CPRE Leicestershire

Electrical power, like so much of everything else we consume, is often used without a thought of where it comes from. Folks complain if a 'mobile' phone mast is erected in their neighbourhood and yet they are happy to own one or more mobile phones per household; people complain about the loss of greenfield sites to new development - yet we all live on what was once a greenfield site! The same applies with the threat of a new quarry in Charnwood, yet we all expect to benefit from good quality paved road and footway surfaces, or have ballast under the rails to keep the trains running smoothly and safely. It is the same with our consumption of fossil fuels and the release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. If you haven't already seen the two short films posted on our website this would be a very good place to take a break and go there.

On-shore wind turbines evoke strong feelings, most falling into the 'anti' category. However, we cannot blithely carry on with processes which put out more and more carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions into our atmosphere. The intention here is not to debate the pros and cons of on-shore wind power, though a useful page can be found on the BERR website.

What is intended here is an effort to bring a measure of objectivity. So far, advice given by CPRE's National Office has been to treat each wind turbine planning application 'on its own merits'. To quote:

'CPRE will vigorously oppose proposals for major wind turbine development in and adjacent to areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks where these would be damaging to the landscape. We will consider all cases on their merits and stand up for the wider countryside outside designated areas. CPRE will support wind development proposals where they are appropriately located.'

This advice gives a lot of scope for subjectivity! It may be useful to look north of the Border where the Scottish Executive have at least applied firm guidelines. The Scottish Planning Advice Note 45 and Planning Policy 6 advise a two kilometre separation from development, though even this states that siting is to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is at least a starting point and why UK citizens in Scotland should have this protection and other UK citizens do not is a very good question, possibly evoking Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The eastern and south-western parts of our county have the greatest potential for wind-powered electrical generation and this is where contentious planning applications for single large turbines and wind-farms are naturally appearing. Since we have some of the best countryside assets in these areas of our county, such as the Vale of Belvoir and the Laughton Hills, strong feelings are aroused, being mainly perceptions concerned with visual intrusiveness.

Some local authorities have included useful maps indicating the potential for wind-power generation by publishing diagrams such as this, as part of their Local Development Framework. So, is it possible to devise a more objective method to help us all derive the benefits of renewable electrical power? If you examine a map of the area between Market Harborough and the area just to the south of the A47 (that is, the countryside around the Langtons, Kibworth Beauchamp, across to Rolleston and Little Stretton, etc.) drawing two-kilometre perimeters around each village leaves absolutely nowhere to site even a single turbine.

However, looking to the north of this area, around the Wreake Valley villages, it does seem that there might be potential for wind-power development. Similarly, looking at the area to the west of Market Harborough, there is also the potential for wind power, albeit somewhat limited using the 2km criterion.

Left: The effect of drawing 2km 'wind-turbine exclusion zones' around settlements in the Wreake Valley area.
Right: The same for the area between Market Harborough and the M1 motorway.

Needless to say, this is very simplistic in that other factors need to be considered. For example, areas adjacent to busy highways with noticeable high ambient noise levels would presumably warrant considerably less than a 2km zone on the highway-facing aspect.

Could there be exceptions to any ruling? What if a community, such as one of the villages to the east of Kibworth for example, actually wanted wind turbines or didn't object to a proposal? Some communities have taken the responsible step to own this form of renewable energy generation on a co-operative basis, reaping financial rewards. There are schemes for community-owned green power, such as this one. With the economic melt-down renewable energy and the development of the UK 'green-tech/clean-tech' industry base is going to be an important area of economic growth and a generator of wealth for the UK. A community owning its own turbines might well generate civic pride.

There is of course plenty of scope for large wind turbines in urban settings, such as this one proposed for Western Park in Leicester. Industrialised urban fringes of towns and cities could also offer exception sites, such as the north-eastern side of Loughborough.

On the negative side, it may be that any zoning scheme to 'protect' settlements could force the majority of wind-power generation schemes off-shore, in which case Renewables Obligation Certificates for such schemes will need to be made more attractive to investors. For on-shore schemes we do need clearer guidance and the current developer-led (that is, landowners coming forward with schemes) situation does demand greater scrutiny and firmer planning legislation.

One geographical method of arriving at a more objective solution is the use of a conflict matrix. The table below has been constructed using this website.

Again, this is a very simplistic attempt to make a more objective assessment and it has plenty of faults! As you can see, it's not easy to completely avoid subjectivity. Why not devise your own matrix and improve on this? If you have suggestions as to how this method can be refined please get in touch with us.

An even simpler though very useful form of matrix for analysing a set of circumstances is the 'SWOT' chart:

Another technique is flow-charting through a dichotomising sequence of yes/no questions. University geography departments no doubt use these and other techniques to assess impacts.  If you have expertise in devising bias-free methods for land use in planning and Geographical Information Systems we will be grateful for any input offered.