Bodham turbine considered an eyesore by Sheringham Town Council

24 comments

• No, tried six times to give a detailed reply, all blocked, but its obvious this forum is not about a range of opinions

  Report this comment

  weaversway

  Saturday, June 16, 2012

• Have tried to give reply, but once again opposition is being blocked

  Report this comment

  weaversway

  Saturday, June 16, 2012

• Putting aside, and ignoring, the self importance and pomposity, let’s reiterate. I, and I believe, many others are not against wind-farms or individual turbines, but contend they should be sited away from homes. That means either out to sea, or in the middle of land well away from people. Very simple, very easy to understand. If that is offensive then I’m sure, as before, the publishers will back you up in censoring opposition if you ask them.

  Report this comment

  weaversway

  Saturday, June 16, 2012

• Wind is one of the few naturally and abundant resources the UK has and needs to be better used to the benefit of us all. However, the short sighted and short term responses of the anti brigade seem to ignore the risks to our energy supplies that are very real and potentially imminent. The effects of political or military actions causing interruptions to our imported fuel means we simply can't put our heads in the sand and imagine that we will be immune from such events. Even if we avoid the above threats to supplies the sad fact is that the growing economies of Asia and South America will also start to impact on the dwindling supplies by simple free market economics. The nuclear option so beloved by so many appears to ignore the outstanding bill for decommissioning obsolete and closed nuclear power stations. According to the NAO this bill stands at between £60-75 billion pounds. However, the NAO and other government organisations also cite that it is unlikely that new providers will build new power plants without government subsidies. Of course the anti wind turbine lobby provide no clues as to how our energy needs can be met and cry fuel poverty at every chance. The reality is no matter what we use to provide power the costs will continue to rise and be borne by the consumer driving more and more of them into poverty. At least with wind the lights will stay on for some of the time!

  Report this comment

  Douglas McCoy

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• JB Making money is what we all do, and have to, to survive.. What we do not do is make money at others expense, such as utility bill payers subsidising wind turbines, all utility bill payers, rich and (mostly now after 13 yrs of Labour gov't) poor, will indirectly pay for this unwanted turbine. The landowner will effectively take money from those who cannot, necessarily, afford it. I am no socialist as perhaps you have spotted, but it riles me to see people being paid absurd amounts of subisidy for the 25 yr life of this, and any other, BTW, turbine when it simply doesn't and cannot generate any significant, and useful to society, amount of electricity. All it generates is money to the already rich person who can afford it.

  Report this comment

  windup

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• The anti's all seem to be a bit jealous that someone might make a bit of money. Surely the decision will be made according to planning legislation, and someone making money, or subsidy is not a planning consideration. Perhaps we shouldn't allow anything that people can make money on, or would that be verging on communism sayitasitis?

  Report this comment

  Jonny Boggis

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• Callum To summarise then,,,,, The already wealthy landowner will make a 19 year profit at the utility bill payer's expense. The profit's WILL stay locally, very, in the landowner's bank. The few Km of new hedges etc could have been done by already generous grants available to landowners, this is particulalry insidious as it is being seen as great reason for having an unwanted blott on the landscape, indeed suggestions have been made they're trying to hide it!!! They also cost pennies in relative terms. The Church of England is already one of the wealthiest institiutions, why do the local churches suddenly need help? And you are still in favour, as a Labour supporter of assisting the already rich to get richer, over 19 years (your words) at the expense of all others including those near or in fuel poverty? One thing in your response DID impress me though......It is one of the few I've read which didn't include the anacronym NIMBY.....well done!

  Report this comment

  windup

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• Sayitasitisnt - No one is pretending that one wind turbine is going to make some massive worldwide difference to the planet! haha. And, let's take one small look at this turbine shall we and why I, as a Labour supporter think this is better for the area than not having it. The turbine is not being developed by a multinational energy company, but a local farmer diversifying. As it is locally based any profits (of which there will be none for around 6 years) are much more likely to stay in the local area rather than going to some shareholders in a far and distant land. Alongside this project is the ecological enhancement side. The developers have, as part of the planning agreement pledged to plant several KM of hedging, a significant amount of woodland and re-instate several ponds in the area. Alongside this will be made donations to the community locally through donations to the church and have already backed the first "Rock Bodham" event. One wind turbine is just a small step to achieving a greater level of energy self sufficiency. Ideally, yes these turbines would operate as co-operatives, or community owned ensuring maximum funding returns to the community. However, in this capitalist driven world the chances of a small co-operative succeeding are slim as you will have seen with the withdrawal of the Unity Wind application in North Walsham.

  Report this comment

  Callum Ringer

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• Callum Your ideals of not wishing to see people in fuel poverty and wishing to increase energy self sufficiency will NOT be met, even slightly, by one ridiculous wind turbine. The energy it may produce will have no measurable effect on your ideals. It will have a significant effect on the bank balance of its owners, paid for by all on the subsidy on their utility bills. It seems odd to me that a labour supporter such as you is so in favour of helping the already rich to get richer at the cost to all, even those already in fuel poverty, or likely to be? As to your views on subsidies reducing, ask yourself this....if there were no subsidies would this be built at all? Of course not.

  Report this comment

  windup

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• NLys, You are of course right that wind turbines are not the complete answer to the UK's energy needs. You are also right that the subsidies are skewed heavily in favour of investors. However, how else do you provide incentives for something which is needed quickly rather than over a longer term? Renewable energy is expensive and of the few types which are genuinely feasible wind is arguably the cheapest.Given the increasing political instability in the Middle East and the stranglehold that Russia has over gas production we are continually at the mercy of market volatility that could and potentially will send the cost of oil or gas soaring. Of course no doubt you will cite nuclear as the saviour of the impending crises? However, two factors seem to escape those who favour such schemes. 1, Where is the £78 billion coming from to fund the decommissioning of existing installation (NAO figures)? 2, Given that there are so few people prepared to invest in building them in the UK or have the money how do you provide them with an incentive except by given them a larger return which again impacts on consumers? Whilst you are happy to lam-blast wind turbines as uneconomic you seem to support no realistic alternatives. You seem to ignore our reliance on imported energy and the financial risks that potentially incurs and you seem to ignore the existing debt of £78 billion which the nuclear industry has left us and for which there is currently no realistic way to pay? There can be little doubt that unless we as a nation find ways to rapidly decrease our reliance on imported energy then fuel poverty in the future will be caused by a lack of investment rather than the over way around.

  Report this comment

  Douglas McCoy

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• NLys - I do not want to see people in fuel poverty and that is why I am supporting the wind turbine. Supporting the development of a turbine is not an advocacy of the subsidy level, but a support of a greater energy self sufficiency rather than paying for ever costly imported gas. The turbine here has a 25 year lifespan. The developer will likely be waiting 6 years or so to get a return past what he invested. it is no cash grab, but a longer term project. The level of subsidy is unlikely to remain the same over the lifespan of the project as more and more turbines are built.

  Report this comment

  Callum Ringer

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• Callum Ringer. Do you take a perverse pleasure in seeing people driven into fuel poverty just so wind speculators can make excess profits? To repeat: the Audit Office found that developers were getting twice what was needed to bring onshore projects forward as far back as 2006. Andrew Wright, managing director of markets at Ofgem, the electricity regulator has said: “The RO [Renewables Obligation] is a very expensive way of providing support for renewables”. Professor Sir David King, Government Chief Scientific Adviser from 2000 to 2007 (period when wind policy was conceived and launched) has said [Talking of EU targets and fuel poverty], “This is an issue which needs to be revisited and I say this as somebody who feels that we really have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions very substantially but in my view it is an expensive, and not a very clever route to go for 35 to 40% on wind turbines.” (‘Poverty fears over wind power’, BBC News, 4 September 2008). Even some bankers agree it's a ripoff: “It's a bonanza. Anyone who can get their nose in the trough is trying to.” (Peter Atherton, head utilities analyst at Citi Investment Research, in the FT).

  Report this comment

  NLys

  Friday, June 15, 2012

• I fail to see why Sheringham Town Council has been ask for its opinion on a wind turbine in Bodham, which you will not be able to see from Sheringham, but please Mr Cameron stop using tax payers money to subsidize these eyesores.

  Report this comment

  Hugh

  Thursday, June 14, 2012

• The simple facts are that your previous comments suggest that I am or would benefit financially or otherwise from the erection of a wind turbine in Bodham. I believe that this unsubstantiated statement might be referred to as libellous? However, being more interested in debate rather than fallacious statements I'll assume that you did not intend that I actually have some vested interest in the project and that it was an unintended consequence of your argument?

  Report this comment

  Douglas McCoy

  Thursday, June 14, 2012

• Well, Mr McCoy, you would say that, wouldn't you

  Report this comment

  weaversway

  Thursday, June 14, 2012

• To suggest that I have any vested or financial interest in this debate is puerile and false. It does appear though that any topics which involve wind turbines and those who oppose them bring a plethora or individuals who spit venom at any dissenting voices other than their own?

  Report this comment

  Douglas McCoy

  Thursday, June 14, 2012

• I don't think it is illogical to point out that it is wrong to cite one onshore wind turbine as being any more unsightly than many other buildings or developments that already exist in the Sheringham area. Arguably as well as caravan sites Sheringham is also home to the visually unappealing and certainly architecturally unsympathetic Splash swimming pool which can hardly be called aesthetically in tune with it's surroundings? In addition the apparent anger about landowners benefiting from a system that was put in place by a democratically elected government seems to be bordering on class politics and envy?

  Report this comment

  Douglas McCoy

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012

• You make my point, it has only been around in the country since 1991. The subsidy is that high as an encouragement to developers. The current level of subsidy is not sustainable forever as more and more turbines are built, but by refusing turbines on the basis of subsidy you are actually prolonging the amount of time that subsidies will be this high.

  Report this comment

  Callum Ringer

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012

• Callum Ringer. Please get your facts right, wind power generation has been around since 1895 in the UK and in widespread commercial use for over 40 years, albeit only since 1991 in this country. It is NOT in its "relative infancy". Indeed, the wind industry claims that it is "proven" and "competitive with gas" - so why, after 10 years of massive subsidies, do they still need a 100% subsidy (200% for offshore) from electricity consumers, rich and poor? Everybody from the Audit Office to Ofgem has slated the costs of the subsidy system: "Ofgem calculates that since the obligation was introduced in 2002 customers have been overcharged by £740m ..." (Independent, 23 January 2007). NB That was 5 years ago, when we had very little wind capacity and before the subsidy on offshore turbines was doubled!

  Report this comment

  NLys

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012

• Well, Weaversway, I'd argue that it is a more sensible energy policy. Yes the farmers will make a profit but one has to admire the local farmer who could quite easily sold his land to a multinational energy company and saved himself a great deal of aggravation from the local NIMBYs. The irony of the whole subsidy argument is that the subsidy will remain high whilst there are so few turbines. If more and more turbines were built there wouldn't be the need for such a high subsidy. The only reason it is higher than some other forms of energy production is because it is a technology still in its relative infancy. The best way for those concerned with the level of subsidy is to allow more turbines!

  Report this comment

  Callum Ringer

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012

• Caravans and eyesore, eh. Well maybe, but just because we have one eyesore is not an argument for another one. Sorry, not logical As has been said before, nothing against wind-farms off shore, but single turbines do smack more of landowners and cash cows than a sensible energy policy

  Report this comment

  weaversway

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012

• Regrettably, Sheringham Town Council have a habit of being regressive when it comes to change. The Tesco debacle being an obvious and rather recent example. It is ludicrous to suggest that one mast at Bodham will damage the environmental aesthetics of the area around Sheringham. Unfortunately, the myriad of year round caravan sites already dotted around Sheringham have and do nothing for the aesthetics of the area and one would argue are a far bigger eyesore. Of course the turning of a blind eye to such things benefits Sheringham from the tourism that it brings to the town so I suppose is easy to dismiss?

  Report this comment

  Douglas McCoy

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012

• Another point. What does Sheringham Town Council know about what is detrimental to the rural landscape when they supported the application to build a waitrose supermarket on a greenfield site in an area natural of outstanding natural beauty?

  Report this comment

  Callum Ringer

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012

• I fail to see the significance in Sheringham Town Council considering this an eyesore. We have seen for many years that the majority of members on Sheringham Town Council are only in position to stop things rather than to be pro-active about anything.

  Report this comment

  Callum Ringer

  Wednesday, June 13, 2012