Application – 55 kW wind turbine, South Bofindle Farm, Mount, Warleggan
STATUS: Approved with conditions
see: decision notice (28/01/13) – officer report (28/01/13) – other documents
>> BBC NEWS: Cornwall wind turbine approved after parish decision change – Warleggan Parish Council had voted against the proposals for South Bofindle Farm in December. It changed its decision after being contacted by Cornwall Council planners… BBC News, Cornwall, 05/02/2013
proposed for both Bofindle Farm and South Bofindle Farm
from fineenergy.wordpress.com
click to see larger image
By a majority of four to three, the Planning Sub-Committee at the parish meeting of Thursday 20th December 2012 had voted not to support application PA12/10968 for “Installation of a single small-scale 55 kW wind turbine on a 36 m Monopole tubular tower (up to 47 m tip height) with 3 blades and a rotor diameter of 19.2 m and associated equipment’ at South Bofindle, Mount, Bodmin, PL30 4DU.” Full details of the discussions and decisions made are given in the minutes of the meeting.
Click the link above to find out more about this application, and to review the documents held at Cornwall County Council; note that in the documents listing some of the documents appear unlabelled, but they can still be seen by clicking on the acrobat logo on the left of each row. Comments and letters submitted to Cornwall Council can also be found there, both in favour and against, and those interested can submit their own comments by letter or through their website.
If you wish to see recent observations about this application from readers of Warleggan News, and/or to contribute your own thoughts and ideas, please go down this page until you get to the top of the ‘comments’ section.
.
Application – 5 kW wind turbine, Castle Dewey, Warleggan
STATUS: Approved with conditions – erected Nov 2012; up and running
– (decision notice not available online)
A parish meeting was held at the Jubilee Hall on 4th September, where, amongst other things, the planning application was discussed for a small wind turbine at Castle Dewey, PA12/05804. See minutes for this meeting.
Amongst the arguments made in favour were its relatively small height (‘a telegraph pole and a half’), the compatibility of its output (5kW) with the needs of the farm, its ability (according to some) to ‘fit in’ with the topography of the surrounding environment, its low noise levels, its green credentials as an environmentally friendly power source, its role in helping make the farm viable, its compatibility with a culture of centuries of change and progress in the area, and, according to one, the beauty of turbines.
as had been proposed for Castle Dewey and has now been installed there
from greenreview.blogspot.co.uk
click to see larger image
Arguments against included the inappropriateness of its location deep within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and so close to historic sites (tumuli etc.), the insufficient consultation with neighbours, the proximity to some residences, the potential effects on health (both known and unknown), the spoiling of the landscape including when viewed from the road, and the fear of a precedent being set: that if this one is approved, more will surely follow.
The planning sub-committee considered the application, and voted five in favour of the application, and three against.
Background: The proposed turbine is an Evance R9000, 5kW, on a 15 metre tower. Like the turbine proposed for Bofindle (see below), it would be a three-blade turbine, but with a tower less than half the height, with blades less than half the size, and it would produce a tenth of the power output (see photos above).
Note that on the planning website, some of the documents listed appear unlabelled in the ‘associated documents’ window, but can still be viewed by clicking on the PDF logo on the left, including the top listed item, the planning application itself. It can be safely assumed, also, that the listing of it as a 5 watt turbine is also in error.
.
Application – 50 kW wind turbine, Bofindle Farm, Mount, Warleggan
STATUS: PA12/05060 (Bofindle Farm) – Application refused, 15th Feb 2013
– (decision notice not available online)
A well-attended meeting was held on 7th August 2012, at which plans for the proposed turbine PA12/05060 at Bofindle Farm, near to Carne Wood, were discussed. Full minutes for this meeting are posted on Warleggan News. Below is an informal brief summary, produced earlier, which is NOT an official record:
- Statements were made, firstly on behalf of the applicant, and secondly in opposition to the proposal.
- A lively discussion followed on the various issues and factors raised.
- The following resolution was proposed, seconded and voted on by Warleggan parishioners through a show of hands – 36 voted in favour of the resolution, and 9 against:
–
“This Parish Meeting strongly urges the Parish Planning Sub-Committee to recommend the rejection of the planning application for a wind turbine at Bofindle Farm, Mount. This Meeting would like the parish’s formal response to Cornwall Council – whatever that response is – to be accompanied by the following explanation:
–
“The Parish Meeting of Warleggan views the application PA12/05060 as incompatible with the importance and protection afforded to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in current national and local planning policies. As these are due shortly to be superseded, we believe the application could be resubmitted at that time and that, unlike the present application, a wildlife survey is undertaken together with adequate consultation with nearby residents – carried out and recorded according to the Council’s own guidelines.”
- After further discussions, the Planning Sub-Committee then gathered to consider the application PA12/05060, and voted two in favour of the application, three against, and two abstentions.
RESEARCH:
- Review the PA12/05060 wind turbine planning application; and/or find out about other plans in the area by going to the council’s planning search page. Comments to the council on this or any planning applications can be made online, or by letter.
- Why not watch a short video showing the E-3120 turbine in action – for example, there is one produced by an installer Solar Ventus. Or read the 4-page brochure about the turbine produced by the manufacturers, Endurance Wind Power.
- Check out Cornwall Council’s renewable energy webpage, with links to maps showing where various renewable energy projects are happening in the county, along with a series of well written guidance notes, specific to Cornwall, including one looking in detail at onshore wind.
- Or just google away…
Use the ‘comments’ window below to express your views. Please be careful in how you phrase things, especially if you want to disagree with someone else’s comment. The idea of this site is to bring people together …
Comments received by email:
- From Cathy Farnworth, Monday, 6 August 2012, 11:48: Say No Leaflet and letter to the council
- A poem from Roger Farnworth, 6 August 2012, 20:19 on the subject – The Wind Farm: Elegy for a Cornish Village
Thanks for the info Chris. Will certainly give it a go, particularly as I won’t be able to attend meeting on the 12th.
Was extremely impressed by what this chap had to say about the future of our county at the council meeting yesterday:
Bert Biscoe, the Independent Councillor for Truro Moresk, joined Cornwall Council in 2009.
Seems to be one of the few who is truly considering the overall picture and believes we should not be dictated by what the government decrees are our local needs.Hopefully the minutes will give a clear picture of what was said.
Never having been to a council meeting before I was pleasantly surprised that quite a lot of what was said was informative and even interesting at times. So if you are thinking of going to the meeting on the !2th Feb. you may find it more worthwhile than you might think.
You may be interested to know that the council also do webcasts, including for this meeting, so anyone can watch proceedings online. I don’t know if anyone has ever watched one of these?
Julie was asked what her ‘feelings’ were towards the turbine.At no time was it made clear in any way shape or form that her answer would be considered as a ‘vote’.I for one am a little dissapointed to find what I thought was a private conversation with the chairperson has now been blabbed to all and sundry.
i have just been told that the council, for some reason which completely baffles me, have asked us if we wish to revise the planning sub commitee vote that objected to the turbine at south bofindle. i have also been told that rogers vote does not now count as he has, most unfortuately ,left us, i have also been told that julie, who was not even at the meeting to hear the arguments for and against, can and has, voted on the proposal weeks later. i feel this is outrageous. at the meeting the vote was cast with four objecting and three supporting the proposal. apparently the council have now been told that the vote stands at four supporting and two objecting.. this is incredible. i have every confidence when i say that the majority of parishioners would prefer this turbine not to go ahead as i have taken the trouble to go out and ask people what they feel, but the council are now being told that twice as many support the proposal as object to it. what is the point in having a commitee and taking a vote when you allow it all to be changed weeks later?.the vote taken on the night should stand and any statement made to the council should be revised to reflect this. the constitution does not make any allowance for a change of heart, nor should it. no matter what the final outcome of this proposal, i feel it is imperative the vote taken on the night must stand, or you may as well not bother taking one at all.
It has become a common practice with Planners to ask councils to reconsider if they themselves (the planners) are of a mind to recommend something that the council refused. I don’t ever recall it happening when the District Councils were in being. There should always be transparency and it looks as though the parish were not really advised this would be reconsidered by the committee. Why has Roger’s place on the Committee not been advertised or even filled. I didn’t know him terribly well but I feels sure, having spoken to him about this windmill business, he would have wanted someone to take his place – preferably someone with the same opinion as his.
Chris: With respect, we don’t have a “Parish Committee” in Warleggan. We have:
(i) a Parish Meeting – which can be attended by all parishioners and who are entitled to propose resolutions and to vote at that meeting; and
(ii) A Planning Sub-committee which produces recommendations on planning applications. affecting the parish. The Planning Sub-Committee’s meetings are public meetings and are open to all parishioners, who may speak at those meetings but not vote. Only members of the Sub-committee (elected by secret ballot at each AGM) are entitled to vote.
These are the only two parish bodies apart from the Hall Committee.
So the Planning Sub-ccommittee decides on planning applications.
And the Parish Meeting decides on everyuthing else.
As you say, the fact that we generally hold a meeting only if there is a planning application to determine is the probable cause of the confusion. But it’s all there in the constitution. Incidentally, NO ONE outside the parish has a right to attend our meetings; they can attend only by invitation of the chairman; similarly, they may speak only on the chairman’s invitation.
Just to stress once more: Planning Sub-Committee meetings are open to every member of the parish and they are entitled to speak at those meetings but not vote.
Oh thanks David, that’s very clear, and very helpful. I’ll have a quiet word with the guy managing the website, as he’d mistakenly put ‘parish committee’ as the menu header for all these matters (constitution, agendas, minutes, etc.) on this website. But I think I can understand why he made this mistake – not only is he (like myself) relatively new to the parish, and technically living (as I am) just outside the parish, but the label ‘sub-committee’ seemed to indicate it was the ‘sub’ of a higher committee.
Anyway, all is much clearer now. Nevertheless, I think the essence of what I was suggesting still stands, i.e. that it might be worthwhile for parish meetings to look at some of the bigger issues for the parish, whether it’s about promoting and/or developing strategies for tourism, agriculture, moorland protection, sustainable energy, or whatever – separately from those occasions when we get reminded of the importance of these issues anytime the planning sub-committee is tasked with reviewing a particular application. Mix the two together, as happened at the mega meeting in August, and we do get confusion.
Dear Chris
You have made excellent points about the need for looking at bigger issues facing the parish, to create a vision for how the parish wants to develop. I might add that Roger has been saying this for a very long time! This vision would help guide the planning sub-committee as to what is really wanted by the community, and it would help ensure that it is truly seen as legitimate. It would also, surely, enable it to work much more closely with a wider proportion of the parish.
On green issues, there are many things that can be done. Andrew suggested putting forward some ideas. I think it is worth cooperating with other parishes and St. Neot is well on the way to creating a community energy strategy. It makes sense to work across the administrative borders (which are merely rather silly invisible lines – which is why people in St. Neot and Cardinham have a legitimate interest in what happens in Warleggan and Mount – as you do!). Talking purely of energy generation, watersheds, for example, are obviously shared and could be utilised for cross-parish planning around smallscale hydrological plants, for instance.
Lots of other ideas but over to you.
Actually Ian I didn’t make any referrence to the health concerns.
My referrence to the cat was not a flippant one . The RSPB reckon that domestic cats kill more than 5million birds a year in the UK alone .(I say this sorrowfully , we have a cat but fortunately it is so fat it could only kill a bird by accidentally falling on it).
No , there is no cosy group of turbine fans. I was just giving my honest and unsolicited opinion.That’s all.
I am rather more concerned with the effect on human beings.
An interesting debate is emerging on the rights or wrongs of planning committee members engaged in canvassing, so I thought I’d put in my two-pennies’ worth.
Can I agree with both sides of the argument? On the one side, it is right that planning committee members are required to vote, objectively and impartially, on the basis of the information provided at the planning committee meeting, and according to the criteria against which planning applications have to be decided – which means that, such factors as changes in property prices, or personal feelings about the applicant’s character, or personal beliefs regarding the national energy policy, or, indeed, one’s own previous or anticipated submission of similar applications, must be excluded. Their votes must be, and must be seen to be, neutral and objective. Expressing opinions prior to a meeting (and the named canvasser isn’t the only one to have done this) might reasonably raise concerns that any decision reached at the meeting might not be proper. My guess is that, as was true for previous turbine applications, a good proportion of the planning sub-committee have in essence disqualified themselves.
On the other side, Cathy’s observations do point to a challenge we face in the parish, something which we might like to explore before the next AGM, which is this: as things stand now, the parish committee has (if I understand it rightly) the same membership as the planning sub-committee, and this has resulted in (a) a confusion of roles, and (b) an over-emphasis on planning issues, such that other parish issues get forgotten, with meetings tend to occur only when there is a planning application to be considered. I would like to see those standing for election for the parish committee at the next AGM being invited to declare their visions for the parish before the vote. Then, there could be an election of the planning committee, who perhaps should be largely a different set of people, who can then more easily be able to put any personal opinions they may have to one side, to consider each application objectively and on its own merits according to planning criteria, and be seen to do so.
If we had such a separation of functions, the parish committee, along with interested parishioners attending such meetings, could discuss the parish’s energy and/or environment policy, and perhaps draw up a parish plan that might provide guidance with respect to whether, and to what extent, the parish is supportive of the erection of wind turbines in the parish. Then, the planning sub-committee would be able to take this policy into consideration as one factor to be considered when assessing any planning application for a turbine. In a similar vein, the planning sub-committee might take into consideration the parish committee’s policy on tourism, if there is one, before considering a planning application for the creation of a holiday home, or a caravan site. And so on.
Finally one point we should also note: I think some of us regard the vote of a parish planning committee as holding more weight than it really does. As is pointed out by CPALC, an independent body promoting and supporting local democracy, the most that parish councils (committees) can do is to comment on an application, just as individuals may also do. See what they say here. This makes me wonder whether, for such sensitive issues where it is difficult for planning committee members to be fully objective, it might make more sense for the parish to abstain from submitting any comment to the county council, and to rely on parishioners making their comments direct to the County Council.
I would like to record our support for the South Bofindle application.
In reply to Cathy I must say that I agree with quite a lot of what has been said. A local green energy initiative would be a very positive move. Ideas though are the easy bit but it’s action that we need so I would request Cathy that you take this suggestion to the next stage and see if you can put together a policy to propose to the Parish Committee.
Regarding Germany , yes there is no doubt that we could learn a great deal from them. I am surprised though that Germany has invested in wind turbines to the extent that they have given that Germany has a fraction of the wind that we experience in the UK. The west of Britain is by far the windiest place in Europe by a considerable factor.
I must correct you about parish opinion although I concede that it is difficult for you assess this from such a distance. It is much more nuanced than the ‘Big No’. Certainly I have met some who are evangelically in favour of turbines wherever they may be erected and then there is the equal and opposite view that is utterly and fundamentally against them on principle. I sense though that there is a large body of opinion that sits somewhere in the middle and will take a view on each application seperately dependent on its merits.
A Davidstow size of operation ( nearly 500 feet high) would be horrible to contemplate and would almost certainly be owned by a distant corporation who would siphon all the economic benefits away from Cornwall. The Bofindle application on the other hand is much more proportionate in scale with all the financial return residing within the local .community .
Having trawled the literature for many an hour looking for negative environmental impacts of small solitary turbines it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the average domestic cat does more harm in a week than the Bofindle turbine will in its entire lifetime.
Totally disagree Andrew. You obviously don’t trawl the same sites that I do and your last comment about the cat is a totally misleading comment that does you no good whatsoever. There are heartfelt concerns over a number of health issues which have been fully documented, both in the UK and abroad and for you to dismiss these in those terms I find rather arrogant and not at all funny. All turbine applicants sticking together eh!
Chris I hope you pick up this message before the meeting on Thursday. We were alerted to the meeting this afternoon but unfortunately Tony wasn’t alert enough to say that we will be unable to attend due to prior commitments!
We are still opposed to this windmill and having read all 63 comments this evening, nothing has changed our minds. They are a waste of space, expensive to the community in financial terms and morally, eventually people will realise the problems with them but by then it will be too late.
I saw a pogramme on tv a week or so ago which said that coal is going to be mined again as now, it is worth getting it out of the ground. An earlier comment on ‘our’ website made mention of the lack of coal as a reason for having wind power. Shale gas is being drawn out of the ground ‘up north’ – another attraction for Blackpool (!) and arguments for windfarms offshore are gathering momentum.
Single turbines are for the sole purpose of providing income and free electricity for individuals, there’s nothing altruistic or eco friendly about it. I have no doubt this application will go through – how can Cornwall Council refuse a turbine when they themselves are proposing to build who knows how many on its own farms and have given themselves permisison to do so? However, the opposition must still be heard. I’m entitled to my opinion and everyone is entitled to hear it !!!!
Thanks, Elizabeth, and yes, your comment is already up; and given you won’t be attending the meeting, I’ll make sure your comment is handed on to the parish chairman well before the meeting.
Chris
Almost every single person in the parish has already said a BIG NO to wind turbines, on ecological grounds, visual grounds, harm to local tourist businesses, health concerns, downward impact on house prices, etc.
A great way out of this impasse and to be truly green in a community sense (rather than one person imposing upon all others) is to work at parish level for a green community. A wonderful start has been made with the village shop on Fridays and the solar panels on the hall roof. Car sharing for the school run and shopping could be another step, if wished, and there must be many other creative ideas out there on how to save energy, and create energy too by using roofs etc.
In countries like Germany (which is famously green and into wind and solar power) there really are not wind turbines distributed across the whole landscape, farm by farm. You can go for hundreds of miles without seeing one. No areas of outstanding national beauty have any!! They know how to treasure beaty and multiple values in the landscape. Wind turbines are sited carefully, and the electricity they produce is VERY expensive. Germany has the highest, or near to highest, electricity bills in Europe due to wind power and is controversial. This said, incentives are provided for greener businesses, insulation, proper bus services etc – all saving energy and reducing carbon footprints all the time. Electricity generation is not a matter of each person fending for themselves, it is a national and a community effort.
Could someone please tell me if a planning commitee member is actually allowed to canvas for or against a coming planning decision ?
Having been asked about this issue may I say that if I were to express any firm opinion, and particularly if I were to canvass on behalf of that opinion, on an application before the meeting I should be judged to have predetermined the application and be barred from any attendance at that item. However if the opinion is a general opinion on an issue and a declaration is made that all evidence will be considered as presented at the meeting then it may be possible to take part. Otherwise the person concerned should not even be present at the discussion or voting. I feel this question hinges on the actions of the individual before the meeting.
Hope this helps Derris
Dear Derris, this is very clear. Councillors should not promote their own view. At the meeting, they have to state they will consider all evidence, and be seen to do so. They have to reflect the views of the parish and not their own.
This is what went so disasterously wrong at the St. Neot meeting on wind turbines which I observed along with several from Warleggan parish. The councillors expressed strongly personal views (it was really amazing to hear them) and did not reflect the will of the parish by voting in favour of an extremely large turbine even though hundreds of parishioners commented against in writing, at the meeting itself, and online.
Thank you for taking the time to reply Derris.I do wonder if Mr Farnsworth delivering his ‘personal propoganda’ is truly acceptable considering he is a planning meeting member ?
I did not realise Roger was the errant member in question! Never mind, my opinions are my own. Before I saw this I was intending to write anyway. I have much intrigued by the original question and Derris’ response and I have to come to realise that Derris is simply wrong.
The reason is easy to grasp. All elected representatives are elected on the basis of the opinions that they express, otherwise, how would we know who to vote for? All elected representatives canvas on behalf of their party, and also their own opinion (which may sometimes be somewhat divergent from the mainstream party). They are active decision-shapers. Furthermore, a fundamental feature of democracy is that our representatives ‘broadly’ represent us, but it is understood that a representative can never represent everyone in the community, nor should they. I believe – and indeed am sure that – in the modest case of Warleggan, that each member of the council has been elected not because they are faceless and opinion-less but rather on the basis of their known views and their service to the community over many years (etc).
Regarding the St. Neot meeting I mentioned before – the issue was that the members did not refer to public opinion in the community, nor did any one of them refer to the detailed arguments put forward by campaigners (either for or against). Two of those present did not speak at all, yet voted! I find it indefensible that these elected representatives did not canvas opinion, did not refer to arguments, did not set out their own position and underpin their position with clear reasoning, but simply stayed mum and voted. That is not democracy! The other members also did not acknowledge any opinions put forward by the public in the room and in the community. Again, I find that very wrong.
I take the view that members MUST show that they have heard and listened to their parishioners. They are also entitled to their own views (this is why they were elected) and, as all MPs are entitled to do, of course they can canvas for their views. This is happening anyway, I am sure, in the current case! Either openly or in private, no one can avoid having an opinion on wind turbines and discussing/influencing their neighbours etc. If, in the case of parish members, their views are CLEARLY minority to the case in hand, OR if they have a vested personal interest in the planning issue (in this case, may be interested in building a turbine themselves) then they should abstain from voting.