11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

The following additional points are also made by objectors:-
� Wind turbines are poor providers of electricity
� Windfarms only work when covering vast areas
� Should put the money in to developing other alternative energy sources
� Result in contamination to the land- with concrete pads
� Turbines are very ugly and spoil the beautiful countryside
� Turbines should be located out to sea or in cities
� Who will pay up for the clean up of the site?
� Concern about potential health risks
� Detrimental impact on property prices
� Negative impact upon tourist industry
� Ruin views
� Benefits only the makers/owners of turbines
� The site is used by very low flying military aircraft on exercise
� Concern about impact upon listed buildings
� Impact upon ecology
� Noise potential
� Waste of farmland
� Landscape photographs not representative of what will be seen
� Light pollution
� If this wind farm is permitted others will follow nearby
� Concern in relation to shadow flicker
� Cumulative impact of the wind farms on the countryside and Area of Important
Landscape Quality
� Impact upon television reception
� Affect egg lying potential of chickens on adjacent sites
� Inadequacy of some the survey work contained within the ES
� Reduce the quantity of farming land available
� Traffic to the site would be dangerous
� Adequacy of the mitigation proposed by RES
� Dispute applicant’s claims about the amount of homes the development would power
and jobs created
� Dispute methodology used to establish whether excessive amplitude modulation will
occur
Letter of objection from (former) Councillor Ullswater.
Local campaign groups - CAPE ('Creakes Action for Protecting the Environment'), STROLL
(Stop Turbines Ruining Our Lovely Landscape) have submitted a number of objections to
the proposal. The group believes the proposal to be inappropriately sited, having a
detrimental effect on local residents, as a result of visual intrusion, noise, impact upon
ecology, flicker and general loss of amenity.
It is noted within these numbers of representation, some objectors have written in more than
once.
A petition has also been submitted with 123 signatures objecting to the proposals.
732 letters of support have also been submitted.
10/01419/FM Development Control Board
25 July 2011
48