Visual appeal of Stainmore AONB under threat: Your Response URGENTLY Required

We’ve had an email from Stainmore asking us to consider urgently responding (Deadline next Tuesday 13 September) to an application for 3 , 18m high turbines to be sited just 360 m away from the nearest home ( they seem to be of the two-prop type by the look of the photomontage  – like the one by the A6 north of Penrith). I think it would mar an area that affords some of the finest scenery from the A66 if my memory serves correctly. I saw a similar turbine off the A6 recently. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I think these would too.

Here is the gist of the email:

I write to inform you that an application has been made to Eden District Council for 3 x 18 metre tubines at Bleathgill on Stainmore. Planning application 11/0622.

Details can be found on this pdf
http://eforms.eden.gov.uk/fastweb_upload/2011%20Planning%20Applications/11-0622/0622-DandA-Statement.pdf

I do not believe that it is appropriate for SOS to object to this as an organisation as we were set up to fight the large-scale windfactory at Moudy Mea envisaged by Community Windpower. However I am writing to bring this application to your attention so that you have an opportunity to study it for yourselves and to object if you feel you wish to do so. Whether to object is obviously a matter of personal choice for all SOS members but as you care for the beautiful, wild, unspoilt countryside on Stainmore you certainly have a right to know that an application has been made.

I have objected personally (no mention of or link to SOS). My reasons are mainly that

1) The development is inappropriate within the AONB and against planning guidelines
2) This is not a domestic development but a small scale wind farm and the turbines are situated a long way from the farmstead involved
3) A precedent will be set if this is allowed which will allow further development within AONBs 3 tubines will quickly become 30 and Community Windpower may well return to Stainmore if this application is granted.
4) Visual impact
5) Noise – disturbing the area’s valuable tranquility
6) Recent precedent – one turbine proposed to serve a property was recently rejected by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal due mainly to the fact that it would cause “material harm to the landcape of the North Pennines AONB”.

Please read the application for yourself and see what you think. If you decide to comment you may email the planners on planning.services@eden.gov.uk. Give your name and address and quote application number 11/0622 Bleathgill Barras Stainmore

The original authors retain copyright for the documents, so don’t lift pictures out or infringe their  copyright in other fashion. Responding online is very quick and easy. http://eforms.eden.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=11/0622

Thank you for caring about our environment.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Visual appeal of Stainmore AONB under threat: Your Response URGENTLY Required

  1. We all should be reducing our carbon footprint and this is one way of doing it – not everyone thinks windmills are a blot on the landscape, we think they are quite beautiful. If everyone thought ‘not in my back yard’ then nothing would be done. We feel strongly that it is short sighted to rely on nuclear fuels – how will the waste be stored and how dangerous it is – look at Chernobyl and Japan.

    • Thank you for your opinions, Fiona and Alan. I think you’re right that we should be reducing CO2 output and seeking energy efficiency. There are various ways to reduce CO2 emissions, some of them are more or less visually intrusive. Many people feel that the more intrusive ones are less appropriate in beautiful areas than the less intrusive ones. Others, as you say like the way turbines look. If you’re interested in microgeneration the Green Deal promises to make it far more attainable and mainstream in 2012. In Cumbria there are local suppliers who can advise upon and install environmentally friendly technology such as Logic http://logic-group.co.uk/renewable-energy.

      Nobody would dispute that nuclear waste is a hazardous material, and it clearly requires care in its handling and storage. I’m not sure that I agree that its particularly short-sighted to rely on nuclear fuels though. I think poor technology and geological instability were key factors in the disasters that you mention, I think both were highly unusual.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s