Public Inquiry has closed

DAY 11Well after 3 weeks we arrived at the final day of the inquiry. The arguments have been put from ELDC, BWAG, Mr Shephard and of course from Enertrag in the shape of Cobbetts Solicitors and the irrepressible Mr. (as many as possible, as fast as possible) Hardy. However one last cat was to scare the pigeons in the shape of Conservative MP, The Father of the House and BWAG Patron Sir Peter Tapsell. As the last person to speak ahead of closing submissions in customary fashion he did not fail to produce and spoke passionately against this proposal. He said that in 50 years of politics he had never attended such an inquiry. The fact that he was present today he said showed the seriousness of his views on the matter. This had come from his constituents and people right across the country who had written to him opposing the proposal. Never shy or retiring Sir Peter described the proposed plans as a "scar on the Tennyson skyline forever", corrupting views towards Lincoln Cathedral as "sheer vandalism". He went on to add during a stiring speach that "to call these things farms is a public relations gimmick, just marketing speak and absolute nonsense". He congratulated the people of his constituency and ELDC who had put together an excellent case opposing the plans. He said that Enertrag had wholy underestimated the scale of the impacts across a wide area. Mr. Hardy asked Sir peter if he was aware that the Severn Tidal Barrier had been scrapped and that by inference this meant more onshore wind turbines would be needed. Sir Peter replied that this was irrelevant and moved on. Mr. Hardy then asked if he had read the official Government statement on this. With some panash Sir Peter replied that he had not only seen it but that he was in The House of Commons when it had been read and that the additional announcement to build more nuclear power stations had completely changed the argument against wind turbines. Mr. Hardy had been swatted away expertly.
It was then time for closing submissions. In order to do them justice we will publish the full texts once we have them from the relevant parties.
To all who attended, have give support to BWAG and to ELDC for presenting such a convincing case against this proposal we would like to thank you. To Mr. Shephard would also extend our gratitude as whilst he is in favour of onshore wind he did present a clear case against these plans. It was refereshing to hear the views of someone who cannot be counted as a NIMBY still finding that this site in such a "tranquil and deeply rural setting" as the last place to build an industrial wind power station.
We now await the decision due no later than January 7th.

DAY10The penultimate day of the inquiry opened with a chance for 2 more local people to express their opposition to the Inspector. One expressed concerns regarding the close proximity of turbines to the bridleway, Hungram Lane and Farmer's Row for horse and carriage riders. Mr. Hardy dismissed these views in a similar fashion as he did with the road safety evidence of Mr. Heymer the previous day. Let us hope that the impacts on road users (both motorists and horseriders) are taken seriously by the Inspector as we all remember what happend at Conisholm when a blade sheared off and scattered debris over a large area. The turbines there are 30% smaller than those proposed for Baumber and just 125 metres from the road and only 62 metres from neighbouring land. The second speaker represented Minting parish Council and confirmed the Parish Council's view that the planning application was rejected.
Mr. Stewart (for Enertrag) presented his evidence on planning matters. Naturally they contradicted the expert witness of the previuos day (Mr. Arnold) who had undertaken a detailed study on behalf of ELDC. The predictable mantra of "as many as possible, as fast as possible" and "you have to have them" was trotted out. The intention was to attempt to show that there were sufficient mittigating factors to allow the plans to proceed. Mr. Cocks (for BWAG) and Mr. Wald (for ELDC) effectively cross-examined Mr. Stewart weakening his position. It was also confirmed that there is another planning application waiting in the wings at Wragby for at least 3 large turbines. These plans have been in preparation over the last 3 years but for some unexplained reason have been conviniently shelved - for the time being.
A member of the public asked a question of Mr. Stewart. How many wind farm applications had Enertrag UK submitted and how many had been approved and built? He followed this by asking how successful they had been in site selection as very few had been approved. Mr. Stewart answered that he knew of only one at North Pickenham. BWAG is happy to help Mr. Stewart by informing him that North Pickenham went online in November 2006. So in 4 years Enertrag has had one success and failed at Hempnall, Guestwick (after Judicial Review), gone to Public Inquiry at Linton, Tivetshall St. Mary has wafted off somewhere and at Baumber they are struggling. This means they have managed the outstanding result of one windfarm since their formation in 2001.
It has been confirmed by the Inspector that he will return during the second week of November (w/c Nov 8th) for accompanied site visits in the area during which time two BWAG blimps will be flown to illustrate the width and height of the proposed site.

DAY 9Well today promised to be a interesting one and it didn't disappoint. The morning session began with Mr. Heymer (on behalf of BWAG) presenting his study into potential effects on motorists driving close to and crucially between the turbines. He explained that the size, close proximity to the road and the location of turbines just 125metres from difficult bends in the road added up to a serious potential for problems. He pointed out that despite guidance from the Highways Agency and the British Horse Society 4 of the 8 turbines were too close to the road and that ice throw, structural blade or tower failure would be likley to impact on the safety of road users. Mr. Hardy in cross-examination painted himself in a corner when (despite exclaiming throughout the inquiry that long distance views and impacts would be insignificant and that the turbines would be incorperated into the landscape) that in this case drivers would not experience a shock value (leading to driver distraction) when approaching them as they would be visible from a great distance. Well all we can say is it seems Mr. Hardy yet again is seeking to have his very large cake and eat it. Needless to say the public were not impressed (once they had stopped laughing).
The next session was presented by Mr Arnold, a very senior and experienced planner (some 30 years in the business) who presented his finding on behalf of ELDC. He commanded all those in the room with his calm and obviously expert and considered opinions. He explained that Lincolnshire is currently proiding 80% of the onshore wind generation for the East Midlands region. He went on the explain that this very large contribution was in fact unique in England and that the region was well ahead of national targets and would exceed requirements by some 38% with existing installed and consented capacity. He pointed out that the turbines proposed for Baumber would be 30% taller than any others in Eeast Lindsey and that the district council was doing its fair share. This was also true for the associated infrastructure from the 3 major off-shore windfarms that required on-shore locations for sub-stations and power lines. Due to the nature of the Government's National Renewable Energy Targets this now incorporates off-shore and on-shore production together. He went on to say that the site at Baumber on the edge of the nationally designated AONB presented a material planning consideration and should be refused on this alone. In addition he stated that in planning terms the impacts on the historic fabric also constituted grounds for refusal in addition and by themselves. In response Mr. Hardy was weak in cross-examination and despite asking the same question 4 times to provoke an answer that he wanted to hear he failed each time. At one point the Inspector Mr. Rose had to intervene by asking Mr. Hardy to stop asking the same question as the answer had already been given and he understood it. Once he had stopped stuttering Mr. Hardy continued to fire questions at Mr. Arnold who swatted them away with facts and reasoned answers giving rise to some rye smiles from the Inspector. Poor Mr. Hardy he is looking tired!

DAY 8Today saw 29 local people have their say about the plans and what it means to them (more will be speaking on Thursday Oct 21st), the local area, their livelihoods and the future for communities close to the site and further afield . Each individual perspective on the impacts of the plans presented a different picture to the inspector, each as relevant as the previous. Every approach offered up a view of a hugely damaged local community and environment and included the impacts on cherished local buildings, churches, homes, wildlife and the many different schemes to enhance the biodiversity of the locale. The overriding point that shone through was the disproportionate impact this plan would have on the central part of Lincolnshire and its protected AONB. Others adressed local tourism and the negative effects on numerous holiday cottages and visitors who visit and return for the peace and quiet of the area and to escape busy urban lives - this would stop.
Each person whether representing themselves, their family, business or local parish was of one mind - that this proposal was unjustifiable and completely out of scale with its surroundings in one of the counties last remaining unspoilt areas. This in an area that cannot absorb such huge structures and that would be changed from a agricultural and pastoral vale to one housing the largest industrial mass in the whole county. The neighbouring AGLV and nationally important Limewoods project were also brought to the atention of the Inspector as was the fact that White Cottage (one of the 3 key listed buildings required to be surveyed) had not even been visited by Enertrag ahead of their hastily put together Residential Amenity Survey (carried out only this August). This had obviously been to put something, anything before the public inquiry. No survey had been carried out for the benefit of ELDC and the residents it serves at the planning stage as was a mandatory requirement.
There were some choice quotes through the day and some heartfelt words by people who have stood together to defend this area from this hugely damaging proposal. They include the following;
"It is disgusting to me that the spineless landowner and no representative of Enertrag has been at this inquiry. We are a closeknit community of villages and this application is likley to split our community, why are they not here?".
"If these plans are passed then we will see a flood of similar applications. These huge structures will utterly destroy the rural quality of the landscape".
"This application is nothing to do with renewable energy but is instead the result of a greedy land-owner and an opportunistic company wanting to make money".
"To choose such a place on the edge of the protected AONB is arrogant stupidity".
"The subtle rolling nature of the Wolds makes domination of a large area by these looming structures inevitable".
"This is one of the worst positions ever seen for a windfarm".
The list goes on.....Today presented an opportunity for many local peole to finally say their piece, thoughts that has been bottled up for 3 years. Everyone was a credit to this campaign. It was a sad note that through much of the readings Mr. Hardy representing Enertrag seemed fit to be texting and smiling at these carefully presented testimonies. I am pleased to say that Mr. Rose (the Inspector) was far more attentive and took matters more seriously.
To all those who came and spoke, with all the nerves and trepidation that that can bring, we salute you. Thank you for being so well mannered, cooperative and direct in your message to the inquiry. We will be victorious.

DAY 7The third and final day this week (Friday was called off as the schedule had caught up time) saw evidence from BWAGs expert noise witness Mr. Davis. He was able to explain that the various noise studies carried out by Enertrag had shown that the site locates turbines too close to homes and that the very quiet nature of the site means that many residents will be impacted by noise to an unacceptable degree. There were issues with where the listening devices had been placed and with the massive change in rules shown by Mr. Hayes in his 2 studies. This had been presented as a "minor change" in how the potential noise levels were calculated by Enertrag. Mr. Davis representing BWAG highlighted this as far more significant than that for all those concerned. The proposed site places all 8 turbines down-wind of Baumber properties (just 740metres in one case) which will carry all the noise generated straight into the homes in the village. In wintertime this wind direction is likley to switch to the east or norteast affecting Wispington and Minting. It is clear that the Inspector will have to decide if the first or the second study carried out by Enertrag is correct. Irrespective of this Enertrag has seen fit to substantially change the rules and supply a completely different set of favourable noise study results to the Public Inquiry. It seems, the District Council ELDC were not worthy of such a detailed thesis. Strange that isn't it?

DAY 6Well here we go again with yet another interesting twists on things. The noise "expert" wheeled out by Enertrag is Mr. Hayes - a man who has worked on countless windfarm applications and who knows the tricks. Well that's what you would think at least. Strangely enough though, as is the case almost everytime Enertrag presents something these days we immediately hit a bizarre situation. Mr. Hayes was hired by Enertrag to carry out a noise monitoring study in and around the site. This study back in 2009 was part of the Envirnmental Impact Assessment presented to ELDC to make their decision on. This study clearly shows that according to the limits set by Government numerous homes would experience noise levels higher than the acceptable levels permitting turbines to be built. Now during 2010 (after Enertrag had taken us all to Appeal) Mr. Hayes had busily carried out another study but (wait for it) with a different set of rules this time round. And (I am sure you are ahead of me on this one) miraculously now all the homes fit inside the same Government rules and so there are NO ISSUES relating to noise for this massive proposal - you won't know they are there according to Mr. Hayes. The Inspector looked puzzled at why such a study had been re-done and asked as to why the rules have been changed. According to Mr. Hayes he has now stated that the ground is softer than he thought so has added in an absorbtion factor (so the noise won't carry as much as first thought). An interesting little point but a very important one - not only because this rule seems strangely (as if by accident) to allow all homes to fall under the red line marked "too noisy", and that it is completely different set of results to those ELDC had to work on originally. So yet again the true nature of Enertrag and their paid "experts" has been exposed. If you don't like the result - change the rules.

DAY 5The second week opened with Mr. Shephard presenting his independent study on the potential effects of "Wake Induced Noise". Mr. Shephard is a local resident who has been an engineer all his working life and had carried out work to illustrate the potential for multiple turbine noise (and how they interact with each other) on the proposed site. Mr. Shephard was able to show that the spacing between the proposed turbines leaves such a small gap that for much of the time many down wind turbines will be operating in the "dirty air" of a turbine up wind and this is likley to produce additional noise -wake induced noise. This is of course something that Enertrag has failed to even acknowledge let alone study. As the prevailing wind at Baumber is mostly from the southwest it is clear that the turbine spacing will create this phenomenon and blow it into Baumber itself. The turbines are constrained to such a degree on this very small site that Mr. Shephard thought it is inevitable that more intereference based noise will leave the turbines and enter the homes in Baumber. In cross- examination Mr. Hardy appeared baffled and did not seem understand the study (his poker-face is easily spotted these days) - or rather tried belittling this considered work and attempted unsucessfully to gain the favour of the Inspector. Mr. Hardy will need to do better tomorrow.
 
DAY 4Today marked the final day of the first week. Evidence was given by Mr. Squires on behalf of BWAG relating to the historic interaction between Lincoln Cathedral and Stenigot Tower in the Wolds. He presented a quiet and well considered case. In cross examination he was calm and answered Mr. Hardy's leading questions well. Mr. Squires also highlighted previous objections made by Lincolnshire County Council in relation to the potential impacts of this proposal on Lincoln Cathedral.
Later in the day Dr. Edis presented the Enertrag UK evidence on cultural heritage impacts. He stated the setting and context of the identified listed buildings (Baumber and Wispington Churches plus White Cottage (Gathman's)) is limited to its curtilage and that effects of turbines outside were of no importance to setting. In cross-examination by Mr. Wald representing ELDC Dr. Edis finally admitted that he had not carried out the required surveys of these listed buildings as requested by English Heritage in their letter to Enertrag UK. Mr. Wald went on to say that as only 3 buildings had been identified for this level of in-depth study that the limited work of Dr. Edis was completely unacceptable for only this number of sites. At one point Dr. Edis agreed that the study of St Swithin's Church (Grade 1 listed) in Baumber had been taken from the Greenback guide and that almost no more information had been supplied by his company. At another point in the afternoon Mr. Wald and Mr. Hardy clashed as Mr. Hardy began coaching Dr. Edis in how to answer questions put by ELDC.
The conclusion of the cross-examination of the Enertag UK Cultural Heritage evidence was that it had been cobbled together from other inquiries with loosly similar settings and that little additional studies had been undertaken, this despite the written requirements of English Heritage not to mention meeting the requirements of residents and planners in East Lindsey.

DAY 3Well what can we say about today? It started as it left off with Mr. Halliday still attempting to defend his now tattered landscape "study" during questions from Mr. Cocks representing BWAG.
The rest of the day presented some real highlights when Mr. Hardy representing Enertag UK attempted without much success to pull apart the evidence presented by Mr. Walker of ELDC on cultural heritage assets in the district. Mr. Hardy was faced with a methodical, considered and quietly forthright witness in Mr. Walker. Despite countless attempts to get Mr. Walker to answer leading questions Mr. Hardy failed spectacularly to make any headway. Instead he became increasingly desperate to find some points to score at all. On numerous occasions the public gallery clapped approval when Mr. Hardy was left scrambling for a comeback to answers that left him floundering. The highpoint came when Mr. Hardy attempted to illustrate that planning had been granted for a similar wind farm scheme close to a Grade 1 listed church near Maldon in Essex and so by example should be the case in Baumber. Mr. Walker calmly informed Mr. Hardy that he had "the privilege" to attended a seminar where the presenter had made great play of planning consents being inconsistent as each location was different and should be judged on its own merits. Mr. Walker revealed to the Inspector that the presenter on that occasion was Mr. Hardy himself. A red face and another round of applause followed!

DAY 2During the afternoon session Mr. Halliday presented his study into potential effects on landscape on behalf of Enertrag UK. Following this a lengthy cross examination saw Mr.Halliday having to explain to the Inspector why he had thought it nescessary to do a more thorough subsequent study for the Inquiry than for the planning aplication - "is a public inquiry more important than a planning application?" asked the Inspector. In addition Mr. Wald representing ELDC placed searching questions on Mr. Halliday about the accuracy of his report and the confused and contradictory methodology used. At one point Mr.Halliday did not know the meaning of certain landscape descriptions that he himself had put in his study. This was followed by a confused message from Mr. Halliday on the visual impacts of the windfarm from the Wolds having already admitted they will be amplified as you move higher up and further away. Cross-examination of Mr. Halliday by BWAG continues on Day 3.
The question of the accuracy of the photomontages was put by Mr. Jones who carried out the study for BWAG. Enertrag cross examined Mr. Jones but had no significant points to make- indeed they could not explain the differences found between the blimp height and the computer models they had produced. Mr Hardy representing Enertrag at his most desperate questioned the ability of the independent Chartered Surveyor who verified the blimp launches to measure rope accurately.

DAY 1Mr. Sinclair presented the case on landscape on behalf of BWAG. This evidence was cross-examined by Mr. Hardy on behalf of Enertrag.
Giving evidence for ELDC Mr. Gary Holliday presented his detailed study on the likely impacts on local landscape and particularly the effects on the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB and the joining AGLV. Despite several attempts by Mr. Hardy representing Enertrag UK this evidence and Mr. Holliday proved robust and difficult to rebut despite several attempts. Mr. Holliday stood firm and presented an informed and carefully considered study that raised serious issues confirming ELDCs decision to refuse planning permission.
Hardy at one point referred to Lincolnshire's iconic cathedral as York Minster raising some eyebrows. This followed an earlier gaff when he had pasted in details from an previous inquiry at Cotton Farm near Huntingdon into his presentation to Baumber.
Issues of Landscape and setting have begun and are expected to run through most of day 2.
Opening presentation have been made by counsel for ELDC, BWAG and Enertrag UK. An opening statement from an Independent witness Mr. Ian Shephard on the potential for noise was also presented to the Inquiry Officer Mr. David Rose.