regularly displayed • Spitfire Flying Club operate from Popham • No other landing sites in Popham / Basingstoke area • If built the reduction in activity could lead to the closure of Popham and all the associated employment on the site. In addition to Popham some letters mentioned Lasham as another local airstrip.