Residents of Shipham village (near Chedder in Somerset) have been sent a voting form by their Parish Council asking whether they are in favour or against the proposal to install two mid-size wind turbines at the quarry site on Callow Hill.

Unfortunately, from our perspective, the voting paper presents a somewhat negative list of issues and does not put forward the positive case for the scheme or describe any of its benefits. There are also some slight inaccuracies that we hope to correct at the bottom of this page. Furthermore, on their dedicated web page the PC has chosen only to include documents that are biased against wind turbines.

Sadly, the PC has nothing positive to say about wind energy at all. For example,  there is no mention that our two public meetings on the proposals have revealed the majority of opinion expressed was supportive, with 65% in favour.

It’s also important to remember that this vote is not the definitive say in whether the scheme finally goes ahead. If you agree in principle but have some specific concerns – everyone will have the opportunity to comment further if a planning application is to be submitted. Its OK to say yes now and change your mind later!

Why should Shipham say yes?

Simple:

  • Good for the environment. This is a unique opportunity for villagers to say yes to something positive – for the obvious environmental benefits but also the more complex issues of energy security and climate change.
  • Good for the community. The project is what we call a hybrid community scheme – we will pay for the wind turbines to be installed and operated and earn income from selling the electricity generated. We will pay a windfall of 7% of GROSS revenue to the community for the life of the scheme to be re-invested back into local projects. At a time when Government cut-backs are threatening local budgets this is worth in excess of £20,000 per year and is index linked!
  • Good for investors. If members of the community wish to invest directly into the scheme they can! We will sell up to 49% of the project – but we’ll do this when we have collected a full 12 months of operational data so that potential investors know what they are buying.
  • Good for children.  Saying yes to this scheme will leave a legacy for future generations. Although small, Shipham residents will be able to look back with pride at something they made happen.
  • Good for tourism. This scheme would put Shipham on the map as a beacon for other forward thinking communities with additional benefits likely from fact-finding trips to eco-tourism.
  • Good for wildlife. Even the RSPB recognise that climate change is one of the biggest risks to wildlife and that onshore wind has a vital role to play. Callow Hill is an active quarry site.

Don’t let the NIMBY’s get their way! Please use your vote to support this scheme.

Finally, lets take the Parish Council points one-by-one to clarify any confusion:

1. Government policy

Yes national policy PPS22 says regional planners should look kindly on renewable energy projects. This does not mean that schemes go ahead regardless – all are subject to the same rigorous planning process.

2. Visual impact

In fact most of Shipham will hardly see the wind turbines at all. Further, there have been numerous case studies where residents simply ignore them after a time. The paper does concede the turbines are mid-sized, but put in context: they are less than half the size of a modern large wind turbine (for example those at Bristol docks or at Green Park, Reading) and about the same height as a standard National Grid electricity pylon.

3. Wildlife

If the scheme moves forward an environmental study would be required –  this would determine the amount and significance of any habitat locally. Specifically regarding bats- the site is exposed and obviously very windy making it generally unsuitable for bats. The quarry location further reduces the scope for wildlife as the entire area is constantly disrupted with activity.

Natural England have published specific guidelines on appropriate siting of wind turbines in relation to bats – these will be “designed in” from the onset. By siting wind turbines 50m from the nearest hedgerows bats are protected.

4. Noise

Shipham village is over 1km from the proposed site. According to noise models using verified manufacturer noise data and internationally agreed ISO calculations even the nearest properties will experience levels below 35 dB(A) in a 22mph wind. Put into context that is much less than the noise you would find in the quietest of libraries!!

Some people may indeed argue, as the paper suggests, that wind turbine noise is intrusive. Often the same people claim (incorrectly and without any substantive evidence) that wind turbine noise causes pregnant cattle to abort and health conditions in humans ranging from tinnitus to heart disease and mental illness.

Read what the NHS and the DTI have to say about noise.

Two relatively small wind turbines should not be confused with a wind farm.

5. Shadow flicker and Strobing

Shadow flicker only occurs within a radius of 10 rotor diameters  (in this case  290m) and even then only at properties with 130 degrees either side of  north (to the turbines) and at certain times of the day when the sun is low. A recent government report has concluded that shadow flicker has not caused a nuisance in the UK to date.

According to PPS22 strobing on wind turbine blades has been all but eliminated through the use of light grey semi-matt paint coatings.

No properties in and around Shipham will be effected.

6. Revenue

Actually the scheme is what we refer to as a Hybrid Community Scheme where we as the developer take on all the financial risk of planning and installation. Once the scheme was operational and with the benefit of 12 months actual production data we would invite the local community to invest directly into the project. This is in addition to the annual windfall payment of 6% of gross income made to the parish.

Benefit for everyone regardless of their ability to invest financially.

7. Efficiency

Wind turbines to do not generate electricity all the time. Neither do solar panels, hydro electric or gas power stations or even nuclear power stations for that matter. Its easy to confuse efficiency with load factor – the numbers referred to by the Parish Council actually refer to the latter. On shore wind turbines are in fact very efficient in terms of cost per installed kilowatt (£/kW) at less than half the cost of off-shore and probably even cheaper than nuclear  if you took cleanup costs into account – which of course is not possible since no-one dares tries to calculate what the actual long term cost of nuclear is! In a recent report OFGEM (the generating industry watchdog) predicted electricity bills would rise by 14% if the UK makes a massive shift to renewable power…. compared with a 40%+ rise if we do not.

Because the wind does not blow everywhere at once this is a compelling argument for smaller wind turbines distributed over the entire UK rather than fewer wind farms with larger turbines.

As technology advances we will become better at storing the electricity while the wind is blowing, for example in hydrogen generation for fuel cells.

8. Pollution

The wind turbines proposed do not use the rare earth magnets mentioned. However, everything mankind does has an effect on the environment and wind turbines are no different – greenhouse gases are released during the manufacture, transport and installation of a wind turbine. However, once up and running compare the likely pollution to that from a fossil fuel based power station.

9. Planning

Obviously for the scheme to progress planning permission would be required.