Massive Meath Windfarm Rejected

February 8, 2016

The North Meath Windfarm Group announced in their facebook page on Fegruary 5, 2016 that An Bord Pleanala rejected plans for a massive American owned windfarm in County Meath.

"The American Developers of the massive Emlagh Wind Farm, have failed to get Planning Permission. Bord Pleanala Inspector's recommendation for a Grant of Permission, was overruled by a majority vote of An Bord Pleanala 4-2"

Mr John Callaghan from the North Meath group said in November 2015 "There is no place in Meath that is not under threat from Wind Farm development, not even the Town of Navan. Meath County Council are now considering an application for a 93 metre tall 1500kilowatt Industrial Wind Turbine to be located less than 1000 metres form Navan Hospital.
The Promised Wind Development Guidelines that might have provided protection have been postponed until after the Election.

See An Bord Pleanala's full report here Case reference PL 17.PA0038

Emlagh Wind Farm plans rejected.

Article from the Meath Chronicle Feb 5, 2016

Plans for the controversial 46-turbine Emlagh Wind Farm development in North Meath have been refused by an Bord Pleanala.
Element Power had sought permission for the construction of three wind farm clusters of up to 46 wind turbines with a maximum tip height of up to 169 metres and associated turbines foundations, hardstanding areas and drainage.
An oral hearing into the application held in the Headfort Arms Hotel, Kells, last Summer lasted for five weeks with submissions from 117 individuals and groups.
The inspector who conducted the oral hearing recommended that planning be granted for the development in his report but the board voted by a majority of 4:2 to refuse permission.
The Board’s decision was made having regard to the Wind Energy Development Guidelines, the policies and objectives of the Meath County Development Plan (noting the lack of a Wind Energy Strategy in the Plan), the need to treat wind farm development in the area with particular sensitivity given the proximity of the development to a large number of houses located in the open countryside and within a network of existing villages at Moynalty, Carlanstown, Castletown, Lobinstown and in the nearby town of Kells.

Other considerations included the location of the proposed development in an area with a history of settlement and an associated legacy of places and features of cultural importance from many historical periods, the character of the receiving landscape, the scale, height and number of the proposed wind turbines, the submissions received in relation to the proposed development and the report and recommendation of the inspector.
The Board stated: “It is considered that a wind farm of the scale, extent and height proposed would visually dominate this populated rural area, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, would interfere with the character of the landscape and would not be in accordance with the overall development objectives of the Meath County Development Plan 2013-2019.

“Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would not align with the Wind Energy Development Guidelines as this guidance document did not envisage the construction of such extensive large scale turbines in an area primarily characterised as a hilly and flat farmland landscape and in such proximity to high concentrations of dwellings. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
“In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to grant permission, the Board considered that, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Renewable Energy Action Plan, and other national and European Union policies in support of renewable energy development (including wind), the impacts of this very large development on the substantial local residential population, and the impacts of the proposed development on landscape and cultural heritage, would not be acceptable in this location. The Board further considered that the number and height of the proposed turbines would significantly exceed the landscape’s “medium potential capacity” to accommodate wind farm development as set out in the Landscape Character Assessment of the Meath County Development Plan 2013-2019.”
The decision has been welcomed by Senator Thomas Byrne, Cllr Darren O’Rourke and Deputy Helen McEntee.

Turkish Court Shuts Down 50 Turbines: Yaylaköy Residents Delighted at 1st Chance to Sleep in Years

May 26, 2015

See below for closer to home article on wind turbines

One of the myths pedalled by Australia’s self-appointed wind farm noise, sleep and health ‘expert’ (a former tobacco advertising guru) is that the known and obvious adverse health impacts from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound are a cooked-up “phenomenon”, exclusive to the English speaking world. Trouble with that little tale is that’s been scotched by the Danes:

Turkish Court Cans 50 Giant Fans so residents can sleep, at long last.

Vestas’ Danish Victims Lay Out the FACTS
Denmark Calls Halt to More Wind Farm Harm

And the Germans:
German Medicos Demand Moratorium on New Wind Farms

And the Tawainese:
Winning Taiwanese Hearts and Minds?

And, now the Turks. As this article lays out – in terms so simple, that even tobacco advertising gurus should be capable of understanding them.
50 operating wind turbines stopped by the court!
BurGün
18 May 2015

The Administrative Court in Ankara has ruled that fifty operating wind turbines in Karaburun be stopped. The locals of Yaylaköy, Karaburun are delighted with the court decision. It is 20 days since the wind turbines stopped working.

From the beginning of the struggle to protect their village from the adverse affects from the Wind Power Plants that are spreading all over the peninsula, the local people have finally received good news.

The Administrative Court, ruled in April that even if fifty wind turbines are already operating, the activities have to be halted since the environmental damage is irreversible. First an EIA report will have to be issued. The wind turbine company’s request to continue to run their turbines meanwhile, was also denied by the court.

THE FIRST DECISION

The lawyer Cem Altiparmak said the decision would be a first in the country. Mr. Altiparmak states that there are very few court cases related to renewable energy.

In this area the law is insufficient, there are no precedents, so we have to live it to get experience. “A number of license revocation proceedings have started in our country. Our court ruling is one of the first and will have an impact on up-coming cases.

What has happened?

İzmir Governorship Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urban Development, had issued a “EIA Not Required” to install 166 MW in the Karaburun Peninsula.

8 years later when EMRA issued a new license for another 50 turbines to the same company leaning on the same “EIA Not Required” document, the residents of Yaylaköy and the environmental movement Karaburun City Council sued EMRA – The Energy Market Regulatory Authority.

The court ruled that this is against the law and if allowed to operate the damages will irreversible therefore all operations have to be stopped until an EIA investigation has been performed.

The court decision has given hope to the local people as well as other people in Cesme, Bodrum, Datca and Urla where wind turbines projects are being planned without any public consultation. All these projects have been issued with an EIA Not Required”.

Hopefully this Wind turbine project will not be able to operate again and for the first time in years the people in Yaylaköy are able to sleep comfortably and we will continue to work for that, says one man from the village.

**The value of “a good night’s sleep” is the same in any language**

Original Article stopthesethings.com

Closer to Home Recent Wind Turbines News

You Must Be Joking, Mr. Kelly!!

The Independent reported on 25 May 2015 that the Labour Party parliamentary party will this week debate proposals to introduce new restrictions on the development of wind turbines close to people’s homes. Apparently Labour TDs and senators are demanding changes in “set-back distances” and the introduction of a cap on the size of turbines.

“Environment Minister Alan Kelly is understood to be considering plans to increase the distance required between homes and turbines from 500m to 700m.”

There are two things very wrong with this statement. Firstly, 200 extra metres will not make any difference at all to the nearby residents’ health and quality of life. Secondly, the debate on setback distances conveniently avoids the more important debate as to whether we need wind farms at all, given the dramatic over-supply of these monsters already, and the undue emphasis placed on wind-energy to the detriment of other renewable energy sources.

Minister Kelly, enough of this nonsense. When the 2006 Guidelines were published, recommending a setback distance of 500m, wind turbine heights were on average 54m tall. The turbines being used in Ireland are at least 3.5 times as high, some 185m tall.

This graphic from Harvard University shows how wind turbines have grown over the years. That graphic is now five years out of date, with industrial turbines growing even larger in the interim period – the maximum height shown here of 100m has almost doubled in the last five years.

Accordingly, at the moment we should be talking about a minimum set-back distance of 1.5 km to obviate the health dangers of noise. The proposed 700 m is still less than half this minimum distance. When taking into account the flicker effect, a minimum set-back distance of 3.00 km seems reasonable.

When one considers how wind turbines are continuously increasing in size and power, it might be prudent to talk about a distance of 5.00 km? Given how long it takes to amend these guidelines, perhaps we should plan for the future? Or an even better idea, why not stop building them?

The Labour Party wonders why it has zero-credibility with the Irish public. When they pull stunts like this, I am surprised at their surprise.

The Law is my Oyster article

Windfarms Row Could Signal Death Of Local Government

April 15, 2015

The Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland provided constitutional recognition of local government and required that local government elections occur at least once in every five years. It was effected by the Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 2001, which was approved by referendum on 11 June 1999 and Article 28A was signed into law on 23 June of the same year.

Article 28A reads as follows:

“ 1. The State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, in exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law and in promoting by its initiatives the interests of such communities.
2. There shall be such directly elected local authorities as may be determined by law and their powers and functions shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, be so determined and shall be exercised and performed in accordance with law.
3. Elections for members of such local authorities shall be held in accordance with law not later than the end of the fifth year after the year in which they were last held.
4. Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann and such other persons as may be determined by law shall have the right to vote at an election for members of such of the local authorities referred to in section 2 of this Article as shall be determined by law.
5. Casual vacancies in the membership of local authorities referred to in section 2 of this Article shall be filled in accordance with law.”

Policy statement issued by the present government in support of its Local Government Bill of 2013

“Local democracy is an essential component of a robust system of representative democracy…Local government involves more than service delivery. Democratic representation and oversight are important elements and local political leadership and oversight can bring greater accountability and responsiveness to local needs than is likely in the case of bodies that operate solely as agents of centralised organisations. A system of local government that is largely representational and lacking significant functions and responsibilities will, however, be hollow…Local authorities therefore…must have substantial functions and responsibilities.”

The Public Right To Have A Voice

The level of involvement of the public in a particular process depends on a number of factors, including the expected outcome, its scope, who and how many will be affected, whether the result settles matters on a national, region or local level, and so on. There is a “ladder” of participation, in which members of the public have the most power—even approaching direct democratic decision-making—with respect to local matters with no impact outside the community. As situations become more complex and involve more global issues and affect larger numbers of people, the role of individual members of the public diminishes and the role of politicians and public authorities that must bear responsibility for such decisions becomes greater. The involvement of the public can pass through various stages as one climbs up the ladder—from direct decision-making to administrative status, participation, consultation, to the right to be informed only. In addition, different persons may have different status in connection with participation on a particular matter. Those who are most affected by the outcome of the decision-making or policy-making should have a greater chance to influence the outcome. This is behind the distinction between “public” and “public concerned.” Clearly when it comes to deciding what is being built next door to you or at least close enough to dramatically affect your health and happiness, you should have the loudest voice.

Local Government and Central Government Relationship.

The relationship between central and local government often displays a tension that mirrors the need and desire of communities to govern their own local affairs, especially their immediate environment, and the will of the central government to impose its national “one size fits all” plan over the entire country. A good example of a one-size-fits-all-plan is the NREAP (National Renewable Energy Action Plan), which is dominated by wind energy and accordingly wind farms (lots of them) are an essential aspect of that national policy.

.But what happens if the locals of a particular constituency do not want wind turbines ruining their lives, health and environment? Can they use the local government structures (City and County Councils) to prevent the central government blighting their neighbourhood with industrial wind farms? In other words, what would happen if a County Development Plan banned wind turbines for example?

Not to government liking

The original Section 31 of the Planning and Development Act of 2000 allowed the Minister to issue directions to a planning authority regarding the content of its draft development plan in certain specified circumstances. In essence these circumstances were where the development plan failed to set out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area or otherwise significantly failed to comply with this Act. There was no guidance provided as to what constituted a significant failure, but an example would be where a Council failed to adopt a housing strategy in terms of Section 96 of the Act (social and affordable housing). The section was clear that the Minister could only exercise this power in exceptional circumstances where there was a clear breach of the Act (as opposed to any political policy).

Secondly, the power of the Minister only applied in relation to a draft development plan. The Minister had no power to require variation or amendment in respect of a plan already adopted.

In other words, the original Section 31 allowed the local government structures to decide on their own development needs and strategy (the County Development Plan) and the Minister only interfered in exceptional circumstances, namely where there was a clear breach of the 2000 Act.

This was clearly not to the current government’s liking and in 2010, Section 31 was replaced in its entirety by s.21 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 (No. 30 of 2010), with effect from October 5, 2010.

Sections 31(5), 31(9), 31(13)(c) and 31(14) were further amended by s.5(7) and Pt 4 of Sch. to the Local Government Reform Act 2014 (No. 1 of 2014), with effect from June 1, 2014.

Amendment Changes Minister takes control

These amendments have changed the character of Section 31 completely. The section now contains twenty subsections (as compared to the original six!). The flavour of the amended section is accurately captured in the first two sub-sections:

“(1) Where the Minister is of the opinion that—
(a) a planning authority, in making a development plan, a variation of a development plan, or a local area plan (in this section referred to as a ‘plan’)has ignored, or has not taken sufficient account of submissions or observations made by the Minister to the planning authority under section 12, 13 or 20,
(b) in the case of a plan, the plan fails to set out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,
(c) the plan is not in compliance with the requirements of this Act, or
(d) if applicable, having received a submission prepared under section 31C or 31D (inserted by section 95 of the Act of 2008) that a plan of a planning authority in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) is not consistent with the transport strategy of the National Transport Authority, the Minister may in accordance with this section, for stated reasons, direct a planning authority to take such specified measures as he or she may require in relation to that plan.
(2) Where the Minister issues a direction under this section the planning authority, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter I or II of this Part,shall comply with that direction and the Manager or elected members shall not exercise a power or perform a function conferred on them by this Act in a manner that contravenes the direction so issued.” (my emphasis)

What this means is that the control of the content for a County Development Plan is not ultimately decided by the local government for that area, but by the Minister himself.

Are the local population consulted

Do I need to answer that question? Of course they are not consulted. The local population are merely informed after the event. Section 11(19) says:“(19) As soon as may be after a direction is issued to a planning authority under subsection (16), the planning authority shall make the direction so issued available for inspection by members of the public, during office hours of the authority, at the offices of the authority, and may also make the direction available by placing it on the authority’s website or otherwise in electronic form.”

In July 2014, the Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly ordered Roscommon County Council to remove a number of restrictions on the location of windfarms in the county from its county development plan, including a provision of a minimum separation distance of 1.5 kilometres between the nearest wind turbine and an existing or permitted dwelling house. He also scrapped a provision which proposed a minimum distance from dwellings of 10 times the height of turbines.

Before that in Westmeath the previous Minister for the Environment Jan O’Sullivan ordered Westmeath County Council to remove a restriction requiring “industrial” wind turbines to have a setback distance, from homes, of ten times the turbine’s height.

And in a written submission as part of the development plan process, the Department of the Environment has already told Offaly County Council that it believes the identification of any minimum separation distance is premature pending the finalisation of revised windfarm planning guidelines. – See more at: http://www.offalyindependent.ie/…/4032600-minister-could-…/…

So much for the Twentieth Amendment to our Constitution guaranteeing local government. We are no longer in control of our immediate environment – the Minister and the wind industry are in control.

Article by The Law is my Oyster