Advice to TravelWatch Isle of Man
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- TravelWatch Isle of Man
- Date advice given
- 12 December 2013
- Enquiry type
We wish to draw your attention to a DONG document, in which we believe there is significant error, which gives a most misleading impression by showing less than the full magnitude of the Applicant's proposed wind turbine installations.
During the preparations of the Statement of Common Ground, in exchanges of email between TravelWatch Isle of Man (TWIOM) and the Applicant, we have expressed concern at the apparent lack of illustrations comparing size of wind turbine with recognisable features. TWIOM produced a scale drawing (attached below) showing the IoM Steam Packet vessel, Ben My Chree (overall length 125m) , and a 222m overall height wind turbine. The Applicant reluctantly agreed to include this in the Version 2 Draft SOCG, but with his note 'The Project does not believe the illustration provided by TWIOM is accurate nor contributes to useful discussion... The Applicant is confident that the information contained within the ES is sufficient to demonstrate the scale of the proposed developments.'' We could add a vertical 'break line' between ship and turbine pylon, to reassure DONG that such proximity is solely to illustrate comparative sizes.
However, we have now been studying the Applicant's booklet ''Community Briefing Pack, October 2013,'' received recently, and which we understand has been widely distributed by DONG, including at various public exhibitions. Page 5 includes a drawing ''Wind turbine dimensions compared to known landmarks.'' This compares the minimum and maximum sizes of wind turbine with the London Eye and the London Gherkin. No scale is given, and the only dimensions provided are the turbine overall vertical heights of 142m and 222m respectively. Rotor diameters of 120m to 200m are quoted separately on page 4.
The errors became first apparent as the 222m turbine should be approx. 50% taller than the 142m turbine, but is considerably less than this!
Due to absence of stated scale, we are left to assume that the 142m turbine overall height is drawn correctly (and this is consistent with the drawn height of the London Eye, which Wikipaedia quotes as 135m). We then find the following errors:-- --The overall height of the maximum turbine scales as 186m instead of a correct 222m. ie should be drawn TALLER. --The overall width (ie rotor dia) of the max turbine scales 136m instead of a correct 200m. ie should be drawn WIDER. --The overall width (ie rotor dia) of the min turbine scales 104m instead of a correct 120m. ie should be drawn WIDER.
These errors give a misleading representation to the public, and to those who have submitted Representations, of both the height and width of turbine installations, and are most misleading.
The use of 'known landmarks' in London city centre by DONG's central London office (Grosvenor Place, London SW1), is hardly informative for the Irish Sea and Cumbrian Coast. More meaningful comparisons would be with the following which are close to the relevant part of the Irish Sea: Blackpool Tower (158m), Barrow Town Hall Tower (50m), or what is claimed to be the tallest building in Cumbria, the Devonshire Dock Hall at BAe shipyard Barrow (51m). (Heights from Wikipaedia.)
We suspect that many would be shocked if they realised how the proposed turbine heights compared with Blackpool Tower. Although most of my professional career was spent working in metric, I was astonished when I realised that 222m converts to 728 feet, the height of a 60 storey building. Is this why the Applicant illustrated the Gherkin instead?
We trust that you will be informing the Applicant, and we shall be pleased if you will let us know the outcome. It is very serious that they have issued such incorrect and misleading material so close to the Examination period.
A possible precedent?? ....We understand that the original Parliamentary Bill for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was rejected in 1825 in Westminster due to errors in levels shown on drawings, resulting from inaccurate surveys. Clearly, the lesson is that Applicants should thoroughly check their material.
We look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully John Pennington, FICE, on behalf of TravelWatch Isle of Man
Advice given
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We have considered this carefully and produced the attached response.
Thank you for your continuing interest in this examination.