Newsflash

Community Benefit Fund Talks Underway.

Dunsland Cross Wind Farm

Welcome to the Dunsland Cross Wind Farm networking site. The aim of this site is to keep you informed about Bolsterstone's proposal to build three wind turbines at Dunsland Cross next to the village of Brandis Corner.

Since May 2008 we have been active within the local community distributing our Community Newsletters and gathering information. Copies of our newsletters are posted on this site and they explain who we are and what we are trying to achieve. A review of all the documents posted will give you access to information, which might not be included in the actual development proposal.

If you wish to make any comments about this proposal please use our contact page to send an email.

August/September 2015 - Requests to Discharge Conditions

A series of applications to discharge the conditions imposed by the Inspector at the appeal has been submitted to Torridge District Council (TDC).  The initial exchanges of correspondence can be followed on the TDC planning website by searching on 'Dunsland Cross' or specifically by searching for application numbers 1/0074/2015/DIS, 1/0077/2015/DIS, 1/0079/2015/DIS & 1/0086/2015/DIS.

The new owners are seeking to install larger (but not taller) turbines than those upon which all of the visual, ecological and noise assessments and judgements were based during the Inquiry.  This confirms what DTOG has maintained all along:  this is a sub-optimal wind site.  The candidate turbine used for the Inquiry had a tower length of 60m and a blade length of 40m.  The new proposal is for a tower length of 55m and a blade length of 45m, meaning the blades will be just 10m above the ground at the lowest point of their 200 mph sweep.  The rotor-swept area will by 27% larger than that expected by the Inspector.  This is not only contrary to TDC's design guidelines, it will also have increased adverse effects in terms of visual, ecological and noise impacts.

The new owner also seems to think that it is only necessary to rewrite the condition verbatim and send it back to TDC with a promise to do some work in the future in order for the condition to be discharged.  It is not supposed to work like that.  The work comes first and if deemed acceptable, the condition is then discharged.

Significant problems are forecast for TV reception in 249 homes in the immediate area when the turbines become operational.  The proposed mitigation is likely to fall far short of that which will actually be required to restore services to the level each householder enjoyed previously.  DTOG has tabled a series of questions in this regard.

Condition 19 requires the submission of a workable Ecological Management Plan (EMP) to minimise bird and bat deaths.  It requires a revised EMP to be submitted if the surveys upon which it is reliant are 12 months or more out of date.  The surveys in the EMP submitted are at least 4 years old.

DTOG sought to challenge the detail in the EMP at the Inquiry but the appellant refused to allow the ecologist who authored it to take the stand and be cross-examined by DTOG's advocate.  DTOG is now pointing out the fundamental flaws and specific errors in the submitted EMP to the TDC Case Officer.