Just click the your comments link and have your say.

Regardless of the outcome, for me, it was yet another opportunity to see just how shambolic the Milton Keynes Council proceedings are with even members of the DCC expressing concerns about the way in which the wind farm planning application has been handled (although the chairman refused to answer any questions - presumably acting upon legal advice). And with 44% of the council in favour of returning the application to DCC for further consideration it seems to me that even the Council has its doubts about whether due process has been followed.

I find it a pity that Councillor Kevin Wilson saw fit to quote from this website in order to attack Councillor Brock’s motives. Indeed, I was disappointed by the number of Councillors who seemed to vote along party lines (despite this being a free vote) - effectively forcing Westminster policies onto a local issue instead of representing the electorate of Milton Keynes. It’s also worth pointing out that BLEW is a non-political organisation, that we are not anti-green, nor are we NIMBYs - the simple fact is that the “Milton Keynes Wind Farm” at Petsoe Manor would not be economically viable without substantial government subsidy and will make no difference to the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. (It seems to me that there is plenty of hot air at the Civic Offices though.)

Thank you to everyone who turned up to show their support. It was clear that there were far more objectors than supporters present and that is certain to have been observed by Councillors.

One thing is for sure - BLEW is not giving up the fight to avoid the wholesale vandalism of our countryside in order for urban Milton Keynes to increase its green credentials (and if Milton Keynes wants to show how green it is, how about a line of vertical turbines along the very windy boulevards of Central Milton Keynes - just like the one at the Mercedes-Benz UK offices?).

Finally, you may have noticed the tone of this item - intended to inform our supporters of the campaign progress but making sure that any opinion is clearly stated as such (e.g. “I find it a pity”, “I was disappointed”).

Update: The front page of this week’s MK Citizen features an article on Monday night’s meeting.

In the meantime, please write to the Council, Milton Keynes Citizen, MK News and Olney Phonebox expressing your concern at the manner in which the Wind Farm proposal was debated and decided upon last Monday.

MK News
E-mail letters@mk-news.co.uk or write to The Editor, MK News, 1 Diamond Court, Fox Milne, Milton Keynes, MK15 0DU.

Milton Keynes Citizen
E-mail editorial@mkcitizen.co.uk, fax 01908 632214 or write to The Editor, MK Citizen, Napier House, Auckland Park, Bond Avenue, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK1 1BU.

Olney Phonebox
E-mail editor@phoneboxmagazine.co.uk, fax 01234 713398 or write to The Editor, Phonebox Magazine, Stanley Court, Olney, MK46 5NH.

…First, Emberton parishioners voted overwhelmingly for their parish council to object to the local wind farm proposals…

…Then, a local radio poll showed that the scheme lacked support from that whole borough…

…15 town and parish councils asked Milton Keynes council to turn down the wind farm.

…and yet the Milton Keynes Council development control committee (DCC) still said “yes” to the scheme (there are more details in the Milton Keynes Citizen’s report about the meeting).

As you will see on this site in a few days time, plans are in place to do something that will probably not help Your Energy’s Christmas cheer. In the meantime, please keep up the pressure on your Councillors. MK News reports that there have been over 1500 letters supporting this scheme and 272 against. It’s clear that local opposition is higher than those numbers suggest, so please contact your Councillor and ask them to reject the wind farm proposals at Petsoe End.

Furthermore, quoting some of those who left a comment on the poll (in fairness, I should note that some, but far from all, of these comments were from BLEW members; however many more people voted without commenting):

“Entirely inappropriate development for the location; the dis-benefits that would be suffered by the local area clearly outweigh any claimed benefit (local or otherwise) that the promoters are seeking to suggest. The proposed development amounts to the sort of unacceptable tokenism that the Council should avoid at all costs.”

“Creating green energy with colossal subsidies is a sham. Wind energy will only be worthwhile in windy places!”

“So many commercial actions are easy to value but the effect of wind turbines on the value of a landscape is not one. This is a beautiful corner of Buckinghamshire.”

“The problem should be addressed nationally with technologies that work in all conditions and personal emissions accountability. Don’t inflict the nation’s energy problems on the few unindustrialised areas remaining.”

“This IDEA is MAD - a laughable political government gimmick. It takes a windfarm the size of greater Manchester to equal one power station. You still have to build a quick response power station (i.e. carbon fuelled) and have it running in hot standby in case the wind stops. Why not go for biomass, hydro or nuclear electricity? The French have been 80% nuclear for over 20 years and have been able to supply UK and Italy from their surplus […]

“‘MILTON KEYNES THE NEW GREEN CITY’ Firstly Petsoe End is not Milton Keynes nor can it be considered part of Milton Keynes!! [Technically, Petsoe End is part of the borough… but that is splitting hairs] Secondly if Milton Keynes needs to have wind power why not consider a wind farm within the envelope of MK. If these turbines exceed all our expectations and actually operate 50% of the year they still will not produce as much electricity as could be saved if we provided each resident of Olney with an energy saving light bulb! Why destroy one of the last pieces of Buckinghamshire’s countryside to keep a few over eager planning officers and a greedy farmer.”

“It’s all very well saying the Wind Farm ‘may’ provide energy for ‘up to’ 9,000 houses, but I understand those figures on the basis of the turbines working to maximum efficiency. My understanding is that there is significantly less wind in the area than would be required for effective running of the turbines. What’s the point in spending millions in subsidies and ruining a beautiful area, if the turbines would be more use elsewhere?”

“As a keen windsurfer I can tell you how frustratingly little wind there really is around here! Like the government, I realised that most of our wind is on the coast, so putting these giant turbines up here is a waste of money, a waste of our subsidies and a pointless destruction of Milton Keynes’ green belt treasure!”

“Anyone who opposes this development is labelled a NIMBY but the truth of the matter is that these are a highly inefficient way of generating power with a massive financial and environmental cost attached. There are alternatives (offshore wind, tide, solar, microgeneration, vertical wind turbines, etc.) that can be deployed without wrecking our countryside.”

There is only one item on the agenda and that is to decide whether or not the Petsoe Manor wind farm near Emberton should be built.

We need as many objectors as possible to fill the hall and show the strength of opposition to this horrendous scheme.

This is your one chance to take positive action, so please make sure that you come along.

Let’s see you there!

It is very important that - in addition to the planning officer himself - the Councillors who sit on this committee are made aware of the widespread objection that exists for this proposal. Please make your feelings known by writing to David Hackforth, and also to as many of the Councillors as you feel able to.

You can check who your Councillor is on the Milton Keynes Council website. We’ve also listed the Councillors on the planning committee below. It doesn’t matter if your own councillor is not on the committee - we would still like you, please, to email or phone as many of them as possible. We’ve done most of the work for you - just click on a Councillor’s name, and personalise your response before clicking the send button in your e-mail program but please don’t forget to include your name and postal address (including postcode).

1. Building wind turbines in areas of low wind like ours goes against common sense
   Experts say that anything less than a 30% load factor is inefficient but wind farms in this region are struggling to get 20%. There just isn’t enough wind! That’s why Your Energy wont let anyone see the wind data they have collected from the site.

   “You might get a capacity factor of 30% in a more traditionally windy site, such as [in] Scotland” [Alison Hood, Your Energy Spokesperson]

   “[Wind farm developers’ figures] are generally grossly exaggerated - frequently the likely electricity generated would be about two thirds of that the developers are claiming” [Michael Jefferson, Policies Chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network and former Chief Economist with Shell]

2. Your money will pay for Your Energy’s inefficient wind factory
   Up to 60% of wind farm revenues come from subsidies paid for by your electricity bills — £600 million to wind farms alone this year, that’s up to £90 per year per household. Let’s get value for money and only support worthwhile schemes.
3. Wind industry experts say that underperforming wind-farms supported by heavy subsidies are pushing our electricity costs up
   Without the subsidies, no-one would build wind farms in this area. Bad investments in inefficient energy infrastructure waste our subsidies and push electricity costs up for years to come, making the UK less competitive.
4. The proposed site will devastate one of the last unspoilt areas of deep countryside and a haven for wildlife in Milton Keynes
   As our city grows the greenbelt countryside is disappearing — this development would turn an area rich in rare species like birds of prey, bats and newts into an industrial “brown field” site.
5. Views of our beautiful valley will be ruined by Britain’s biggest ever wind turbines
   The developers don’t care because they are cashing in. Your Energy are owned by an overseas investment company, so what do they care for our landscape? The landowner is likely to get over £70,000 per year, mostly from your subsidies — he cares more about the cash.
6. Nearby footpaths of total tranquillity will be scarred by turbine noise, light flicker and the corpses of dead and dying birds!
   Birds hit by the blades are flung for hundreds of metres around the turbines — who would want to walk their children and dogs down paths littered with dead and dying birds?
7. The damage done to the countryside will be forever
   Not only will investors want the turbines to stay for as long as they keep working, but the proposals do not cover the huge costs of removing the wind factory and its vast concrete foundations. They will want to leave the foundations behind, a brown-field site ripe for re-development!

We are certain that for all these reasons the proposed wind factory makes sense only if you want to make a fast buck from subsidies and you don’t care about our environment.

If you want to prevent global warming and protect your environment but also get sensible investment in renewable energy, please write to Milton Keynes Council by letter or by email and tell them about your concerns:

Email david.hackforth@milton-keynes.gov.uk or write to

Development Control,
Environment Directorate, MK Council,
Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East,
Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3ZL

Please include the planning reference (06/01349/FULEIS) your full name and postal address.

BLEW is pleased to see that the hard work by CLOWD and their supporters seems to have paid off and for the moment at least, to know that the Airfield Farm wind factory is no longer on Bedford’s planning agenda; however it is expected that the developers, Nuon Renewables UK, will appeal or resubmit and for this reason, everyone opposed to the Airfield Farm development remains on high alert.

Let your voice be heard and make sure that Milton Keynes rejects the turbines at Emberton too!

A planning application has now been submitted for a wind power station development at Petsoe Manor Farm, Emberton. The developers refer to the scheme as “Milton Keynes Wind Farm”, even though the site is nowhere near the centre of Milton Keynes and is in an area of the country with only moderate levels of wind.

The plans propose 7 turbines (and supporting infrastructure), each reaching a maximum height of 125 metres (410 feet). This is in addition to the application to place 16 turbines at Nun Wood (near Bozeat and Lavendon) and 10 more at Podington with other sites being investigated. If the Emberton and Bozeat/Lavendon schemes were both allowed to proceed then there would be a total of 23 turbines within 4 miles of Olney.

The planning application may be inspected in the Civic Offices (address below). The planning authorities (in this case, Milton Keynes Council) are required to take into account local opinions on the scheme; however any objections need to be recorded formally and must meet certain criteria.

Writing is by far the most effective method and if you wish to oppose the application, you should write to:

Development Control
Environment Directorate
Milton Keynes Council
Civic Offices
1 Saxon Gate East
Central Milton Keynes
MK9 3ZL

or alternatively, send e-mail to david.hackforth@milton-keynes.gov.uk (make sure you include your full postal address in the e-mail text).

• Write your name and address clearly – illegible letters will be discounted.
• Include the planning number 06/01349/FULEIS
• Keep a copy of the letter that you write – you may need it again later.
• The more letters received the better, so all residents should write,regardless of whether or not someone else in their home has already written.

You should also write to your town/parish council and to your local ward councillor (e.g. Debbie Brock/Steve Clark for Olney ward or Sam Potts for Sherington Ward). Unfortunately, because this is a local planning issue, there is little point in writing to our MP (Mark Lancaster), unless you are trying to influence government policy.

• Visual impact;
• Noise;
• Strobe effect from shadow flicker;
• Severe decline in property value;
• Money-making/tax-avoidance schemes;
• Limited local employment produced by the development.

Quoting one Meyersdale resident:

“It’s not green energy - it’s $$$”

(Thanks to the Save Upstate New York campaign for making this DVD available.)

We’ve got lots of comments but are currently evaluating the environmental impact assessment that has since been submitted by Your Energy along with the planning application; however in general we found the information provided to be of poor quality and questions were answered inconsistently by the various Your Energy staff who were present.

“I live 1 kilometre away from the Burton Wold Wind Farm in Burton Latimer, recently opened by Your Energy. Unfortunately we did not get our act together before they were built. You may already have visited our site, but if not then please do, so you can see the impact they are having on local residents.

The problems we are having are: TV reception; shadow flicker; and also sight-seers who are using [a] once small, narrow, country road, where I live, to view the wind farm. At times we have had 60 cars an hour using the road. Do not accept what is put in the planning guidelines by [Your Energy] and push them on [whether] these problems will occur (they will) and how they will solve them.

Unfortunately none of the above was picked up by Kettering Borough Council and so they accepted at face value what they were told by Your Energy. We are now having to fight to get a resolution to these problems with Your Energy.”

Another correspondent has provided a video showing what it’s like to be in close proximity of one of the Burton Wold turbines - the children shown (with permission) give an idea of scale - and commented that when the video was filmed:

“It was a very windy day with surface speeds in the area being 20 gusting 35 knots (so approx. 10 m/s mean). Interestingly a couple of the turbines were going much slower than the rest but were audible easily 400 metres from the tower.

There was a very wide spectrum of noise including:

• General low frequency ’swooshing’ wind noise from the blades themselves.
• A medium frequency ‘gearbox like’ humming sound similar to a distant passenger jet aircraft.
• A fairly loud medium frequency noise coming from the vibrating tower itself at its base.

Although the tower is ‘only’ 100m high, standing underneath the blades gives one a sense of some unease. It would clearly be quite unsafe to stand in the vicinity should the blades have any ice formation present or the structure have any mechanical fault. Odd then that the filmed turbine is within a few metres of a public footpath!”

The picture below shows the development, viewed from 16 kilometres (10 miles) away (at Bozeat Grange, on the Northamptonshire/Milton Keynes county boundary and close to the proposed Nun Wood development). The turbines are clearly visible, even at great distance, and these are each 100 metres (325 feet) tall (25% shorter that those proposed for Nun Wood and Petsoe Manor Farm).

(Click on the picture for a full-size version.)

The next picture shows the turbines towering above the Northamptonshire town of Wellingborough - itself some distance away from the site.

(Click on the picture for a full-size version.)

Would you like 23 of these turbines surrounding Olney? If not, then please support our campaign.

Unfortunately, civil aviation regulations limit the days on which BLEW can fly this balloon - which is somewhat ironic as, if the wind farm is built, there will be seven turbines for light aircraft to navigate within a few miles of Cranfield Airport.

Prior to the announcement of this exhibition, the Milton Keynes Wind Farm website has been the only source of publicly available information from the company and previous developments (e.g. Burton Wold) have been slow to update their websites (despite now being operational, at the time of writing, the official Burton Wold wind farm website was still announcing the completion of commercial negotiations and promises that it will be updated frequently throughout construction - clearly a promise broken by the developers once planning consent was gained and the “deal” was done).

“Renewable and sustainable energy in Milton Keynes

1. That this Council supports appropriate sources and methods of sustainable and renewable energy in the Borough of Milton Keynes.
2. That due to the lack of area and distance between rural and suburban developments, this Council does not support the introduction of commercial scale wind farms within the Borough of Milton Keynes, thereby helping to protect the quality of life currently enjoyed by the rural and urban fringe communities of the Borough of Milton Keynes.”

The motion was then amended by the Council, effectively stating that the existing policy (DC5) adequately protects the rural areas of Milton Keynes from wind turbine developments.

BLEW is a non-political organisation; however this was an important opportunity to make our views known to the Council. The following quote is a speech from a local resident who spoke to the meeting, supporting Cllr. Geary’s motion:

“I am present this evening to speak as a member of Bucks Lacks Enough Wind - a non-political community action group from within the Borough of Milton Keynes.

We support the use of renewable energy, where it makes economic and environmental sense to do so. With that in mind, it is entirely appropriate that the Council should support appropriate sources and methods of sustainable and renewable energy in the Borough of Milton Keynes. These sources may come from within or outside of the Borough - and example technologies include: biomass; offshore wind and tidal electricity generation; use of biofuels for transport; and greater use of domestic renewable energy (e.g. solar thermal) combined with initiatives to promote better use of energy within our homes, workplaces, and public facilities.

Having stated broad support for the use of energy from renewable sources, the creation of commercial-scale wind farms within the Borough would have an irreversible impact upon the quality of life enjoyed by those who live in the rural and urban fringe communities within the Milton Keynes area (and beyond). Once developed, such sites would typically have a 25-year lifespan, after which they would be decommissioned, and could become designated brown field sites - in the middle of the countryside and without the necessary infrastructure to support further development.

Information from the Renewable Energy Foundation indicates that:

• A wind turbine saves about 88kg of cardon dioxide (CO₂) an hour – but to put that into perspective, a single heavy goods vehicle (or 8 cars) travelling at 56mph emits around 125kg of CO₂ an hour.
• A commercial wind farm in this area (one of the least windy parts of the country) could be expected to cost the UK consumer £2.35 million a year in subsidies to save 0.00008% of the UK’s CO₂ emissions total.

We feel that the economic case for commercial-scale wind farms does not justify the impact which their introduction would have on the quality of life for those who live nearby.

There is insufficient time here to provide further details of why we think wind turbines are unsuitable for the region and I’m sure the topic will be discussed in this chamber many times over the next few months; however when asked about wind turbines in a recent Radio 4 interview, the eminent ecologist Professor David Bellamy, said that “these things don’t work, stop building them now”.

As Cllr. Wicker mentioned earlier, Milton Keynes prides itself on its green space and is fortunate to have an area of attractive landscape which spans the rural areas in the north of the Borough. Earlier this evening, Cllr. [Douglas] McCall stressed the need to preserve such areas. Our view is that there is plenty which can (and should) be done to promote the use of renewable energy technologies in a modern, vibrant Borough such as Milton Keynes; however this should not be at the expense of our countryside. Consequently, we support both elements of Councillor Geary’s motion and feel that the motion should be voted on in its original form as the amendment will not sufficiently safeguard the rural and urban fringe areas that it is aimed to protect.”

Official minutes are available from Milton Keynes Council.