You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Wind farms’ category.
Two diesel power stations are planned near Plymouth as a way to save the planet. Yes, diesel.
A bit like this…
One will burn 1.1m litres of the stuff a year. In a stunning understatement a spokesman for the local Regen centre for green energy said it “does not make environmental sense” but undismayed the developers countered with this classic:
“Whilst the proposed diesel generators do not constitute low carbon or renewable energy, the nature, scale and function of the proposed development is such that it will support the broader strategy for renewable and low carbon energy.”
It’s all to do with needing back-up capacity for when the wind doesn’t blow (something the wind farm companies have been saying won’t be needed, honest). You’ll be hearing a lot more of it soon, maybe in a town near you, so don’t forget: dirty is clean and nasty is nice.
The Chief Executive of English Heritage has tweeted: “Today’s news on windfarms seems very good. Hopefully it will stop the rape of the countryside by greedy landowners and energy companies…”
That would be nice. But will it work out like that? What the press is actually reporting is a bit different: “New guidance is expected to tell councils that local people’s concerns should take precedence over the need for renewable energy, and give more weight to the impact of turbines on the landscape and heritage” (which is fine) but also that “The changes are part of a package of measures which include a significant increase in the amount of money communities will receive for agreeing to host windfarms nearby”.
In other words, “local bribes” are to be increased (typically to £100,000 a year towards local community projects or £400 a year off local householders’ energy bills). It’s consistent with the Government’s strategy for incentivising communities to accept housing developments and there’s talk of the same approach being extended to areas where shale gas drilling is proposed. So maybe not such good news for heritage after all?
It raises two ticklish issues that EH will presumably need to address and explain to the public:
1. If some landowners and energy companies are “greedy rapists” because they make money out of building certain heritage-damaging wind farms, will the same be said of local people who make money out of supporting them?
2. As a matter of principle, should local people, especially if motivated by financial gain, have a much bigger say than everyone else over the fate of heritage that is of national significance?
Cadw believes a proposed wind farm in Herefordshire would spoil the view from an historic parkland – in Wales! Accordingly, the widening of the only possible access road to the development – which also happens to be in Wales – will depend on an environmental impact assessment and it seems that will conclude that the wind farm will have “an adverse visual impact” on Stanage Park, ergo the road won’t be widened, ergo the wind farm won’t be built. It would be quite a contrast to what has happened back in Cadw’s own back yard (at Myndd y Betws) where they’ve just seen a massive view-spoiling wind farm built. A pro-wind farm Herefordshire local was heard to murmur: “they be taking the heritage biscuit. Is it ‘cos we’m English?”
Certainly no-one could accuse the planning system as it operates with respect to wind farms of being entirely consistent and a Planning Inspector dealing with an Appeal at Beechbarrow Farm near Wells has recently added to the difficulty (so far as our reading of his words goes anyway). How do you interpret this, dear reader:
“the wind turbine proposed would be visible from the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the boundary of which is relatively close to the appeal site. However, I do not equate visibility from the AONB with harm to its landscape and scenic beauty.”
Is that just in the particular case or generally? Is he really saying that a development that’s not within an AONB cannot do harm to it? And is that consistent with the Herefordshire/Cadw case? It’s hard to fathom, but surely the whole essence of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is that it has visual merit – which can be harmed by visible developments?
by Heritage Action
There’s been a fuss over who should get payouts from the “Mynydd Y Betws fund” – that’s money to compensate communities adversely affected by the wind farm. All sorts of accusations of political bias have been flying around but those arguments miss the far more profound point that ought to be causing universal concern: the Council’s officers have pointed out that “the developer decided what communities should be included, not the council”.
So imagine. A thug owns a vicious dog with rabies that he willingly allows to bite ten people …..
But it’s not the law or lawyers or officials or an independent tribunal that gets to decide which of them (if any) gets compensated and to what extent (if any). It’s the thug!
by Sandy Gerrard
On a pleasant day Bodmin Moor is clearly visible from Dartmoor. Yet it was not until the 1970’s that Martin Fletcher of the Royal Commission identified the first stone row in the area. Since that time others have been discovered and recorded. It’s funny how the discovery of one site rapidly led to the identification of others. Plans of seven rows appear in “Bodmin Moor – An archaeological survey Volume 1: The human landscape to c 1800” by Nicholas Johnson and Peter Rose published in 1994. This publication makes a number of interesting comparative points between the Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor rows and would seem fairly helpful in any consideration of that “line of stones” at Mynydd y Betws.
The Bodmin Moor volume notes (green text below):
The Bodmin Moor rows, like the Dartmoor examples, are orientated in the north-east to south-west quadrants
[Mynydd Y Betws is orientated north-east to south-west]
and exhibit certain noteworthy characteristics:
a If they are on a slope, however slight, the lower end is the southerly end.
[The lower end is the southerly end at Mynydd y Betws]
b Six of the seven rows have taller stones, transverse stones, or other structures at the southern terminal.
[The largest stone at Mynydd y Betws is at the southern terminal]
c There are two distinct types of row: (1) those with small stones and small gaps between the stones and (2) those with larger stones and larger gaps between the stones.
[Mynydd y Betws has small stones and small gaps]
Four out of four is not bad. So the Mynydd y Betws stone alignment shares the broad characteristics of the Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor stone rows as identified by the Royal Commission, English Heritage and Cornwall Archaeological Unit. Any claims for a different interpretation will obviously need to explain why these characteristics are not pertinent and furthermore provide equally persuasive parallels for any alternative explanations. Simply stating that there is no dating evidence, will not suffice. Most Dartmoor rows and all of the Bodmin Moor rows would also fall at this hurdle.
____________________________________
For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
Britain’s requirement for green energy is to be met by the erection of 2,500 giant wind turbines in clusters of 50 across the Midlands. They’ll each be much higher than Blackpool Tower and, thanks to special government rules, they can all be built less than a third of a mile from any house. Protestor Henry Fingleton said: “As we perceive it, the scale of the plan is so enormous that it will be the biggest transformation of the midlands counties since deforestation. It will ruin the landscape”. Nine community associations have banded together to demand “a more socially acceptable scale of wind-farm development“.
**************************************************************
We should perhaps point out though it won’t happen in the Midlands of England but of Ireland – although the power will go to Britain and in fact it’s a British idea, fuelled by subsidies from the British government. Here’s the plan: “UK to outflank objectors with wind farms in Ireland: Faced with fervent and growing opposition to onshore wind farms in the UK, Tory MPs are backing a plan to site those facilities in Ireland – and then export the renewable energy generated back to Britain using cables running under the Irish Sea, to Wales”.
So it looks very similar to buying cheap trainers from Asia produced in a way that wouldn’t be acceptable over here.
The Bog of Allen, an archaeological and natural treasure described by one Irish public body as “as much a part of Irish natural heritage as the Book of Kells” where 700 turbines are to be built using British Government subsidies to the developers. Each landowner will be paid many thousands to agree so effectively the British government will be providing the bribes to enable Ireland’s landscapes to be ruined.
.
by Sandy Gerrard
In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.
**********************************************
16. Why has a fence post been inserted into the edge of a mound not recorded by the evaluation report at SN 6894910712?
The two evaluation trenches within the vicinity of Turbine 15 were excavated within the proposed access road corridor and the turbine base. No evidence of a mound, nor other archaeological features, excepting the non-scheduled cairn centred on SN 68819 10653, were identified during the preceding walk-over survey in this location.
This response does not remotely deal with the question unless of course it is saying that because the feature was not identified during the walk-over survey it therefore does not exist. There is a mound at this location and a fence post has been inserted into its edge. At the very least one might have assumed that DAT might have checked to see whether it was there and put in a place a strategy to ensure that it was not damaged any further when the post is removed in the near future.
Mound “overlooked” by the planning process
17. Why have the developers been permitted to dig a new drain to carry water from the new road across the stone row?
This drain was part of the permitted development and did not adversely affect the stone alignment.
Allowing copious amounts of water to cascade across the stone alignment has only not adversely affected it because the developers kindly agreed to move the drain when I pointed out the situation to them. Why did DAT not raise this concern?
18. Why have the developers’ vehicles been allowed to damage substantial areas beyond the permitted development area?
This Trust has no knowledge of substantial damage done to areas outside the permitted development. Dr Gerrard is advised to provide better information and address this particular matter directly to the planning authority.
This answer suggests that DAT are not closely “monitoring” the work for the County Council, otherwise they would for example be aware that a length of historic bank and ditch has been destroyed by vehicular movements associated with the construction of the nearby new road. Why is the DAT suggesting that I contact the County Council about an archaeological matter when they are aware that County Council have already asked that I address this question to them?
We trust that these responses are helpful. In the meantime, if we can assist you further with information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me or our Senior Planning Archaeologist.
Finally
“The extensive survey has, by giving equal weight to remains of all periods, highlighted the significance of the later sites in addition to the already well-documented earlier sites. It has also highlighted the potential for improving our understanding of upland settlement. These issues must be incorporated into the interpretation and management of the Blaenafon landscape to ensure that they receive adequate protection.” – ‘The Archaeology of the Welsh Uplands’ by RCAHMW , Eds. David Browne & Stephen Hughes, 2003, pp. 76
Why has this sensible approach been totally disregarded by the DAT who instead seem to have arbitrarily chosen which heritage assets were worth recording and those which deserved not a second look. The result is a report that is entirely biased and therefore does no justice to the multi-period archaeological landscape which has been damaged with little consideration being given to elements which contribute to making this place special. The Amman Valley owes much of its character to the coal industry and to completely ignore this in the work carried out on Mynydd y Betws is a travesty.
Dr Sandy Gerrard
11/10/12
____________________________________
For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
by Sandy Gerrard
In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.
**********************************************
13. Why has machinery damaged a small part of the central line of mining pits?
We’re uncertain what Dr Gerrard is referring to.
Photographs of this damage have been published in the “Heritage Journal”. The contractors erecting the fence have driven over the historic coal mining earthworks causing some damage. The damage is not considerable, but could have been avoided entirely if the works had been carried out under archaeological supervision. The area damaged lies beyond development area.
The image shows the fence dug into the edge of the mining pits. In the foreground the earthworks have been damaged despite their position beyond the permitted development area.
14. Why was no mitigation work carried out on the central line of mining pits affected by the new road.
See 10 above
Since no excavation work was carried out the opportunity to enhance our understanding of this important resource was wasted. DAT appear to have assumed that this outcrop coal working was modern and therefore not worth investigating. What evidence does DAT have to substantiate this position? Can DAT be sure that these earthworks are not medieval or early post-medieval in origin? The historic character of this area owes a considerable debt to the coal industry. Why did DAT consider it appropriate to ignore such an important constituent of the Mynydd y Betws palimpsest? By choosing to deliberately evaluate only some of the archaeology it was inevitable that the resulting report would be biased and totally unreflective of the true heritage character of the area.
15. Why was no mitigation work carried out on the part of the northern line of mining pits affected by the new road?
See 10 above
See 14 above.
____________________________________
For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
by Sandy Gerard
In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.
**********************************************
10. The explanation for Evaluation Trench 43 is not consistent with the evidence.
Evaluation trench 43 examined the mining pits. We understand that this had to be abandoned for health and safety reasons as asbestos cement was identified within the mining pits. Cotswold Archaeology had recorded much of the trench before the asbestos was revealed. However, it was clear that they are modern industrial mining features, parts of which could be removed by the development without significant loss to the historic environment of Mynydd y Betws
A truly remarkable answer. The excavation was limited to half-sectioning modern dumped material in these features and no attempt was made to reveal the primary deposits. It is therefore hardly surprising that the conclusion was wrong. A cursory glance at the Royal Commission volume for this area would have provided much more accurate results and an explanation for the depth of dumped material. This excavation was effectively abandoned even before the 1917 turf level was reached.
In the circumstances it is therefore difficult to accept that it is “clear that they are modern industrial mining features” as actually it is clear that they are not. Furthermore, the only matter that is clear is that it is now known that these remains were not recorded at all, with instead the work being devoted entirely to examining the rubbish that had been dumped into them. Given this, it necessarily follows that the Trust have no way of knowing whether a significant loss to the historic environment has occurred. At the very least an opportunity to understand the historic environment has been squandered. Are the Trust at least willing to admit to that? Why is the Trust satisfied that a heritage asset of some considerable age has been damaged without any proper recording?
11. The excavation strategy employed by Evaluation Trench 43 is very curious.
We do not agree with Dr Gerrard that the positioning of the trench in anyway affected the interpretation of these feature.
A trench that included at least one dump could have provided dating evidence and information on the character of the material being mined. The positioning of the trench meant that this potentially crucial information could not possibly be recovered. These features include three main elements – the pit, its fill and dump. The decision to look at only two is rather like excavating the ditch of a barrow but ignoring the mound itself. The decision to excavate these features in this manner may have contributed to the erroneous result.
12. The mining pits extend into the area of Turbine 16.
See 10 above
See 10 above.
The historic coal workings were largely ignored during the process. Why?
____________________________________
For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
by Sandy Gerrard
In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green. See part 1 of the series here.
**********************************************
7. Why was no evaluation trench placed across the three cairn-like features between Evaluation Trenches 38 and 39?
This area was subject to an archaeological examination which demonstrated that the stone features were the eroded remains of natural bedrock and are not archaeological in origin.
I await the results of this work with interest. I was surprised that it did not form part of the Preliminary Statement. At least the remaining two features will be available for comparative study. My main point is why were these features not examined as part of the initial mitigation exercise? They were not in area of heather, were very close to two previous interventions and were obvious anomalies.
8. Why was the bank with associated ditch near to Evaluation Trench 40 not examined?
The trench location had been agreed between Cotswold Archaeology and the Trust in order to examine peat deposits.
This response does not answer the question. This historic bank and ditch has clearly been truncated by the development and yet no work was conducted to provide information on its character and date.
Length of historic bank and ditch destroyed without record
9. Why after the discovery of the stone row and a request for a full survey to be conducted was this not carried out?
The discovery of the stone alignment, which we considered to be unverified in terms of Dr Gerrard’s interpretation of date and function, did not merit a full survey, particularly as the overwhelming length of the linear feature lay outside of the permitted development and would not be adversely affected. With the presentation of the Cotswold Archaeology report we consider that Cadw or the Royal Commission can now assess whether a fuller survey is required.
Dr Gerrard affirms that ‘further archaeological remains are known to have been damaged’, but provides no evidence for this.
The full context of the question which DAT have clearly seen indicates that the request relates to the development area and not the row itself. However as the Trust have chosen to answer this question in this way it is worth briefly exploring an obvious contradiction. In this response DAT have chosen to say that it “did not merit a full survey” whilst in an e-mail to Carmarthenshire County Council they state “The alignment of stones needs accurate plotting and description. As the line is not consistently the same along its length, the feature should be characterised.” So did it merit a survey or not? It would appear not as no survey appears to exist but why did DAT choose not to press for a survey which could have resolved or at least informed the ongoing debate?
Evidence of damage to further archaeological remains is provided in the Heritage Journal.
They may not approve of that particular web-site but the evidence and further questions are there and documentation released under a FOI request indicates that DAT are aware of this evidence.
____________________________________
For all previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
