Advice to Cpt C Calthrop
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Cpt C Calthrop
- Date advice given
- 23 January 2011
- Enquiry type
I refer you to Civil Aviation Authority evidence of endangerment to members of the public engaged in paragliding at the paragliding site at Beltinge: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap764.pdf Sect 9.1 (Chapter 2. P.6) Any new wind turbines must be built further offshore to the current turbines or intense opposition will result from the community, including litigation for any serious injuries or death that occur at paragliding site Beltinge due to Wake Turbulence caused by Vattenfall wind turbines. The currently installed turbines already have caused accidents at Beltinge, including one involving myself where a wing collapse caused by wake turbulence from the turbines resulted in a 50ft fall and collision with the cliff. People have been paragliding there, a charted CAA aviation site since the birth of the sport, and the installatoin of turbines has caused much degradation of the laminar wind on which we rely in a Northerly wind direction. The turbines have also caused much disruption to the Sailing, Windsurfing and especially the Kitesurfing community - with kites collapsing and becoming uncontrollable when the wind blows from the turbines over the Whitstable Street. The potential for litigation from accidents in this sport is also not to be discounted. It does not escape one's attention that wind turbines only create approximately 15% of the power claimed (http://www.aweo.org/windEon2004.html) and that the turbines are in fact negative in terms of CO2 emissions in their life cycle, not least because of the high maintenance but also because backup fossil power stations that have to be run in conjunction with all windfarms due to their unreliable delivery to the grid. It also does not escape the community's attention that the turbines are subsidised to such an extent that we are apparently paying to turn them? - allegedly approximately £300000 of subsidy is provided for every £200000 of revenue created by each turbine. Any information that you have that proves otherwise would be of interest by return. Please note, no opposition will result if the proposal filed with IPC does not include turbines closer to the shore or any new shoreline being blocked by turbines than is already the case. Higher turbines must be built even further offshore than the current array in a northerly direction.
Advice given
Thank you for your e-mail received 23rd January 2011, notifying the IPC of correspondence sent to Vattenfall with regard to the Kentish Flats Wind Farm Extension Proposal. It is helpful for the Commission to be kept notified of the progress of this application from local stakeholders and we have therefore kept this information on record. At the pre-application stage, the developer has a duty to consult with local authorities, statutory consultees and the local community. We encourage interested members of the public to make their views known to the developer as part of the developer's pre application consultation which we understand is currently on-going. For further information about this please visit Vattenfall's web-site at http://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/kentish-flats-extension.htm and http://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/file/Consultation_Strategy_Document_17068609.pdf. The developer will also invite members of the public to make initial representations to the IPC if the application is accepted for examination by the IPC. More detailed representations can then be made during the examination. If you would like to find out more about the 2008 Planning Act process please visit the 'application process' tab on our web-site: http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/application-process/the-process/. There is also more detailed advice and guidance on the process available on our web-site in the 'legislation and advice' section.