YOUR ENERGY LTD. [YEL] - LATEST NEWS

‘Wind farm battle may go to review’

‘A judge will rule soon on whether protesters can sue Milton Keynes Council over the planned city wind farm.

Residents and members of campaign group BLEW earlier this year instructed a barrister to seek a judicial review of the council's decision to allow siting of seven 406ft turbines at Petsoe End, Emberton.

‘The application challenges technical data used to support the scheme and claims relevant reports were not submitted on time.

[...]’

(See full article - Milton Keynes Citizen, 15 May 2008).

---

‘Moorsyde’ Developer Sells Out to Nuclear Industry.

‘Environmental campaigners last night condemned the sale of a proposed wind farm site to a French company planning to build a nuclear power plant on the plot.

‘The site at West Hinkley, Somerset, has been bought by Electricite de France (EDF), one of the world's largest nuclear power generators.

‘Your Energy, which tried for five years to win planning permission to build a wind farm there, confirmed it had sold the project rights to EDF.

[...]’

(See full article - Western Morning News).

---

‘WINDFARM TURNED DOWN

A five year 'battle' over plans for eight wind turbines has ended in victory for residents.

It was brought to a conclusion when a Government planning inspector vetoed the plans for Laughton.

Ipswich-based Your Energy saw its plans turned down for the second time, leaving George Love of Laughton Parish Council delighted. [Our emphasis].

“It is a great relief because it has hung over us like a cloud,” said the former council chairman.

“The effort put in by residents of the surrounding villages over years and years is quite incredible.

“It was like a battle almost, but it was very important to us. We've all worked so hard.”

[...]

The report, issued by the Planning Inspector DR Cullingford, concluded: “These turbines would become a new defining characteristic ... and thereby introduce prominent uncharacteristic features which would have a ‘significant adverse effect’ on the character of some landscapes.”

[...]

Your Energy's initial plans for 10 turbines, on the ridge to the north of the village, came to a halt in 2004.

The company appealed, resulting in the Planning Inspectorate, part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, becoming involved.

After the proposals were turned down two years ago, a new application was submitted, including a reduction in the number of turbines and their position.

This latest decision comes after three West Lindsey District Council Planning Committee meetings ended in deferral over nine months throughout 2007.

Your Energy, however, is still refusing to give up the fight.

“We are stunned by this decision and are undertaking a legal review of its content,” said managing director Richard Mardon. [Our emphasis].

[...]”

See article: Scunthorpe Telegraph, 22 April 2008.

---

‘WIND FARM CLAIMS ARE QUESTIONED’

This is the full text of the article in The Rugby Observer, 20 March 2008:

‘DEVELOPERS hoping to build a wind farm in Yelvertoft [near Rugby] have been accused of circulating misleading information about wind power.

Alan Hesketh, a former chairman of the British Standards Committee on turbines, is leading an action group of 50 residents vowing to fight against the plans.

The Yelvertoft parish councillor, who has just retired from a 40-year career in the power plant industry, has accused Your Energy of using false information in its bid to gain support for the development which could see 12 130 metre turbines overlooking the village.

He says one company’s claims about how much power is generated by their turbines has already led to a complaint being lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority. [Our emphasis].

The No Windfarm at Yelvertoft (NoWAY) action group held its inaugural meeting in the village Reading Room on Friday.

The group claim the environmental benefits of wind turbines have been overstated and argue they do very little to reduce CO2 emissions because they are inactive for prolonged periods when there is no wind.

Since announcing its plans for Yelvertoft last month, Your Energy has held an information day at the village hall, circulated fliers to all houses and put on a free trip to their other wind farm site near Kettering.

Among the information given out was the claim that a single wind turbine generates enough electricity to power about 1,000 houses for a year.

But NoWAY argue that a 2 megawatt turbine would only provide 2 kilowatts per house - less than the amount needed to bring a kettle to the boil.

Mr Hesketh said he was pleased with the level of support for the campaign and said it was important people got their objections in early.

“If you ask anyone in Burton Latimer (the site of Your Energy's other wind farm) they all say the same thing - they were not quick enough off the mark.”

“That is one of the worst things you can do."”

Village resident Alan Chantler, who helped organise the meeting, said the group's main aim at the moment was to give people a truer account of the implications and benefits of wind power.

“We were pleased to see the level of support we had. The Reading Room where we held the meeting was full to bursting”, he said.

“One of the main issues we have is that the facts distributed by Your Energy are not always accurate. So our aim is to draw attention to the erroneous information.”

Your Energy, owned by an Bahamas-based investment firm, insists its figures add up as an average turbine generates nearly 4,000 megawatts per hour in a year. [Our emphasis]

A petition is set to be launched by NoWAY in protest at the windfarm plans and it is also producing a newsletter and are currently arranging a meeting with local politicians.’

---

RURAL WATCHDOG SAVAGES YEL

A consultation response by Natural England to East Riding Council concerning ‘Moorsyde’ developer Your Energy‘s proposal at Sixpenny Wood,in Yorkshire, has criticised the company for saying the 125m high turbines would be seen as “simple sculptural elements” which would blend in “successfully” with the landscape.

They say that these are “clearly subjective, value judgments and should not be presented as fact”.

Natural England also state that the 10-turbine development would have a “permanent and irreversible” impact on the area, which is visited by “significant” numbers of protected birds, including marsh harriers and golden plover.

------------------

See article: Yorkshire Post, 23 January 2008.

---

Comment

YEL have made the same sort of ridiculous claims regarding the ‘Moorsyde’ proposal. An independent audit of the Environmental Statement commissioned by the Borough from consultants Ironside Farrar criticised the Environmental Statement (ES) for its visual impact conclusions and recommendations:

The conclusions are very misleading, i.e. that there are major landscape and visual impacts that cannot be mitigated. The emphasis is on how the landscape can accommodate the proposals and how distance will reduce impacts to negligible levels. (Ironside Farrar, 3.5.2).

Here, the company have been allowed to get away with not carrying out proper bird surveys - see ‘RSPB Ducks Out’ on the Birds Page - and with not carrying out a proper visual impact assessment - see MAG‘s submissions on the Planning Response Page and the various articles below on YEL‘s photomontages and the discredited ‘Fermac’/Scott Wilson reports.

---

COLDINGHAM SCHEME THROWN OUT

A joint venture by Your Energy/Mistral, the 'Moorsyde' developers, and PI Renewables for twenty two 76 metre turbines at Drone Hill, Coldingham, was thrown out on Monday 12 November, following a recommendation to refuse by the planners.

Scottish Borders Council's development and building control committee unanimously rejected the application.

The Council's reasons for refusal included the following:

"The turbines will be highly visible and will have Dominant and Major impacts in the immediate locality.
The landscape scale of the site is unable to fully mitigate the vertical impact of the turbines in a location where there are many domestic scale references.
The turbines will have a significant and harmful visual impact on high sensitivity receptors, including residential property, the coastal tourist route and footpaths."

"The purported benefits do not outweigh the impact on landscape character of the location."

(Scottish Borders Council, letter setting out reasons for refusal, 14 November 2007).

----------------------

See: Berwickshire News story.
See also: Coldingham STAG website.

---

PLANNERS OPPOSE EXTENSION TO YOUR ENERGY'S ONLY OPERATING WIND POWER STATION

East Northamptonshire Council’s planning committee was not expected to raise any objection to a proposal to extend the number of turbines at YEL's Burton Wold power station, near Kettering from 10 to 17. But they have objected, expressing concerns at the visual impacts of more 100m (325 ft) turbines and the dangers of distracting motorists on the nearby A14.

Your Energy’s project has only been operating for 2 years and has already attracted a lot of unwelcome publicity. BBC Radio 4’s 'Costing the Earth' programme featured Burton Wold as an example of how Renewables Obligation subsidies encourage the construction of wind power stations in unproductive, low wind areas. Burton Wold only managed to produce an average of 18.34% of its capacity during its first 11 months of operation. The British Wind Energy Association claim that, “ Over the course of a year [A modern wind turbine] will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output.” The company’s planning application claimed that it would average 26.8% a year. YEL’s Burton Wold 'Wind Farm Facts & Figures' still claims [February 2008] that, “The ten turbines will produce around 47 million units of renewable electricity annually”. That gives a capacity/load factor of 26%.

This website is also still using calculations for emissions reductions calculations that the Advertising Standards Authority condemned in a judgement against Your Energy in July 2007. Their figures are double what the ASA regard as reasonable.

On ‘Costing the Earth’, Michael Jefferson, policies chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network (Wren), said: “What I have a problem with is people pushing developments in areas of low [wind] speed where the load factor will be, if you are lucky, 20 per cent.”

Your Energy’s proposed ‘Moorsyde’ site, near Berwick-upon-Tweed is another low wind site: as a previous MD of Your Energy admitted in the Berwick Advertiser, “The fact that Felkington is on a low lying plateau means the wind conditions are relatively low ...”.

By comparison, the modern 100 metre high Crystal Rig turbines that we can see 30 kilometres to the north of the ‘Moorsyde’ site are on a windswept, unpopulated moor in the Lammermuirs that is 150 metres higher. Operating without any of the output restrictions that would be necessary to stop the ‘Moorsyde’ turbines breaking noise limits, they only recorded a load factor of 25.2% in 2006.

YEL will not reveal the wind speeds that ATCO, the original 'Moorsyde' developer, recorded on the original site, nearly 2 kilometres from the revised 7 turbine scheme, before they abandoned the project, selling it on to YEL, but the lower range of YEL’s many and various claimed output figures have revealed a load/capacity factor for ‘Moorsyde’ as low as 22 to 23%.

Judging by YEL’s claims in their Burton Wold application and the real world performance of their turbines, it is very likely that their ‘Moorsyde’ scheme, if ever built, would be another highly subsidised lame duck, producing only small amounts of intermittent power.

--------------------

See: Northants Evening Telegraph, 29 January 2008.
ASA adjudication.
Costing the Earth' BBC Radio 4, 30 August 2007.

---

YOUR ENERGY SLAMMED BY RURAL WATCHDOG

Rural watchdog Natural England says a 10-turbine development proposed by ‘Moorsyde’ developers Your Energy at Sixpenny Wood, between Gilberdyke and Howden in Yorkshire, would have a “permanent and irreversible” impact on the area, which is visited by “significant” numbers of protected birds, including marsh harriers and golden plover.

Natural England’s letter to planners at East Riding Council criticises Your Energy for saying the 125m high turbines will be seen as “simple sculptural elements” which will blend in “successfully” with the landscape, saying that these are “clearly subjective, value judgments and should not be presented as fact”.

------------------

See article: Yorkshire Post, 23 January 2008.

---

COUNCILLOR COMPLAINS OF EMAIL HARASSMENT

A councillor has complained of “email harassment” by supporters of Your Energy's Emberton scheme in Buckinghamshire and attacked people in the public gallery for “extremely immature” behaviour in waving placards. The proposal, which was passed by a single vote after a fractious and confused meeting, was marked by a recess to consider whther a member had a prejudicial personal interest in the issue.

The Committee finally rejected by a single vote a proposal by Councillor John Bint to turn down the wind farm because the committee was being asked to sacrifice a designated Area of Attractive Landscape for a “fourth division” power scheme.

The proposal has been overwhelmingly opposed by local people and BLEW (Bucks Lacks Enough Wind), the local response group, are understood to be discussing whether there are grounds to seek a judicial review of the decision.

(See report in the Milton Keynes Citizen, 19 December 2007).

---

COLDINGHAM SCHEME THROWN OUT

A joint venture by YEL/Mistral and PI Renewables for twenty two 76 metre turbines at Drone Hill, Coldingham, was thrown out on Monday 12 November, following the recommendation of the Officer's Report.

Scottish Borders Council's development and building control committee unanimously rejected the plans due to concerns about the location and the impact on tourism.

(See: BBC News story.
See also: Coldingham STAG website).

---

YOUR ENERGY'S 'MISLEADING CLAIMS'

'The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Your Energy, the developer behind the proposal for ten 360 ft turbines between Felkington and Allerdean.

'The adjudication finds that Your Energy made 'misleading' claims about the supposed CO2 savings for their West Hinkley proposal in Somerset.

[...]'

(See full story: The Berwick Advertiser, 13 September 2007)

---

'WIND FARM ACTIVISTS PAID BY DEVELOPERS

WINDFARM activists from England were in Eyemouth last week, drumming up support for the proposed Coldingham Moor wind farm on behalf of the development company P M Renewables [jointly owned by Mistral, the company behind 'Your Energy'] who admitted paying their expenses to travel to Berwickshire.

Coldingham residents' group STAG, who are against the proposed 22 turbine wind farm at Drone Hill, are fighting a bitter war of words against the developers, and the protesters are angry but not surprised at the wind farm company's latest tactics of paying green activists to travel to the area while at the same time claiming that the majority of local people are in favour of the development. A spokesperson for STAG said: 'We are hardly surprised at the tactics of the developers – after all, this windfarm is worth millions of pounds in profits. Of course P M Renewables will claim that objectors are in the minority – but the facts simply do not bear out their arguments!

'[...]'

(See full story: Berwickshire News. 26 September 2007).

---

'SETBACK FOR WIND FARM PLANS

'FORMAL approval for bigger blades on wind turbines planned for a former airfield site has been put on hold after legal issues were raised by objectors.

'Suffolk Coastal District Council acknowledged yesterday that a continuing campaign by opponents of the six-turbine Parham wind farm had forced it to take another look at the legal issues involved in an application to increase the size of the turbine blades.

'Councillors voted in July to approve larger turbine blades than described when the £3million project received planning permission last year [actually in October 2005!].

'[...]'

(See full story: East Anglian Daily Times. 25 September 2007).

---

'LACK OF WIND A BLOW FOR FARM

'THE viability of windfarms in the Midlands is being questioned after a programme claimed that the Burton Wold windfarm is running at only 18 per cent efficiency.

'BBC Radio 4 programme Costing the Earth looked into claims that the windfarm, near Burton Latimer, was performing at less than 20 per cent efficiency.

'Michael Jefferson, policies chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network (Wren), said windfarms should not be located in the Midlands.

'He said: “What I have a problem with is people pushing developments in areas of low speed where the load factor will be, if you are lucky, 20 per cent.

'“There’s a stretch between Birmingham and London which should not be used to place windfarms.”

'Electricity watchdog Ofgem said the wind-load factor of Burton Wold was 18.34 per cent, ...

'[...]'

(See full story: Northants Evening Telegraph. 12 September, 2007).

---

YOUR ENERGY CHANGE TURBINE SIZES AFTER APPROVAL

Your Energy (YEL) are seeking to vary the conditions of the planning approval for six turbines that they gained at Parham, Suffolk, in 2005. Two years after consent they have yet to finalise what turbines they can use, never mind build them!

Here, YEL are still persisting with the ridiculous claim that, "If planning permission is granted, construction could begin in 2007, with the wind farm becoming operational in 2008." (YEL website - 'Moorsyde' project 'newsletter').

As predicted by NOWAP, the local community response group, they are now seeking permission to replace the six Bonus 1.3 MW turbines for which consent has been given with larger turbines.

Councillors have granted this variation, although NOWAP strongly assert that this is not legal without a proper impact assessment.

There is a strong concern that YEL will try similar tactics here. They have already submitted a paper to the 'Moorsyde' case officer in Darlington suggesting that they can find a way round Arup's conclusions by reducing the overall height of the 10 turbines proposed for the 'Moorsyde' site by 3 metres. Unsurprisingly, the 'Moorsyde' Case Officer in Darlington has already agreed with much that the MD of YEL has to say about his company's ideas for sidelining Arup.

(Downloadable Word document: Presentation by NO Windfarm At Parham (NOWAP), represented by Dr John Constable (Chairman) to Suffolk Coastal District Council, Development Control Committee, 2pm, 25 July 2007, re. Parham Wind Farm S.73 Application to Vary [DC 06/07]).

---

YOUR ENERGY HIT WITH COUNCIL'S APPEAL COSTS

'A Wind farm company has been told to pay £10,000 to the council that refused its plans to set up a site in Somerset. The Secretary of State for Local Government ordered West Hinkley Wind Farm Ltd [Your Energy's shell company] to repay West Somerset Council the costs it incurred during an appeal against a planning decision.

'The company appealed after proposals for 12 wind generators, mast, and substation on land near Hinkley Point Power Station were turned down.

'Planning appeal costs are usually borne by the relevant parties, regardless of outcome. However, the Secretary of State can award costs on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour resulting in wasted expense.

'The appeal was lodged on December 1, 2005, and was not withdrawn until more than a year later, after which time the council had stumped up thousands of pounds worth of preparation costs.'

(See full story: Western Daily Press. 4 July, 2007).

---

'PLAN IN PIPELINE TO EXTEND WIND FARM

'PROPOSALS that could see Burton Wold wind farm almost double in size are to be unveiled to residents this week. Although a formal application for the project is still to be lodged with Kettering Council, landowners the Beaty family, is considering extending the existing wind farm by up to seven more turbines. It already has 10.

[..]"

(See full story: Northants Evening Telegraph, 3 July 2007.)

Comment: Interesting that the landowners are not working with Mistral/Your Energy Ltd., developers and operators of the existing scheme, in extending it!

The company behind this extension has submitted an application for an anemometer mast and their contact in relation to the planning application is a Mr B Richmond of Ipswich. We remember Bill Richmond as Chairman of Your Energy Ltd. He "resigned" from Your Energy Ltd. in October 2004 when Mistral took over the failing company. Mr Richmond is now running a wind consultancy company called Bineri in Ipswich.

---

'WINDFARM GETS GO-AHEAD

'PLANS for a seven-turbine windfarm near Workington have been approved by Allerdale council.

'Winscales Moor Windfarm Ltd [Your Energy/Mistral's shell company] was granted permission to build the 81-metre high turbines at Benedict Plantation, Winscales, at a meeting on Tuesday.

'There are already 11 turbines next to the proposed location.

[...]

'A report by council officers said: “It is to be accepted that this proposal will have an adverse impact.

'“Following on from that, consideration must be given to the fact that it is close to an existing large windfarm and much of that impact already occurs.”

'Cumbria County Council did raise objections, but the report said the council had to note the level of support for the plans.'

(See full story: Times & Star, 15 June 2007.)

---

'WINDFARM PLAN APPEAL DITCHED

'THE PLUG has been pulled on the Wellow Wind Farm by the company that wanted to build six huge turbines on farmland next to an area of outstanding natural beauty.

'The decision that Your Energy would not be appealing against IW Council planning refusal was greeted with jubilation by campaigners, who said turbines would despoil the area.

[...]

Just months after Your Energy was formed in 2001 it went public on its plan for Wellow, which kicked up a storm in the West Wight and the biggest planning battle the Island had seen.

Its much-delayed planning application was finally considered in October, councillors overwhelmingly throwing it out after three hours of debate before an audience of 300 people.

The effect the multi-million-pound wind farm would have on the sensitive environment of the West Wight, its residents and wildlife were cited by councillors as reasons for refusal.

[...]

(See full story: Isle of Wight County Press, 18 May 2007.)

---

ROW AS WIND FARM PLAN IS CHANGED

THE COMPANY preparing to build Suffolk's first wind farm is seeking permission to install more powerful turbines - but the overall height of the structures will stay the same.

Under details just submitted to Suffolk Coastal District Council the rotor blades at the Parham wind farm, near Framlingham, will be longer and the six turbines will generate 25% more electricity than originally planned. However, the turbine tower will be shorter.

According to Your Energy, the developer, the total height of the turbines will remain at 100 metres and the new machines will be quieter at low wind speeds.

But the No Wind Farm at Parham (NOWAP) protest group said the change in design was in line with their claim that the original plans had been a “Trojan horse” ready to “smuggle in” bigger machines.

An application to the district council to vary a condition on the wind farm planning permission follows a ten-month-long tendering process and difficulty in finding a manufacturer able to meet construction deadlines because of the huge worldwide demand for turbines.

[...]

John Constable, chairman of NOWAP, said: “When the council originally granted permission for the Parham wind farm, local residents immediately warned them that this was a 'Trojan Horse' application intended to smuggle in a much larger turbine, and we even predicted that it would be the Enercon E70.

“This turbine has a bigger generator, much larger blades and swept area, causing increased visual impact and access problems, and a much lower cut-in speed with serious noise implications for near neighbours.”

Ivan Jowers, chairman of Suffolk Coastal's development control committee, said the council would be launching a “full and wide-ranging” consultation about the application, giving all sections of the community the opportunity to air their views.

(Full story EADT24, 12 May 2007).

---

MORE DELIVERY PROBLEMS

[But YEL claim: "Getting a wind farm built at Parham, Suffolk during 2008 is progressing well," (YEL website).]

'WORK on Suffolk's first on-shore wind farm might be delayed for another 12 months, it emerged yesterday.

'The six-turbine wind farm at Parham, near Framlingham, was given the go-ahead by planners in July last year following opposition from the residents of local villages.

'Work on site was originally planned to start in the spring of this year after a series of pre-conditions had been met.

'However, developers Your Energy yesterday cited problems in commissioning the turbines from a manufacturer as the reason for a further delay of up to 12 months.

[...]'

(Full story in East Anglian Daily Times, 20 April 2007).

---

MAJORITY AGAINST COLDINGHAM WIND PLAN

[Coldingham would add to the lines of turbines on the skyline seen from the Berwick area. It is being developed by Your Energy/Mistral "in partnership with PM Renewables"].

A RESOUNDING rejection of the proposal to build a windfarm on Coldingham Moor was made at a packed public meeting in the village on Friday night.

Despite an overwhelming majority voting against the plan to build 22 turbines at Drone Hill, the developers - PM Renewables - this week said that the meeting was not a true representation of local feeling.

The meeting was convened by the community council and over 120 people attended, including representatives of other community councils in East Berwickshire and moor and village residents.

Fears were voiced that the windfarm would badly affect tourism and also cause misery for nearby residents.

"This is not an isolated area as there are lots of houses and farms on the moor and the road is the main tourist route down the coast," said protestor George Matthews who lives less than a mile away from the proposed site.

A retired building control officer and chartered surveyor, Mr Matthews said he had never seen "such a hideous proposal".

Although PM Renewables has agreed to shorten the turbines from 100m to 75m, Mr Matthews pointed out that they were still ten times the size of a telegraph pole and said they would be a huge eyesore.

"The road through Coldingham Moor is called the road to tranquility but it won't be if this goes ahead," said Mr Matthews.

"The tourist trade will be badly affected and it will have a terrible effect on the quality of life of people living here," he added.

At the meeting, moor residents asked the developers if they would be compensated for an expected drop in their property prices but were told that would not happen although a £1 million sweetener has been promised to the community.

"According to a Mori survey property prices can go down by as much as 54 per cent which is extrememly worrying," said Mr Matthews. "If it does go ahead they should have some provision for compensating people."

Serious concerns were also raised about proposed access routes.

"They may have to build new roads to bring in kit and there is a fear that this will create a Coldingham bypass as well as destroy long-standing woods and trees," said community council chairman Ged Hearn.

"As far as the development itself was concerned people were keen to point out that it would be set amongst houses and a lot of properties are directly affected.

"Only two people spoke in favour of the development and when it came to the vote it was overwhelmingly against."

The vote was the opposite to one at a public meeting held by the community council 18 months ago when the development was first mooted.

Mr Hearn pointed out that Friday night's meeting had been better publicised and was better attended.

He added that a number of people had been angered by a meeting held by a consultancy company on behalf of PM Renewables. "They selected targeted individuals to a public meeting and they were paid around £30 to attend," explained Mr Hearn. "That upset a lot of people."

Simon Morton, a company director of PM Renewables, said this week that the idea of paying those who attended was to compensate for their time and expenses.

"I understand that caused a bit of discomfort so with hindsight it might not have been such a good plan," he admitted. Mr Morton said they had employed consultancy firm, Holyrood Consultations, to carry out an independent survey for them and it had been their idea to pay people to attend the meeting.

"People were invited completely randomly to get a good cross section of the community living within a 10 mile radius of the site," he explained.

Mr Morton said around 100 people attended the meeting at the golf club and the majority were in favour of the windfarm. A telephone survey was also carried out and Mr Morton said that around 70 per cent of people were in favour with the remaining 30 per cent either neutral or against the farm.

He added that public meetings such as the one on Friday night were "useful" as it gave people the opportunity to ask questions of the developers but "do not give a proper idea of who is in favour."

"A public meeting like that is attended by those opposed to development and we expected that," he said.

However Mr Hearn said that in view of the vote taken at the public meeting on Friday, the community council would now be asking Scottish Borders Council to vote against the proposal when it comes before the planning committee in the summer.

If the council does vote against the issue it would then go before the Scottish Executive for the final ruling.

Local councillor Michael Cook, who was at Friday's meeting, said: "The strength of feeling against the farm, particularly from the residents of Coldingham Moor, was plain.

"I have listened to what has been said and will take that on board if I am involved in any deliberation on the proposal at the council."

Berwickshire development control officer Alasdair Maclean said: "You cannot put up turbines without them having an impact and the question is whether the impact is reasonable or not.

"There are more properties around this location than other applications we have had so it is potentially more intrusive although some poeple would say that farms are more intrusive in a wildlife setting."

(Berwickshire Today, 5 April 2007).

---

STILL FAILING TO DELIVER

'A decision to permit an eight-turbine wind farm in Lincolnshire has been deferred for a second time.

London-based Your Energy wants to build the wind farm in Laughton, but West Lindsey District Council has voted to delay the decision once more.

At a meeting on Wednesday evening, district councillors said they needed more information about the development.

[...]

George Martin, director of planning at West Lindsey District Council, said Your Energy had to decide how to move forward.

"The members considered the proposals in a long debate but concluded key information had not been made available that had been previously requested. The ball is now in the applicant's court," he said.

[...]'

(See full article: BBC News)

---

FRIENDS REUNITED?

There has been an announcement of a proposal to extend Burton Wold, Your Energy/Mistral's one and only operating wind farm in the UK. Your Energy have denied that the proposal is anything to do with them: "Your Energy Ltd and Mistral Wind Farms ILP are not responsible for the proposed extension of the existing wind farm and so are unable to respond to queries with respect to its development".

The company behind this extension has submitted an application for an anemometer mast and their contact in relation to the planning application is a Mr B Richmond of Ipswich. We remember Bill Richmond as Chairman of Your Energy Ltd. He "resigned" from Your Energy Ltd. in October 2004 when Mistral took over the failing company. Mr Richmond is now running a wind consultancy company called Bineri in Ipswich.

---

ANOTHER YOUR ENERGY PROPOSAL KICKED OUT

As expected, Your Energy's appeal at Cambridge has been decisively rejected.

They wanted to build 15, 100-metre high wind turbines between Boxworth and Conington, alongside the A14.

When South Cambridgeshire District Council rejected the application, the company appealed against the decision, and a planning inquiry opened in October.

Now a Government inspector has returned a verdict - and has dismissed the appeal.

Mike Barnard of Stop Cambridge Wind Farm Action Group, which has 1,650 members, said he was “over the moon.” He added: “It has been a two-and-a-half year battle and we are delighted and relieved the appeal has been dismissed.

“We were fairly confident we would win, but you never can be sure. Reason and logic have come through. It would have been a very big wind farm and it would have been hugely dominating. To have 15 huge rotating wind turbines right next to the A14 would have been ridiculous. The Highways Agency objected to it as well. And they never proved it wasn’t going to cause noise problems to local residents.'

[...]

(See full story. Cambridge Evening News, 9 December, 2006).

---

DELIVERY PROBLEMS

'A SUFFOLK peer has rejected a request from a wind farm company to allow stretches of ancient hedgerow to be cut to allow the delivery of turbines.

Your Energy approached Lord Marlesford, whose land lies between the A12 and the village of Parham where six 100-metre high turbines are due to be constructed next year.

The peer said the company had offered him compensation if he would agree to hedges being cut but he turned it down.

[...]

Lord Marlesford, who is chairman of Marlesford Parish Council, said he felt that if the parts could not be delivered by road then the company would have to bring them in by helicopter.

“I was not prepared to agree to their request. I was offered compensation but I told them that Marlesford is not for sale,” he said.

Colin Hart, district councillor for Parham and other villages, said the wind energy firm had told planners last year that there would be no problem in getting the turbine parts to the site.

He was already concerned to hear the recent disclosure that the final design of the turbines had not been decided.

“If they are bigger than those for which planning permission was granted I will insist that the district council calls for a new application to be submitted,” he added.

[...]

(See EADT, 21 November 2006.)

---

YOUR ENERGY APOLOGISE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOUR

'THE company that wants to build a wind farm of 15 100-metre high turbines between Conington and Boxworth [Cambridgeshire] last week publicly apologised for failing to consult local people properly.

Your Energy Limited made the admission at the close of a three-week long public inquiry into its appeal against South Cambridgeshire District Council's refusal of planning consent for the development.

[...]

[Mike Barnard, Stop Cambridge Wind Farm] tore into the developers' failure to consult. "Local residents are entitled to, and do, feel aggrieved, but there is a more serious side to it than the discourtesy. Inattention has led the environmental statement and the appellants' evidence into the error of undervaluing and failing to understand the landscape.

"No parish councils or meetings were consulted, nor were any local residents. There was one public exhibition, in May 2004. No notice of it was given to the villages to the north-east of the A14."

He accused Your Energy's witnesses of having persistently undervalued the landscape and failing to appreciate its sensitivity.

[...]'

(See full story in Hunts Post, 8 November 2006.)

No apology here (yet)!

All the complaints of Your Energy's cavalier approach to local people and their environment in Cambridgeshire will sound very familiar to our supporters. See our YEL Myths page for details of their total lack of consultation on the 'Moorsyde' proposal.

---

ANOTHER YOUR ENERGY PROPOSAL KICKED OUT

As expected, Your Energy's proposal at Wellow on the Isle of Wight - a scheme that shares many of the same tourism and visual impact concerns as 'Moorsyde' - has been unanimously kicked out by the local planning committee in line with the recommendation for rejection by the Chief Planning Officer.

(See BBC story. 30 October, 2006).