Sponsored by
Wind farm victims ‘deserve HS2 rights’
Stop Dorcas Lane Turbines Protestor Hazel Coey at her house in Andrich Cottage, Hollingdon 700 mtrs from the proposed site of one of the four Turbines
A HOLLINGDON woman is furious that those affected by HS2 could get compensation, but she would receive nothing for having her ‘life ruined’ by a series of 410-ft -tall wind turbines.
In December plans were submitted to build four turbines, each bigger than the London Eye, at the edge of Aylesbury Vale – in an area that campaigners claim is one of the least windy in Bucks.
Mrs Hazel Coey, 58, claims her house will be worth 50 per cent less if the wind farm is built – but the group behind the plans claim it is not ‘reasonable’ for her to seek compensation.
Up to 6,000 residents in places such as Stoke Hammond, Soulbury, Stewkley and Drayton Parslow are likely to see the turbines if they are approved.
The final decision on the Dorcas Lane wind farm will be made later this year by Aylesbury Vale District Council. Those against the plans believe it is a crucial test case, which could pave the way for more turbines to be built in the Vale.
Under the HS2 plans, the government will buy homes along the route if the owners meet certain criteria – and in 2027 those affected by things like noise can apply for compensation.
Mrs Coey, who has lived in Hollingdon for eight years, said: “With HS2, I understand if it impacts on where you live there is a compensation scheme, at least you can get something. But when there is a wind turbine you get zilch.
“Having four wind turbines, the height of the London Eye, 700 metres outside my house, would you buy my home?
“There is no compensation, it is not like with HS2. Who is going to buy my home if I wanted to move?”
Mrs Coey believes the turbines will ruin her quality of life. “The problem I have is how can you live at home when you have the noise. If it is windy it will go thump-thump as the blades go around.
“There is also the flicker as well, it will be like a strobe lighting effect which will drive me insane and everyone else working from home.
“It is going to completely change the landscape and the environment will be absolutely devastated. We cannot believe that someone will put something that close to where people live. It is affecting my health, we are all stressed out and worried about it.”
A spokesman for Force 9 Energy, which is proposing the wind farm, said: “The UK planning system does not operate on the basis of compensation.
“Imagine you were to build an extension which overshadowed your neighbour to a degree, but not sufficiently to warrant refusal. Would you think it reasonable to be liable for compensation? The same principal applies with the proposed wind farm and in fact all other development promoted by private interests under the planning system.
“There is sometimes compensation payable by government and local authorities for developments such as road or rail schemes promoted by them. But these are usually taken forward under legislation other than the planning act or by direct acts of Parliament.”
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Aylesbury
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 18 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 24 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 18 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
Mad Hatter
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 03:57 PMOne other thing that is overlooked is the fact that the carbon footprint of the manufacture of these turbines is enormous, and will take hundreds of years to be balanced out by the green energy they produce, so they make no sense in those terms. They are simply a highly visible way (in every sense) for the Government to say they are doing something about sustainable energy, and also a quick way for some people to make money.
JR
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 05:40 PMIt's a strange old world. Almost everything electrical in the house seems to run off 12v (or less) & so either has a transformer built in or as part of the plug - so why are we not doing away with all this & simply having a few small windmills on or houses \ in our gardens etc? These are quite popular with narrowboat or caravan owners as it means they no longer have to rely on being hooked up to the mains. The choice, then, would be ours - rely on a supplier to provide electricity or pay a few grand up front for free leccy thereafter, OK, so houses would look rather strange with a few windmills bolted to the wall \ roof etc but surely that would be better than these humongous windmills whining day and night (assuming it's not too windy for them!
Gary Manchester
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 09:37 AM@tobefair......... Well done......a decent post with some insight into the wind farm industry, the stopHS2 campaigners should take a leaf out of your book.!! At first glance, windfarms would appear to be a decent alternative to traditional power stations.....however for every problem that they solve versus a power station, they appear to throw up new ones as well. Whilst the lady in the article is up in arms about the view being spoilt , I kind of wonder that her reaction would be exactly the same if a Bio Mass plant was built there instead. Having said that , you have to kind of wonder if going forward, solar roof panels that perform well in ordinary daylight would become the standard alternative to traditional power generation......it seems somewhat odd that UK plc is reducing the incentive on this......
ToBeFair
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 12:16 AMLet's be honest WIND FARMS DON'T WORK! Wind farms were paid £25million not to produce electricity when it is 'too windy' last year. There was a staggering 13,733 per cent rise in the payments on the year before. Turbine operators are ordered by the National Grid to shutdown to avoid too much power being produced during gales. Wind farms set their own rates to close and have been accused of demanding 'excessive' fees to shutdown. On one day alone companies were paid £1.6million not to produce energy in October last year. Figures revealed they received an average of £361 per megawatt-hour that day for electricity they could have generated - four times the price they would have sold it for. The cost of wind farms switching off is ultimately passed onto consumers. The policy raises fresh questions about the Government's strategy of expanding the use of wind farms to cut carbon emissions. Up to 32,000 wind turbines could be built in England and Wales over the next 40 years to meet EU targets. The payments are expected to rise further in the next few years as more of them are connected to the National Grid. Last week three wind turbines in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, were destroyed in gales. Richard Hall, head of energy regulation, said "If wind farm generators are asked to cut production they will clearly expect some compensation. But to keep costs down for customers we believe this should be at a level which reflects the realistic value of the loss to the company, not an arbitrary level that the firms set themselves." In total wind farms were asked to stop producing for 149,983 megawatt-hours - which is 1.49 per cent of the energy they produced. This is equivalent of a large offshore facility being shutdown permanently. National Grid, a public company, have never before admitted how much is spent getting wind farms to close. Regulator Ofgem have expressed concerns about the level of payments. The failure of Britain’s wind farms to produce electricity in the extreme cold will cost billions of pounds, create an economic crisis and lead to blackouts, leading industrialists have warned. To cover up the ineffectiveness of wind farms the Government will be forced to build emergency back-up power plants, the cost of which will be paid by industry and consumers.
algernon1234
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 11:00 PMHaving watched a program about wind farms and the fight against them ,i am in full sympathy with those fighting against them.I believe that we need alternative power but these wind mills have not proved to be as efficiant as expected.I think that the government have been short sighted in reducing the encouragement of solar power.These are far less intrusive and silent .
ilpoppet
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 08:48 PMSame old same old. My house will be worth 50% less, despite all research where wind farms have been built showing no discernible effect on house prices, and the planning system not giving two hoots about an individual's property value. Regardless of the type of development, the planning system is not there to underwrite an individuals personal investment. The link to HS2 is just crackers, windfarms do not and can not compulsory purchase private property that is in the way or constrains their development. HS2 can and will. If anything is ruining this poor woman's life it is believing the anti wind farm scaremongering she is repeating.
Gary Manchester
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 11:14 AM@Bris........i was simply pointing out a hard cold fact, ie the proposal has to go before district council planning. Lets not forget that these people were voted in by local voters........and you may want to check the history of AVDC as they have been known to reject what may be considered green investment. Its somewhat ironic that the photo above actually contains 3 telegraph poles ......no mention of blight on the view in this article???? No doubt this property has all the modern conveniences of the 21st century such as electric power and net access etc. Which of course the supply of will also be someone elses blight in the form of pyolns etc....
Padav
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 09:13 AM@Bris: "Padaw & Gary Manchester. You typify Wndies: personalise the argument rather than addressing the issues." ........and this from someone who sought to characterise my first comment as offensive from the outset without even reading it properly - do the words; kettle, pot and black spring to mind?
KarenWales
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 10:01 PMTo be able to claim compensation for loss of property value (even if you could sell it with a turbine nearby) and for the disturbance that noisy turbines would bring is a fantastic idea. It would stop in their tracks greedy, heavily subsidised wind farm companies, many of which are based abroad, and landowners happy to make a quick buck out of other people's misery. Those of you who feel this is overblown language should do a little internet research and find out for yourselves the growing strength of opposition in the country. We need people like Mrs Coey to take a stand! I live in North Wales which is under threat from hundreds of wind turbines, some as high as 145 metres (475 feet). The area is heavily reliant upon tourism, but who is going to want to visit once beautiful landscapes now dominated by noisy turbines that bring with them unsightly access roads, sub stations and pylons? In other words, industrialisation. They are not green, especially as they are unreliable, ineffective and incredibly costly to consumers. It's about time all the anti-windfarm groups in the UK - and there are hundreds of them - got together to halt the march of the turbines across our beautiful countryside and help save it for future generations. Please check out our anti-windfarm website on http:stemm.org.uk
Bris
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 09:42 PMPadaw & Gary Manchester. You typify Wndies: personalise the argument rather than addressing the issues.
Padav
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:40 PM@Bris - that would be "offensive" in your opinion but then you seem to have the knack of reacting rather "offensively" off to a tee? Grow up and stop trying to take the moral highground here - it's just boring!
Bris
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:28 PMPadav. As you well know, I was referring to the offensive tone of your remarks. And no, people do not have rights in this country. The Davis family took a huge risk - even with the backing of their insurers, they could have lost everything in legal costs - in pursuing a High Court action. You should also know that people whose property is severely affected by a bypass ARE entiteled to compensation. Unlike turbine victims. The wind industry uses the huge economic power given to them by excessive subsidies to batter their way through the planning system. We see repeated re-submissions and appeals unril planning authorities are cowed into offering no resistance. I repeat, it is OUR money which is funding this arrogance. There is a classic example looming now in North Devon, where the planning authority admit that, in the present economic climate, they can't afford the £100,000 nedded to defend local interests in the Public Inquiry into the so-called 'Atlantic Array'.
Gary Manchester
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 06:34 PMThis lady sounds like she is crying before she is hurt.......the plans have to go before District Council Planning.........and would be somewhat ironic if approved considering the council itself is against HS2.
Padav
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 05:25 PM@Bris...........errrrrr............please read my comment again and point out where I said that this lady has no rights, as you claim. If you can find such a remark, I'll be happy to apologise and retract it immediately. In the meantime, please put away the feigned knee-jerk moral outrage and concentrate on what I actually said, rather than your interpretation. I was pointing out that some of the terminology used in this article was deliberately emotive and probably counter productive. Of course this lady should have redress and doubtless she will now pursue that action through the courts but let's get a sense of perspective here - this is not quite the end of the world, which is hardly the picture painted here by the author of this article?
Bris
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 03:35 PM#3. Ignoring your insulting remarks, does this lady have no rights? You may care to check the case of the Davis family in Lincolnshire. They recently took a HIgh Court action, funded by their insurer, to seek compensation for years of turbine noise nuisance and the fact that their home - 930m from the nearest turbine, not 700m - is unsaleable, according to estate agents. The case was settled before noise evidence was heard - the wind industry couldn't afford for the truth to be aired in the High Court. Many wind farms are unable to meet noise limits at over 700m when their noise modelling is carefully examined by independent experts. And why shouldn't people be fully compensated for the damage done to property values by wind speculators who will earn mllions in subsidies paid from our electricity bills? The Danes have a state run compensation scheme which forces wind developers to compensate their victims: "An erector of a wind turbine has a duty to pay compensation for loss of value of real property following the erection of the wind turbine. The size of the loss of value is determined by an appraisal authority. "If a property loses more than 1 per cent in value due to the erection of new wind turbines, the owner is ensured full compensation for his loss. ('Loss of value to real property due the erection of wind turbines', Danish Energy Agency - http:www.ens.dken-ussupplyrenewable-energywindpoweronshore-wind-powerloss-of-value-to-real-propertysiderforside.aspx).
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.