WHITTLESEY: Residents request inquiry into siting of turbine

I HAVE been requested by residents closest to the Whittlesey Turbine, to make representation to Fenland District Council on their behalf, we request an inquiry into the inappropriate siting and consequential dangerous situation that followed. As you may b

I HAVE been requested by residents closest to the Whittlesey Turbine, to make representation to Fenland District Council on their behalf, we request an inquiry into the inappropriate siting and consequential dangerous situation that followed.

As you may be aware, this development and dangerous following events have raised concerns nationally and internationally, see (New York Times).

This turbine is now being viewed as a "planning blunder" that has raised issues and concerns about the health, welfare, and safety, of those that live, work, and travel, beneath the shadows of the turbine.

Approval of this turbine raises concerns about the ability of council members to make accurate and unbiased decisions about wind turbine development in Fenland.


You may also want to watch:


It does seem to us that in its haste to "support and embrace" wind developments in Fenland, FDC has overlooked (as in this case) the associated and recorded detrimental and dangerous impacts turbines have, on those residents that live nearby.

In 2000, FDC planning officers were made aware by myself, about the potential risk to human health and welfare, by inappropriate turbine developments.

Most Read

Planning Services were supplied with a document "List of Incidents at Wind Farms", the document highlighted the danger of "Ice Throw or Shedding", so one may assume that planning and councillors would have taken this into consideration when this development was given approval.

Wind development rural or urban, have varying impacts simply by the sheer size and scale of the development, therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that all impacts associated with the Whittlesey development on nearby homes, workplaces, footpaths, major road and railway, will have been thoroughly considered, or were they?.

We draw you attention to FDC Development Policy Core Strategy, "Wind turbine proposals will be permitted where",

"There being no adverse effect upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers due to Noise Emission, Visual Intrusion, Shadow Flicker, Rejected Light, or Electronic Disturbance".

We, the residents close to the Whittlesey turbine justifiably request an answer to the following,

A) Why, have residents been subjected to the stresses of Blade Shadow Flicker, Noise Pollution, Visual Impact, Visual Intrusion, Strobe Light, and Ice Projectiles that endangers life?

B) Why, has FDC contravened its own Development Planning Core Strategy when dealing with this development?

C) How, and for what reason, was this development on such an obvious and inappropriate site, with all known detrimental impacts, given approval?

D) What is FDC going to do in order to mitigate these terrible circumstances that residents daily endure through no fault of their own?

On behalf of the residents concerned, and looking forward to an early response,

JOHN STONEMAN

Cambs Environmental and Wildlife Protection (CEWP)

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus