Name, address and e mail details

Ms Rebecca Miller

Development Management Department

Sedgemoor District Council

Bridgwater House

King Square

Bridgwater TA6 3AR

Date:

Dear Ms Miller

Application Ref; 24/12/00018.

I am writing to object to the proposed wind turbine development at Pilrow near Rooks Bridge & East Brent. Please do not publish my personal details on the Planning web site.

I have a number of objections in principle to the proposals.

  1. As a result of their size, scale and extent, the turbines will dominate views from many points in the surrounding area and will be seenthroughout the Cheddar/Axe Valley and beyond. They will appear as enormous, discordant, artificial structures in a predominantly rural, agricultural landscape. They are not sensitively located or designed and have no regard for the character and quality of the local landscape. They will also be harmful to the countryside setting of Rooksbridge, East Brent, Mark, Brent Knoll and other immediate surrounding villages. They simply cannot be disguised.
  2. There are scheduled ancient monument sites, attractive historic conservation villages and important listed buildings within lines of sight of the proposed turbines. These include the historic churches in Mark and East Brent. The size, scale and impact of the turbines will be harmful to the historic character of the locality and the setting of these historic assets. This is particularly relevant to the Iron Age Hill Fort that is the AncientMonument at the summit of Brent Knoll, less than 10 metres higher than the proposed height of the turbines.
  3. The turbines are far too close to many private dwellings. The nearest dwelling is only some 500m from a turbine with the villages of Rooksbridge and East Brent only around 1300m away. Many countries and some areas of the UK encourage a 2000m (2km) zone from dwellings as best practice to protect thoseneighbouringthese huge machines. Many homes in the surrounding villages and severaloutlyingresidential properties fall within 2kms of at least one of the turbines.
  4. The landscape is popular with walkers, horse riders, cyclists, and other visitors and tourists who come to enjoy this open countryside for its own sake including its historic quality, beauty and tranquility, particularly the areas of Mendip AONB, Cheddar/Axbridge, Brean Down, the Poldens and as far as Glastonbury Tor and beyond. The visual impact of the turbines will destroy these attractive characteristics and could mean that visitors choose to spend their leisure time and money elsewhere resulting in loss of trade to local businesses and refreshment premises.
  5. The enjoyment of usingnearby minor roads and public rights of way close to the site for walking, cycling and horse riding will be greatlycurtailed and a significant footpath and permissive right of way interfered with. Far reaching views across open countryside will be ruined andtranquility spoilt. Health and safety issueswill also inevitably arise due to the closeproximity of theturbines to someof the existing, long-established rights of way and minor roads used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists, the latter particularly because of the flat landscape.
  6. The wind turbines will also impact on the enjoyment of the use ofsports and leisure facilities such as.Other leisure activities such as cycling, fishing in nearby rivers and lakes, and walking are also likely to be adversely affected. The area is popular for caravan/motor home users with Caravan Cub accredited sites (and substantial businesses linked to that activity based in the area). This could lead to many people seeking alternative sports and leisure arrangements resulting in the loss of facilities for local people as well as loss of trade for local businesses.
  7. I am concerned that living conditions of nearby residents will be harmed due to potential problems such as noise, shadow flicker and visual effects and their associated health problems. Noise relating to sleep disturbance are a real concern whatever the Applicants might assert. There are frequent press reports of families affected by noise from nearby wind turbines. One of the reasons to move wind farms away from residential areas is to reduce or eliminate noise nuisance complaints. I cannot see that any scientific study can replicate the actual noise produced by a turbine in operation in different weather conditions and winds speeds and wind directions, and the only sure way to avoid the problem is not to have them so close to residential property, or businesses operating nearby, as its not just people living nearby that matter, but people working nearby.
  8. There will be traffic issues relating to the construction of the site with greatly increased levels of heavy vehicles entering and leaving the site. Thundering heavy goods vehicles will also impact on those living close to access routes. If constructed, highway safety will be compromised due to drivers on nearby roads being distracted by the scale and proximity of the turbines. I don’t believe its enough to say that road users will be expected to obey the “rules of the road” and not be distracted by the immensity of the turbines on the landscape: you cannot legislate for human nature which will allow for easy distraction and risk for the thousands of daily drivers that pass on the M5 and A38/A370.
  9. I believe the impact on local wildlife on the site will be severe. There are internationally renowned wildlife refuges and bird sanctuaries nearby and Ham Hill Reserve for example is renowned for its spectacular murmurations of starlings the beginnings of which pass through and around this immediate area... Major ground works in the construction phase will inevitably damage flora and fauna and the introduction of wide access roads will inhibit the movement and natural spread of wildlife around the site. There are several protected species known to inhabit or visit the site and many species including birds of prey, bats, deer, badgers, voles (hence Vole Road, Vole Farm etc) and it’s a large area for breeding swans ducks and moorhen to name a few. I believe imposing an industrialised development into open countryside is an impact that is too great and would cause more harm that the Applicant would have us believe.
  10. Tucked away at the end of the Applicants submissions is some information about Television Reception and that up to 3500 houses have the potential to be impacted by interference. It is suggested that this should not be dealt with as an issue until after the turbines become operational. The idea that we should “wait and see” is unacceptable and furthermore the idea that we should be involved in organizing contractors to re-tune signals, identify faults, and install cable or satellite systems is also unacceptable. Every householder with a Television pays the annual licence fee and I for one would want to use that and not have to pay for some alternate private subscription service simply because the Applicants say it would be available. There are well known problems with overlap of signals from Mendip and Wenvoe and I believe the hill mass of Brent Knoll has a part to play in that, and adding something else into the mix is an unacceptable impact.

In conclusion I would say the impacts of this proposed developmenton the landscape, the residents their amenity and wildlife heavily outweigh any benefits making this application a wholly inappropriate proposition.

Yours sincerely,

Page 1 of 3