2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Here you go - this is the industry body's take on the seismic monitoring issue. Its actually pretty interesting that Eskdalemuir exists, what it is for and that almost no one knows about it.
Basically, the possible end of the world is subservient to selling wind turbines, so they constantly pressure people in the Mod and government who take into account things like physics, to let them stop checking whether the end of the world is neigh.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, should stop wind turbines from being erected. If you object you hate Earth.
0 -
Except the example I gave runs right through the middle. Nevermind.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Applications are not turbines. They're not even bits of paper. Who cares about the ones that are refused and are abandoned? It's just someone else burning their own (investors') money.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sorry I have to do the end of the world is neigh joke again.
🐴
People lobby for and against pretty much anything. I bet the Eskdalemuir Protection Committee have a website, too. Of course the people trying to make money from wind farms are going to push for their expansion using every argument of whatever merit they can think of. Similarly their opponents will claim wind farms cause cancer, infertility and disrupt the tides.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Got to love auto correct.
You are getting confused with overhead power cables.
If I had to choose which side of the room to sit in, when at a conference to discuss environmental noise contributions to seismography, I'd sit next to a seismologist, not a salesman.
And you know, you have perfectly hit on why a lot of people oppose things as a default position. Because the industry, and lets face it in common with a lot of developers, uses the confetti approach. This means the majority of applications really are worth opposing because they are bad.
I find it interesting that on the one hand I can be castigated for opposing a lot of wind farm applications, yet when I explain the specific examples, obviously those are bad.
0 -
Well the people who have to live with the possibility that their homes will be ruined, or who get trapped and unable to sell them. Those people might care.
0 -
Your sympathy for the homeowner, but lack of the wannabe homebuyer, is really quite special.
Nimby brainrot.
0 -
Didn't you read that I literally don't object to home building? I caution against the unintended consequences of too much planning deregulation, because developers aren't on anyone's side but their own.
I'm just telling you that it's unlikely to do much to house prices any time soon. Or any time.
1 -
r/whoosh
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
-
That houses are expensive?
0 -
If there is legitimate loss in value of properties, then I think there is a case for making developers offer to buy houses at market prices.
There was a case years ago of the railways CPOing land for their line which left a house without any access. Either the owner won in court or the law was changed such that property owners can insist on a CPO.
0 -
Well firstly market prices aren't and secondly, you'd be talking about price suppression because of planning applications that drag on for 5 years while developers try to wear down planners.
There is also effectively no recognition that it does detrimentally affect amenity and property values.
It's unjust.
One wind farm application I've mentioned had a tenant farmer living there. Same family for about a century. Plus a lot of long term tenants. They were all told to leave to make way.
They did, the farm didn't get built because it was in a broad valley, next to a city and a regional park, in a protected landscape area.
I struggle to see the greater good being served by this, and I again emphasise that the majority of applications are turned down because they are quite obviously bad applications. This doesn't prevent harm.
0 -
That kind of thing suggests that the process for compensation needs to be improved - that ought to be a fairly easy fix with a competent government.
0 -
The only way to fix that would be to have strict rules on where they are proposed in the first place.
The hypothetical pretty much zero harm guidance would so hamper large scale onshore wind farm development in one of the worlds most densely populated large islands, as to point towards offshore wind as the most viable option.
0 -
I'd need to read the full judgement as it makes reference to failure to comply with certain policies but there's not much mention of what they are. At face value it feels like an odd decision but could just be down to a rubbish developer trying to get too much out of the site. The opposition representative's response is pure hyperbole and I suspect that in a few years there will be housing on the site albeit in a slightly different format.
0 -
Wait, what, there are shitty planning applications?
0 -
Yes, that's how I read it. Sounds like an ideal place for new housing, fairly small scale, and reasonably high density to lessen general sprawl.
0 -
Has anyone said there aren't? Generally the process ensures the worst ones don't get through which is the point I think RJS was making with windfarms.
0 -
And yet ALL my objections are unjustified and ridiculed. Can't both be true.
0 -
The Confetti approach is applied by both sides of the planning process in equal mm measure. The problem is that you can find good substantive arguments to oppose pretty much anything. There is always someone or something that will be materially harmed by building something. We elect people to choose who gets the short straw. Unfortunately it's much easier to get elected if you pretend it's possible for nobody to get the short straw. This has led to us building very little of anything.
On the subject of people having the possibility of someone building a windfarm (or anything else) next to them, we all live with that 24/7. Anyone can submit an application for any kind of development anywhere. They are not limited to land they own. The only land where you have a direct say in what happens is land that you own (and even then there may be restrictive covenant). Nobody has a right to a nice view or to be surrounded by fields or any of the other things that people think they should have because it was like that when they bought it. Obviously there are things that are more and less likely to happen, but, for example, someone could buy the bit of land behind Aspect Towers and get consent for a large new house under Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think some of your objections are valid but that if the planning process works properly that should ensure those schemes don't get approved. I don't think the aesthetics of a windfarm on top of a mountain or light pollution from navigation lights are generally major issues, building too close to dwellings is more of a problem.
1 -
Actually, from what I can tell the aesthetics are the most common reason for refusal.
0 -
It's not the possibility so much as that applications are lodged and hang over an area for at a minimum 2-3 years. Double that for appeals, revisions, timing out to facilitate resubmission etc.
It's probably not particular to wind farms, but it does seem particularly acute.
0 -
If you are arguing for faster decisions, you will get my full support. No, it is very much not limited to wind farms.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
