Fears over new application for wind turbine at Bodham, near Holt

Residents against Bodham wind turbine. Pictured at Baconsthorpe Castle, left to right, Michael McMahon, Barbara Powell, Paula Coast, John Lilley.
Picture: ANTONY KELLY Residents against Bodham wind turbine. Pictured at Baconsthorpe Castle, left to right, Michael McMahon, Barbara Powell, Paula Coast, John Lilley. Picture: ANTONY KELLY

Wednesday, August 27, 2014
3:02 PM

A new application for a single downsized wind turbine in north Norfolk has sparked a fresh storm of frustration and worry among nearby families.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Site of the proposed Bodham wind turbine. PICTURE: NOTTTSite of the proposed Bodham wind turbine. PICTURE: NOTTT

They say the 66m turbine at Bodham would slash property values, ruin the area’s unspoilt beauty and damage the tourism industry.

“We feel we are being ignored,” said 45-year-old Paula Coast who lives about 900m from the site. “About 80pc of local residents are against it.”

An application for a larger turbine 20m larger is in the midst of an appeals process after North Norfolk District Council turned it down.

But its developers, green-energy company Genatec run by father-and-son team John and David Mack, have submitted an application for a smaller turbine at the Pond Farm site.

When the first application was submitted, homeowners started an action group, No To That Turbine.

And with the latest application, the group has sparked a new campaign, Say No To That Turbine Again, distributing 16,000 leaflets to rally support.

Ms Coast, who moved into her rural Gresham home 900m from the site weeks before the first application, said she was concerned for the health of her nine-year-old son, because of low-frequency inaudible ‘infrasound’.

“All of us have had to spend hours and hours and money to find out about turbines. It has been extremely stressful and has been going on for so long.”

Barbara Powell, from West Beckham added: “People who are close have everything to lose. Property prices drop by a third and people who are affected will be in a position where they are stuck and can’t move.”

Writer and journalist Michael McMahon, 59, who lives in Plumstead, said: “It is a simple issue, this is a wonderful part of the world that is in danger of being ruined for no good reason.”

The campaigners also said it would ruin the timeless setting of historic buildings such as Baconsthorpe Castle and set a precedent to allow other turbines, including one proposed for Selbrigg to overwhelm the countryside.

Campaigners claim there has not been proper consultation to allow people to voice their concerns.

There were 1,825 letters written to the district council when the first application for a larger turbine was made, 1,455 were objections.

Currently there are 104 public representations to the latest application, of which 97 are objecting.

Developer David Mack said he had spoken to the district council to agree on the extent and type of the consultation.

He said: “The local consultation has met and indeed exceeded the statutory requirements. The claim that there has not been a proper and well publicised consultation to give people sufficient chances to respond is unfair and unfounded.”

18 comments

  • Windless, another great post. Even the facts, I fear, are not going to deter some. The sad fact is that they believe they are being green, when they are only being conned by the landowners' money making scam

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    weaversway

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • Calum, Of course this absurd onshore wind turbine must generate electricity for the subsidy suckers to be paid, we all realise that. However, the AMOUNT of electricity this may manage is of no known practical use to UKPLC. Let me explain, UK is currently using 35Gw, that's 35,000,000KH per hour. This thing may manage 250Kw per hour. That is a whole 0.000714% of the UK needs, a few mobile phones and the odd kettle at best! BUT this thing generates subsidy income at circa £350,000 per year, that's £8.75MILLION over the life of the planning application, ALL paid for by subsidy, yes, Calum, ALL!! Paid for by all on their utility bills irrespective of ability to pay. Re onshore v offshore, again you talk nonsense:- Onshore 7msec wind speed, offshore (Sheringham shoal, today,) 10.5msec. As the output is non linear, offshore today, for the same machine would be 4 x onshore output. And offshore (Sheringham shoal for example) is 88 BIG turbines, this wind idiocy is one, at best, mobile phone charger!!!! So, please, do your sums before hitting the keyboard!!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Windless

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • Windless, if the onshore wind turbine is generating no useable electricity, then the landowner won't get any money. Subsidy is surely paid for electricity produced only.? They can't be both useless and a get rich scheme. On your onshore v offshore comments, you must remember that onshore is much more cost effective. Significantly less infrastructure costs, and it receives a lower subsidy than offshore, and it is definable quite windy up on the hill, I can testify that.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • HI Ben, My criticism is far from a joke, particularly for those who cannot afford to pay them, thus making renewable subsidy suckers even more rich. The way ahead is not intermittent and unreliable Greeniot nonsense such as wind and solar, far from it. The realistic and practical way is new and modern Nuclear, until we have that then existing gas, oil, shale gas, coal will do perfectly well until new nuclear is ready. Regarding less use, here we do agree, my house is possibly one of the best insulated in N Norfolk, all at MY expense BTW, no subsidies here! Going back to your "one turbine" bit, it may not have a terminal effect on the beautiful area, but sure as sure it'll have ZERO effect on the production of useable electricity for UKPLC. It's ONLY known purpose is to satisfy the greed of the applicant. One final point, ONSHORE wind doesn't work!!! OFFSHORE wind is slightly better, as its actually more "windy" offshore!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Windless

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • Mach1 You are wasting your time with CR, a confirmed Socialist and Labour "candidate" whose only desire (it seems to me) is to take money from the poor and give it to the rich (the turbine applicants) HH Thanks for your kind advice, being a simple soul it had never occurred to me to write to my MP......................!!! If all you see in North Norfolk is "chemical desert" then you clearly either need glasses or help. This beautiful area will definitely NOT be improved by a subsidy sucking "turbine", NOR, and much more importantly, our energy needs as a country. Take a trip to Sizewell and see where "C" will be built. That is the proper way to generate electricity 247365, then, perhaps the "young" will see the idiocy of this present means of, perhaps, if lucky, and windy simultaneously, means of charging a few mobile phones!!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Windless

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • Mach1, what rural heritage are you talking about? All most people can see is the mile upon mile of chemical desert that is otherwise known as agricultural land. You may be referring to the view of the planned turbine from Baconsthorpe Castle. Have you looked at the plans? It wouldn't affect the enjoyment of the heritage site at all. People will claim it will purely because of a luddite attitude towards wind power, which is verging on hysterical. There are actual wind farms across Europe that haven't put off tourists visiting. It would appear most people move to Norfolk so they can pretend to still be living in the past. Younger generations will end up not tolerating this backward attitude, because of the detrimental impact it has on infrastructure and services. It is time to accept change and look to the future.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    HappisburghHarry

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • Callum Ringer, this turbine will do nothing to improve our local economy. It makes a lot of money for one family at the expense of the rest of us. The local pubs, restaurants and attractions that have survived rely heavily on holidaymakers & this will put people off from visiting. Remember, once this is built there is no going back & it will open the floodgates for more applications. Be careful what you wish for & enjoy your local while it's still here....

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mach1

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • HappisburghHarry, although I agree with your sentiments I think that you're being very naive here. The original application was for 3 turbines so any fool can see that if they get this one the others will follow shortly. Then we have a wind farm. Also, why are we not building more turbines in industrial areas? This is a simple case of greed destroying what little remains of our rural heritage. Notice how all of the support comes from people who are not going to be affected by it!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mach1

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • Windless - here, here. A scheme devised to transfer money quickly from energy user to landowners. Certainly not devised to be an efficient way to generate energy. Kept the remark short because because Archant are definitely on one side, and it ain't the common person! Wonder if they will remove this comment as well

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    weaversway

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • I'm sure this one wind turbine application is not responsible for all of the UK's energy poverty problems. If you don't like the policies write to your MP. Currently there really isn't any real planning reason why this shouldn't go ahead. National energy policies are different to planning laws and regs.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    HappisburghHarry

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • HH, CR et al, Currently there are 253 comments on the NNDC website for PF140925, this wind turbine. 12 support, 241 oppose, that's 95.25% opposing, roughly the same ratio as the last application. This turbine will be lucky to average 250Kw over the year, currently 0.0008 of 1% of the UK needs, so a complete waste of time from UKPLC point of view. It will, however, and always has been a significant potential contributor to the applicant's bank account, which is why this ridiculous device is proposed by them in the first place. Attracting a higher feed in tariff as now less than 500Kw at 250Kw it will generate circa £300,000 per annum. It must be remembered that all of this money comes from all utility bill payers, whether or not they can afford to pay. As, in today's paper, for example, some 25% of the UK are now in fuel poverty (this is when more than 10% of disposable income is spent on an adequate heating regime), then this can only add to the problem. There is no energy reason to build this turbine, its only purpose is to satisfy greed.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Windless

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • Weavers Way, the application is for a single wind turbine, not a wind farm. Wind farms consist of more than one turbine. Yes, I agree that wind turbines out to sea are better, but some of the objections listed on the NNDC website are so insignificant they are actually laughable. There is nothing wrong with a single turbine there. The mock up views in the application are not at all terrifying as people are making out. I wonder how many people actually looked at the application documents before objecting.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    HappisburghHarry

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • HH - wind .farms on land are totally inefficient, just money making schemes for landowners. You ask for alternatives. 1. Windfarms out at sea where the wind is constant 2. Nuclear. No need to bult new ones. We have many older sites that could be updated. Cheap and clean.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    weaversway

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • Perhaps those complaining would like to suggest other ways in which they would prefer to produce electricity? Most people do not want any form of energy production near where they live, whatever type it is. Where do people think their electricity comes from? Or do they not think? Or care? Wind power is sustainable and clean and is here to stay.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    HappisburghHarry

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • Scaremongers of the worst variety. The death of North Norfolk villages has more to do the the demise of village pubs, shops, etc. Haven't heard any of here NIMBYS complIn about that. Goodnight!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Callum Ringer

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • There is plenty of peer-reviewed academic research on low frequency noise from turbines and on the effects of low frequency noise on human health. You might start with 'Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines' by Professor Henrik Møller, and Christian Sejer Pedersen, 2012. Commissioned by the Danish Government. Do read the peer-reviewed paper by Alec N. Salt of the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis and Aland Timothy E. Hullar, ‘Responses of the Ear to Low Frequency Sounds, Infrasound and Wind Turbines’. The only people who do not recognise the epidemiological and clinical evidence are the wind industry and their apologists. They sound increasingly like the tobacco industry denying that cigarettes cause cancer.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    NickL

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

  • I agree with weaversway. Another case of a wealthy landowner prepared to sacrifice our environment & economy for their own greed!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mach1

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

  • Sounds like they've been looking in the wrong place for research if they have these strange concerns about noise.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Jeffrey Osborne

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Overcast

Overcast

max temp: 13°C

min temp: 7°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT