Joint Local Development Plan Consultation Portal

Niobe

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

Representations on Deposit Joint Local Development Plan - POLICY ADN1

Representation ID: 950

OBJECT Cydbwyllgor Ymgynghorol AHNE (Cynghorydd Gruffydd Williams)

Summary:

I believe that the current policy of having no turbines in the AONB (C26) should be adhered to.

Also, refuse turbines higher than 11m within visibility of the AONB.

The term 'turbine' should be used, rather than 'mill' which is different.

I believe that criterion 2 should refer to safeguarding the setting of the AONB.

There is concern about the categories and designating developments under 5MW as 'Small'.

Representation ID: 894

OBJECT Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (Mr Noel Davey)

Summary:


A limit of 11m rather than 15m height for domestic turbines would accord better with permitted development limits. Difference between capacity and output should be clarified. We oppose removal of the present progressive and clearcut policy in Gwynedd of excluding wind turbines from the AONB. Support the proposal to limit turbines to domestic size in SLAs - should emphasise this includes within AONB's. SLA coverage should be extended to buffer some areas of the AONB which are less protected in N.Llyn and the Menai shore. Height limits should apply in repowering. Residential visual amenity distance criteria should be strengthened. Farm diversification criteria from the Gwynedd SPG should be included in the policy. There should be more reference to archaeological impact and a definition of community-based projects. Suggested changes:
ADN1/2: "...outside the AONB, SLA, and the SETTINGS OF THE AONB, National Park..."
ADN1/3 "In the AONB, SLA and the SETTING OF THE AONB, National Park and World Heritage Site..."
Extend SLA coverage to provide more effective buffer areas for designated area.
In area LCA GU10 follow LSCS guidance in limiting turbines to 'micro' scale.
ADN1/3 delete 'the AONB'
Add ADN1/4 "Wind turbine applications in the AONB will be refused"
4.17 Para 7.2.30 Insert 'acceptable'? 'The setting of the National Park and World Heritage Site limits the ACCEPTABLE..."
Table 13:Domestic height limit, clarify kW as a capacity not output; reduce 'small' indicative output level.
Add criteria related to farm usage limits, archaeological impact
Modify residential amenity distance limits.

Representation ID: 713

OBJECT Mr John Eric Williams

Summary:

The term 'Wind Turbines' rather than 'Windmills' should be used. The term 'windmills' is associated with corn mills.

Paragraph 2. I completely disagree with the proposal to permit wind turbines outside the AONB, the National Parks and SLAs if these are visible from these sites. This type of development could be just as harmful to the site.

Paragraph 3. I completely disagree with the proposal to permit domestic wind turbines within the AONB, National Parks and Heritage Sites.

These recommendations are contrary to existing policies and weaken and undermine efforts to safeguard the heritage that is in our care.

Representation ID: 711

OBJECT Ms Mairede Thomas

Summary:

Policy ADN1 is flawed, unjustifiable and unsound for the reasons given in Section 2c of the JLDP representation form.

There should be separation distances between turbines and homes.

The SLA status should be restored to the interior landscapes of Anglesey.

Table 13 should use the turbine heights used in the 2012 SPG.

Any policy on wind turbine development must take account of the depressive economic impact on houses and other property and on the island's economy and its tourist trade in particular.

The protections for tourism amenity contained in the 1996 Ynys Môn Local Plan must be included in any policy regarding wind turbines.

Representation ID: 707

OBJECT Susan Talbot

Summary:

1. The plan classifies 50 metres high wind turbines as 'small-scale', over six times the height of an average house!

2. Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are now 'small', so the island's entire interior will be transformed by developments of this scale if the plan proceeds.

3. 8000 signatories on Anglesey expressed the wish of a minimum of 1.5km separation distance with large wind turbines and residents. None is given.

Representation ID: 706

OBJECT Gwyneth Jones

Summary:

I object to the scale proposed in relation to the height of proposed turbines within a landscape such as that of Anglesey, especially given the developments that have already taken place. I would welcome adopting the previous policies found in the 2013 SPG

Representation ID: 705

OBJECT Lesley Alexander

Summary:

Community Council views and objections to the spread of medium and large industrial turbines are ignored in the JLDP. Wildlife corridors and buffer zones around the AONB are not included. The effects on tourism and visual impact on the landscape will be catastrophic on Anglesey unless the JLDP is amended. The separation distance from domestic dwellings is suggested to be 400m from a large turbine! A petition in 2012, done as part of the SPG consultation asked for 1.5km.
The deposit plan must be changed to include the SPG amendments on turbines, their height classification, separation distances and effect on tourism, wildlife and health of local inhabitants e.g. noise.

Representation ID: 700

OBJECT Linda Boyle

Summary:

1. What will be the justification for 'trigger' mechanisms to determine cumulative impact?
2. The negative visual impact of one wind turbine in an area where none previously existed could be considered as a 100% deterioration - how/who will determine the level of impact?
3. The downgrading of turbine heights, so that 50m is now considered to be small is a serious weakening of previous guidance, as is the reduction in visual amenity assessment distances.
4. 8000 signatories on Anglesey, expressed the wish of a minimum of 1.5 km separation distance with large wind turbines and residences, none is given.
5. Trigger factors to determine visual, amenity cumulative impact etc must be made transpatent.
6. There must be a separation distance and any permitted should carry a bond to enable decommissioning.

Representation ID: 694

OBJECT Mrs Kate Barker

Summary:

The document is unsound because some policies appear to be made on inaccurate generalisations, and there is not enough detail on some issues, for example, the importance of the landscape around heritage assets - there is no mechanism to show these areas on the constraint maps. The document is also unsound because it does not take into account previous public consultation responses on the LDP where 800 people wrote in about their concerns in wind turbine development in 2012.

1. Public consultation period should be extended.
2. Maps should be re-issued so they do not pixilate when you zoom in.
3. Height of wind turbines not exceeding 15m to tip height should replace 50m stated in the plan.
4. A set back distance from dwellings should be observed of 1.5 or 2 kilometres because of health and loss of amenity.
5. We need a mechanism and clear route for appeal against the grant of approval in planning decisions other than through the courts.
6. The area surrounding the heritage asset should also be shown as a protected area on the constraints maps, not the just the asset itself.

Representation ID: 690

OBJECT Mr John Irlam

Summary:

Minimum separation distances should be considered as noted in 'Guidance on the Application of Separation Distances from Residential Properties Study'. Wind turbines in close proximity to dwellings would have an adverse effect. The JLDP should recognise the separation distances.

Representation ID: 688

OBJECT Mrs Frances Nigogosian

Summary:

The plan classifies 50 metres high wind turbines as small scale, over 6 times the height of an average house! Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are now 'small' and the island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of the scale and type of the plan proceeds. The Supplementary Planning Guidance on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to exhaustive public consultations, is being thrown out. Adopt guidelines found in SPG.

Representation ID: 686

OBJECT Mr RONALD BOYLE

Summary:

1. What will be the justification for 'trigger' mechanisms to determine cumulative impact? Who decides?
2. The negative visual impact of one wind turbine in an area where none previously existed could be considered as a 100% deterioration - how/who will determine the level of impact?
3. The downgrading of turbine heights, so that 50m is now considered small is a serious weakening of previous guidance, as is the reduction in visual amenity assessment distances.
4. 8000 signatories on Anglesey, expressed the wish of a minimum of 1.5km separation distance with large wind turbines and residences, none is given.
5. Trigger factors to determine visual, amenity cumulative impact etc must be made transpatent.
6. There must be a separation distance and any permitted should carry a bond to enable decommissioning.

Representation ID: 608

OBJECT Mr Paul Madden

Summary:

As worded criteria (iii) is bad English and it would appear that words may of have been omitted and the word 'significant' should be dropped.
The Health Impact Assessment refers to minimising potential health impact caused by noise but not detailed policies in regard to health impact is included within this section.
There is no recognition that wind turbines and their proximity can result in ill-health for residents.
The report on separation distances is concerned only with landscape and visual matters. The Council should of have commissioned an independent report to deal with ill-health from noise emissions.

Representation ID: 603

OBJECT John & Ann Baum

Summary:

The 2012/2013 SPG on Onshore Wind Energy is being ignored.

50 metre high turbines are being classified as small-scale - at six times the height of an average house.

Many existing turbines on wind farms on the island would be classed as small, thus opening up possibilities for extensive industrial type developments.

We should like the 2012/2013 SPG provisions applied to wind turbines to replace the JLDP proposals contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 601

OBJECT Cyngor Cymuned Cwm Cadnant (Mr Alun Foulkes)

Summary:

Policy ADN1 will have a detrimental impact and is not a sustainable environmental, social, economic and cultural land use plan for Anglesey.
Point 1 should restrict turbine height to 50m to blade tip.
Point 2 should restrict turbine height to 15m to blade tip.
Point 3 should restrict turbine height to 11.1 metres to blade tip.
The criteria listed in i) to vii) should be expanded to offer better protection to local as well and national designations and assets.

Representation ID: 596

OBJECT Cyngor Cymuned Cwm Cadnant (Mr Alun Foulkes)

Summary:

Policy ADN1 in its present form does not show good judgement. It will have a detrimental impact and is not a sustainable environmental, social, economic and cultural land use plan for Anglesey.

Point 1 should restrict turbine height to 50 metres to blade tip.
Point 2 should restrict turbine height to 15 metres to blade tip.
Point 3 should restrict turbine height to 11.1 metres to blade tip.

The criteria listed in i) to vii) should be expanded to offer better protection to local as well as national designations and assets.

Representation ID: 593

OBJECT Lawrence Cotter

Summary:

The 2013 SPG is ignored. 50 metre wind turbines which are double the height of the Marquie of Anglesey's Column, now classed as 'small-scale', with no public consultation.
Change: the provisions regarding onshore wind turbines that were agreed in the SPG 2013 document should be upheld and maintained in the Plan.

Representation ID: 591

OBJECT Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (Mrs Maureen Parry Williams)

Summary:

Policy ADN1 is flawed planning policy for Anglesey and is unsound.

A policy that restricts the areas where new wind turbines can be built is essential for Anglesey.

The SLA status must be restored to most of the island's interior landscape.

The heights of permissible new turbine developments must be reduced to those listed in the 2012 SPG Consultation.

There must be Buffer Zones between turbines and residential properties as per the 2013 SPG.

Representation ID: 590

OBJECT Mr & Mrs K Street

Summary:

Object to large (50m +) wind turbines being built all over the island. It ignores the adopted SPG.

Representation ID: 589

OBJECT Dorothy Prestwich

Summary:

Object to large (50m +) turbines being built all over the Island. SPG has been totally ignored.

Representation ID: 588

OBJECT Janet Smith

Summary:

Objection: To the re-classification 50 metre high wind turbines as 'small-scale'.

Objection: To the consequence of this re-classification that existing wind farms in the north of the island would be 'small', opening the way for the transformation of the Island to large scale industrial development.

Objection: The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to exhaustive public consultations, is being thrown out.

The provisions of the SPG with respect to wind turbines and passed in 2012/13 to replace the JLDP provisions contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 587

OBJECT Honey Tolman

Summary:

The Plan ignores the SPG which sets limits on wind turbines. Absurdly, the Plan classifies 50m turbines as small scale. Anglesey's rural beauty could be destroyed forever by massive developments that would never be permitted for other industrial projects. The SPG adopted a 1.5km separation distance between homes and large turbines. This is ignored.

Representation ID: 586

OBJECT Philip Tolman

Summary:

The Plan ignores the SPG which sets limits on wind turbines. Absurdly, the Plan classifies 50m turbines as small scale. Anglesey's rural beauty could be destroyed forever by massive developments that would never be permitted for other industrial projects. The SPG adopted a 1.5km separation distance between homes and large turbines. This is ignored.

Representation ID: 585

OBJECT Mr David G. Thomas

Summary:

The LDP does not have regard to the effect of wind-turbines on the sky-line of Anglesey and the touristindustry on which it is so much dependent. restrictions should be clear to avoid inappropriate applications and expensive appeals. Change: i) Insert "Small-scale and" before "medium scale..." ii) "Micro-scale" - delete "and small-scale" wind turbines....outside the AONB insert "or a buffer zone of two kilometres", SLA iii) Policy AND2 "All proposals should conform to the following criteria: vii At end after "agreed" Add "before the commencement of any works".

Representation ID: 584

OBJECT Gillian Coates

Summary:

The Deposit Plan will turn Anglesey into a giant wind farm. I object to 50 metre wind turbines being defined as 'small-scale'.
Change: I want to see the provisions of the SPG with respect to wind turbines, and passed in 2012/2013, to replace the JLDP provisions contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 583

OBJECT Mr Ralph Morris

Summary:

Anglesey Council agreed a SPG which specified limits on the growth of wind turbines. This plan completely ignores those decisions. The plan classifies 50 metre high wind turbines as small-scale, over 6 times the height of an average house! As if by magic, most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are small, and the island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the plan proceeds. No other huge industrial scale developments are given such free rein.

Representation ID: 582

OBJECT Mr David G. Thomas

Summary:

I object to the parameters set for wind turbines on Anglesey.
They do not include the restrictions agreed in the Strategic Planning Guide-lines passed by A.C.C. On 24th. January 2013 and confirmed to be included in the LDP by the Joint Local Development Panel on 7th. March 2014. The LDP does not have regard to the effect of wind-turbines on the sky-line of Anglesey and the tourist industry on which it is so much dependent. Restrictions should be clear to avoid inappropriate applications and expensive appeals. The Plan as drawn is ripe for exploitation by rich developers

Representation ID: 581

OBJECT Nigel Peacock

Summary:

Wind turbines other than domestic wind turbines should not be permitted anywhere in the plan area.
Changes: the plan should give protection to the environment and countryside not only in relation to the provision of holiday accommodation but also in relation to the construction of much more damaging wind turbines.

Representation ID: 580

OBJECT Dr Morag McGrath

Summary:

The 2013 SPG set out a minimum separation distance from residential or tourist properties of 500m or 20 times the tip height of the blades, which the greater. The SPG has been totally ignored in this document. Table 14 refers only to the visual impact whereas the problem of noise is also relevant.
Change: Reinstate the policies concerning minimum separation distances between onshore wind turbines and residential or tourist properties given in the 2013 SPG.

Representation ID: 579

OBJECT Dr Morag McGrath

Summary:

The proposals completely ignore the 2013 SPG on onshore wind turbines. In particular the sizes of turbines permitted in the various categories have been greatly increased.
Changes: The categorisation of onshore turbine size in the 2013 SPG and the relevant proposals should be reinstated.

Representation ID: 578

OBJECT JULIA DOBSON

Summary:

The Plan classifies 50 metre high wind turbines as "small-scale", over 6 times the height of an average
house!

Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are now "small" and the island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the Plan proceeds

The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to exhaustive public consultations, is being thrown out.

I want to see the provisions of the SPG with respect to wind turbines passed in 2012/13 replacing the JLDP provisions contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 577

OBJECT Trevor Jones

Summary:

The plan ignores the previously agreed SPG limiting the growth of wind turbines. it will, if adopted, give free rein to unfeteered development of large win turbines on an industrial scale. it cannot be allowed that this Guidance should be ignored.
Changes: the proposals regarding the height and distribution of wind turbines contained therein be removed and replaced by the recommendations as stated in the SPG.

Representation ID: 576

OBJECT G Warren

Summary:

The Plan classifies 50 metre high wind turbines as "small-scale", over 6 times the height of an average house!

Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are now "small" and the island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the Plan proceeds.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to exhaustive public consultations, is being thrown out.

I want to see the provisions of the SPG with respect to wind turbines passed in 2012/13 replacing the JLDP provisions contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 572

OBJECT Mrs E C Davies

Summary:

The provisions of the SPG have not been incorporated in this Deposit Plan. Nearly 8000 residents signed a peition against the further development of commercial scale (>15m to tip) wind turbines on the Island.

New wind turbine development outside the area specified in para. 7.2.30 of the Plan should be restricted to domestic scale turbines (<15m to tip) and should relate well to existing settlements/buildings and not scattered over open countryside.

The only exception would be the repowering of existing turbines which should be replaced one-to-one by more efficient and less noisy turbines of the same height.

Representation ID: 568

OBJECT Mr John E. Williams

Summary:

Table 14 is unrealistic. Uses a visual impact criteria which does not include cognitive, psychological and mechanical implications. The separation distances have been tailored to fit the largest possible turbines into the confined areas available on Anglesey and Gwynedd without adequate reflection of practices elsewhere in Britain and abroad. This section needs to be re-titled as a Physical/Mental Impact Zone and the concerns of the 8000 rate payers who signed the petition of 2012 adequately reflected.1.5km separation distance should be adopted.

Representation ID: 567

OBJECT Mrs Erica Cooper

Summary:

I object that the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Onshore Wind Energy SPG 2012/13 which was agreed after much public consultation, is now ignored. Also ignored, is the petition by 8000 residents in 2012, who wanted a 1.5 km separation distance of commercial turbines, from residential areas for reasons of safety and aesthetics. This deposit plan has now re-classified 50 metre wind turbines as small-scale. How can they be called small when they are twice the height of the Marquis of Anglesey's Column? This Plan, therefore, will pave the way for Anglesey's beauty to be disfigured.

Representation ID: 566

OBJECT Mrs Nanette Tivy-Jones

Summary:

In 2012/2013 Anglesey Council compiled, consulted and agreed an SPG which specified certain limits on the growth of wind turbines. This deposit plan does not comply at all with these decisions. This new deposit plan would reclassify wind turbines already present on the north of the island as small and would allow the interior of the island to be exploited for development. I strongly object to this, as it will have catastrophic effects on the island's significant tourist economy and wildlife. This level of flexibility is not given to other industrial scale developments of this kind on the island.

Representation ID: 565

OBJECT Jonathan Tivy-Jones

Summary:

I object that the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Onshore Wind Energy SPG 2012/13 which was agreed after much public consultation is now ignored. Also ignored, is the petition by 8000 residents in 2012, who wanted a 1.5 km separation distance of commercial turbines, from residential areas for reasons of safety and aesthetics. This deposit plan has now re-classified 50 metre wind turbines as small-scale! How can they be called small when they are twice the height of the Marquis of Anglesey's Column? This plan, therefore, will pave the way for Anglesey's beauty to be disfigured, by littering it with turbines.

Representation ID: 564

OBJECT Christopher and Eleni Marjot

Summary:

The Anglesey SPG on 'Onshore Wind Energy' recommended far more suitable distances from residences to wind turbines. These have not been applied in the draft JLDP. I want the JLDP to conform to the recommendations for separation distances to follow that of the Anglesey SPG.

Representation ID: 562

OBJECT Christopher and Eleni Marjot

Summary:

Defining 50m wind turbines as 'small' is incorrect. They may be 'small' in terms of power output, but are NOT 'small' in proportion to residential properties and the landscape. The classification terminology needs to be amended so that it is not deceiving.

Representation ID: 561

OBJECT Dr B L Davies

Summary:

The provisions of the SPG have not been incorporated in this Deposit Plan. Nearly 8000 residents signed a peition against the further development of commercial scale (>15m to tip) wind turbines on the Island.

New wind turbine development outside the area specified in para. 7.2.30 of the Plan should be restricted to domestic scale turbines (<15m to tip) and should relate well to existing settlements/buildings and not scattered over open countryside.

The only exception would be the repowering of existing turbines which should be replaced one-to-one by more efficient and less noisy turbines of the same height.

Representation ID: 560

OBJECT Mr John E. Williams

Summary:

No attempt made to differentiate between Anglesey and Gwynedd in terms of constraints imposed by topography on planning applications emphasised by National Park and AONB. This impacts directly on land available for turbine planning applications. Approximately 20% of Gwynedd is not covered by either National Park or AONB. Approximately 80% of Anglesey is not covered by its AONB. The burden of repeated applications the energy companies therefore falls on Anglesey with the coast implications and the reduction of services borne by the Anglesey rate payer.

Representation ID: 559

OBJECT Jonathan Tivy-Jones

Summary:

The plan classifies 50 meter high wind turbines as "small scale". This is over 6 times the height of an average house.

A large proportion of the turbines existing on the island are being reclassified as "small" and the island's interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the plan proceeds.

The SPG on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to extensive public consultations is being thrown out.

I demand to see the provisions regarding onshore wind turbines that were agreed in the SPG 2012/13 upheld and to replace the JLDP provisions contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 558

OBJECT Sarah Irlam

Summary:

The Plan classifies 50 metre high wind turbines as 'small'. If the Plan proceeds, almost the whole of the island will be covered by developments of this scale. The SPG on onshore wind energy is being dismissed.

I want to see the provision of the SPG with respect to wind turbines passed in 2012/13 to replace the JLDP provision contained in the Deposit Plan.


The landscape sensitivity and capacity for Anglesey, Gwynedd and SNP needs to be adhered to.

The Deposit Plan must protect these special areas and more should be included, particularly the distance from AONB, SSSIs, SLAs, SACs.

Representation ID: 557

OBJECT John Alexander

Summary:

The SPG and the amendments subject to consultation is being ignored. The re-classification of the scale of size of wind turbines will enable repowering smaller turbines in the north of the island. It will enable turbines to spread across the whole county (this is against TAN8 guidelines. No mention of buffer zones/wildlife corridors that can protect the key AONB areas. The SPG is being ignored. The distance of turbines from properties that are quoted and would trigger an assessment are not acceptable and do not meet the public's requirements.
The SPG that was passed in 2012/13 plus the amendments should replace the JLDP provisions in the Deposit Plan. Health and safety issues with regard to noise need to be properly taken into consideration. A buffer zone and wildlife corridor from the south to the north east of the island needs to be created. Turbines should not be permitted in this area.50m turbines are not small and they are unsuitable for the topography of this island.

Representation ID: 556

OBJECT Vicky Gregory

Summary:

Onshore wind energy of the Plan states that 'small-scale wind energy proposals WILL be granted outside the AONB, SLA and the setting of the National park and World Heritage Site'. The Plan's classification of 'small scale' win turbine is 50m in height which is considerably higher than the classification held in the 2013 SPG. This has worrying implications for the island's future with the possibility of unspoilt landscapes being dramatically changed for years to come and areas in the north will continue to be industrialised on an even larger scale and dominate the landscape.

Representation ID: 555

OBJECT Isabel Hargreaves

Summary:

In 2012/13 Ynys Môn agreed an SPG with specified constraints on wind turbines which the Deposit Plan has ignored. It has re-cast 50m turbines as 'small', the implications of this for future wind turbine development is huge and will have a deleterious effect on the natural rural beauty of the Island. Potential impact on tourism and quality of life of Ynys Mon residents will be significant and negative.
8000 residents responded to the SPG consultation calling for a 1.5km separation between commercial turbines and residents.
The provision of the 2013 SPG to replace the provisions within the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 554

OBJECT Ralph Morris

Summary:

The Plan classifies 50 metre high wind turbines as 'small-scale', over6 times the height of an average house. Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the isalnd are now "small" and the island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the Plan proceeds. The SPG on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to exhaustive public consultation, is being thrown out.

Representation ID: 552

OBJECT Gareth Porter

Summary:

The Plan classifies 50m high wind turbines as 'small-scale', over 6 times the height of an average house. Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are now 'small' and the island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the Plan proceeds. The supplementary planning guidance (SPG) on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to exhaustive public consultations, is being thrown out.

Representation ID: 551

OBJECT Robert MacAulay

Summary:

Paragraph 7.2 of policy ADN1 will have the effect of unconstrained building of large wind turbines across much of Anglesey. The two largest 'industries' on the Island are farming and tourism and the proposed policy will serve to destroy or seriously reduce the latter by ruining the peace and (largely) uninterrupted vista's for which most tourists come. Whilst the proposal may produce a little more green energy for the UK, it will only serve to enrich a few to the huge detriment of the rest of the island's inhabitants and visitors

Representation ID: 550

OBJECT Mr DJ & Mrs JL Hart

Summary:

The Plan classifies 50m high wind turbines as 'small-scale', over 6 times the height of an average house. Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are now 'small' and the island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the plan proceeds. The SPG on Onshore Wind Energy, subject to exhaustive public consultatios, is being thrown out.

Representation ID: 549

OBJECT Mrs M.A. Ayliffe

Summary:

a) 50 metre high turbines are not classified as small in the SPG. They are 20/25m high
b) The north end of the island has most of the 'small' turbines in clusters which will cause problems for the local residents as set out in the SPG if they are increased to 50 metres
c) That the council is ignoring the SPG of 2012/13 which was decided upon after exhaustive public consultation.

Representation ID: 548

OBJECT Mr N.F. & Mrs C.W. Roberts

Summary:

Common features are noise, the obvious blight on a landscape of natural beauty, and the significant effect on local businesses and local employment in catering and tourist industries. Turbines of the height proposed (up to 50m) will destroy views of the landscape and affect tourism.

Representation ID: 547

OBJECT mr nigel ayliffe

Summary:

Paragraph 7.2 onwards does not reflect aspects of the supplementary planning guidance which was produced after lengthy consultation with residents in 2012/13. the major points are:
i) a minimum separation distance between residents houses and industrial turbines of 1.5km.
ii) Classifying 50m turbines as small is incomprehensible. It was agreed by residents that 'small' wind turbines (20/25m) should be allowed for farmers etc. 50m is not small, it is large industrial.

Representation ID: 546

OBJECT Elfed Jones

Summary:

Small turbines should be 20m high, as specified in the SPG, not 50m high. The SPG is being ignored after an un-precedented response. This Plan would turn the interior of the island into one big wind farm of 'small' 50m turbines.

Representation ID: 545

OBJECT Mrs Candy Jones

Summary:

50m high is not a small wind turbine. The SPG is being ignored. The whole interior of the island could be covered in 50m turbines if the Plan is adopted.

Representation ID: 544

OBJECT mr stephen kneale

Summary:

This Plan completely ignores decisions which were agreed after exhaustive public consultation. The Plan classifies 50m high win turbines as 'small-scale' which is absurd. The existing industrial Rhyd-y-Groes Amlwch wind farm would be "small-scale". Anglesey would be ruined as a toursit destination if further developments on this scale were allowed on the island. The height categories should be retained as specified in the existing SPG. The acceptable distance from dwellings should also be retained as specified in the SPG.

Representation ID: 543

OBJECT Richard & Sheila Perry

Summary:

We object to the resizing criteria of turbines - 50 m high now being considered 'small scale'. In fact these are very visible from many locations across the north part of the island, and the coast path and AONB. Visitors come to the island to enjoy the landscapes of the AONB/coast and are providers of much of the vital summer income for Anglesey's tourism businesses. They will not enjoy their visit if all they can see across the island are far taller wind turbines, more widely spread than at present.

Representation ID: 542

OBJECT Dr Stephen Baker

Summary:

The plan classifies 50metre high turbines as 'small scale'
This means that most of the existing Anglesey turbines are 'small' - unreasonable
Public consultation seems to be ignored

Representation ID: 541

OBJECT Mrs Pam Lee

Summary:

The following should be accepted:
1) The 2012/13 SPG
2) A separation distance of 1.5km
3) Reclassification of 'small-scale'

Representation ID: 540

OBJECT Cyngor Cymuned Tudweiliog (Mrs Glenys Peters)

Summary:

Recommend that turbines that are higher than 15m should not be permitted in Gwynedd, and none in an Area of Natural Beauty. Tudweiliog Community Council objects to every wind turbine within the Llŷn AONB and every application for a turbine higher than 11m within the boundary and views of the AONB.

Representation ID: 539

OBJECT David Talbot

Summary:

1) The Plan classifies 50 metres high wind turbines as 'small scale', over 6 times the height of an average house!
2) Most of the turbines in the existing wind farms in the north of the island are now 'small'. The Island's entire interior can be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the Plan proceeds.
3) 8000 signatures on Anglesey expressed the wish of a minimum of 1.5km separation distance with large wind turbines and residency. None is given.

Representation ID: 538

OBJECT Janis Evans

Summary:

The Deposit Plan ignores the Anglesey Council SPG which specifies limits on the growth of wind turbines. The Plan classifies 50 metre high wind turbines as 'small-scale'. The island's entire interior could be transformed by developments of this scale and type if the Plan proceeds. No other huge industrial scale developments are given such free reign.

8000 islanders who signed a petition in 2012 calling for a 1.5km seperation distance between homes and industrial commercial turbines are being ignored.

I want the provisions of the SPG with respect to wind turbines to replace the provisions contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 535

OBJECT Brian Lee

Summary:

1) The SPG should be honoured
2) The existing height classification should be accepted
3) A separation distance of 1.5km should also be accepted
4) The JLDP should be re-written acknowledging the wishes of Anglesey residents

Representation ID: 532

OBJECT Jason Bowes

Summary:

Although renewable wind energy is needed it is not needed in this format. Small wind turbines are not 50m. Maybe 10-15m. 15-30m turbines to be sited at least 1.5km from nearest dwelling. 30m turbines sited as wind farms as far from view as possible. I would not like Anglesey to be ruined by these monstrosoties. Let farmers site small turbines 10-15m for their own needs.

Representation ID: 531

OBJECT John Bircham

Summary:

Wind turbines have an unacceptable visual impact on a rural countryside. The concrete base for each turbine will be forever long after turbines have gone with the grants.

Representation ID: 477

OBJECT CSJ Planning Consultants Ltd (Mr John Cocking)

Summary:

The wording of the first line is unnecessarily restrictive. The wording of points 1, 2 and 3 is unnecessarily prescriptive. Both should be amended to reflect a more flexible and proactive approach to wind farm development. Applications should be determined on their merits on a case-by-case basis

Representation ID: 388

OBJECT Mon a Gwynedd Friends of the Earth (Mr Richard Mills)

Summary:

ADN1 and the criteria in the associated Table 13 appear to restrict many wind energy developments of less than 5 MW to within SSAs and urban/industrial brownfield sites. This would be in contravention of TAN8, which states, "...the Assembly Government would support local planning authorities in introducing local policies in their development plans that restrict almost all wind energy developments, larger than 5 MW, to within SSAs and urban/industrial brownfield sites." We also consider ADN1 to be unsound in failing to take adequate account of the importance of community-based/-owned projects and repowering schemes.

Representation ID: 312

OBJECT Cyfeillion LLyn (Mrs Sian Parri)

Summary:

Ban turbines from the AONB. No turbine higher than 11.1 in the SLA and Landscape of Special Historical Interest. Listen to the advice of the AONB Consultative Committee which considers that it is necessary to adhere to the above in order to conform with the Council's statutory duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Representation ID: 305

OBJECT Mr Barry Roberts

Summary:

I object to the plan as it classifies up to 3, 50 metre wind turbines as small scale. The plan also states most of Gwynedd is protected from developments by being a National Park (Snowdonia) or SLA (Lleyn Peninsular). Only Anglesey is open to wide-spread abuse, and it will be abused. There was an agreement that minimum distance would be considered by Anglesey planners and councillors after the 2013 SPG was adopted due to 8,000 strong petition demanding a minimum distance. Once again a minimum distance has been ignored. So much for democracy !

Representation ID: 299

OBJECT Mr Owain Evans represented by Mr Owain Evans

Summary:

In 2012/13 Anglesey Council compiled, consulted and agreed a SPG which specified limits on the growth of
wind turbines. This Deposit Plan completely ignores those decisions.

I want to see the provisions of the SPG with respect to wind turbines and passed in
2012/13 to replace the JLDP provisions contained in the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 201

OBJECT Kingsbridge Caravan Park (Mr Andrew Bate)

Summary:

Onshore wind turbines on Anglesey should be restricted to "Domestic" use and located near the associated dwelling.

Proliferation of larger machines around the island will have a negative impact on the landscape and may cause visitors to seek alternative less industrialised locations.



There will be significant visual impairment with the construction of additional transmission lines associated with extra generation capacity from Wylfa B.

Generation capacity from proposed offshore wind farms and Wylfa B will far outweigh that which onshore generation could achieve so preserve the onshore landscape of "unspoilt countryside and coastline" as highlighted in the Visitor Economy Introduction.

Restrict onshore wind turbines to "Domestic" grade.

Representation ID: 194

OBJECT Mrs Irene Stott

Summary:

ADN1 point 2.
This should refer to the agreed Onshore Wind Energy SPGs of both Councils
which state that the maximum tip height for the designated sizes of
turbines will be: micro - 11m; small - 20m; medium - 65m; large - 135m.
The councils were assured that these would be carried forward to the LDP,
they have not been and the new categories are much increased over the
originals.

Use the old agreed sizes

Representation ID: 177

OBJECT Rod Dixon

Summary:

ADN1 point 2.
This should refer to the agreed Onshore Wind Energy SPGs of both Councils which state that the maximum tip height for the designated sizes of turbines will be: micro - 11m; small - 20m; medium - 65m; large - 135m.
The councils were assured that these would be carried forward to the LDP, they have not been and the new categories are much increased over the originals.

Revert to old agreed sizes

Representation ID: 166

OBJECT Mr DAVID THOMAS

Summary:

After much consultation there is an SPG which has been agreed and accepted but does not seem to be implemented in the Deposit plan Why?. There should be a minimum distance from residential buildings specified. What is there now to stop more turbines being erected across Anglesey. The island in my opinion is already saturated with wind turbines and any more will ruin it's character and attraction for tourist to come and visit.

SPG provisions for wind turbines to be implemented.
A distance of at least 1.5 km between residential property and a turbine to be specified.

Representation ID: 131

OBJECT Mr Mark Edwards

Summary:

Wind turbines have been proven to discourage tourism. NW Wales is highly dependent on the business provided by its visitors. Any thing other than micro scale turbines must therefore be ruled out.

The definition of a "small wind turbine" at up to 50m high o/a is badly judged. This is around 10x the ridge height of a traditional cottage.

Distances from residences in table 14 are about 50% of what is reasonable.

The words "significant harm" in clauses iii and iv of the conformation criteria fails to show due respect and consideration for the needs of local residents and needs amendment.

Overall limitation to micro and domestic turbines requires amendment of items 1, 2 and 3.

Table 13 needs to be changed to give realistic height categories.

Distances in Table 14 should be doubled.

Amended wording for criteria iii. and iv. given.

Representation ID: 100

OBJECT Mr Christopher Marjot

Summary:

1. Object to the classification of 50m wind-turbines as being 'small', this appears to be based more on power output, rather than height. The environmental and amenity impact is directly proportional to the height of the wind-turbine, not the power output. 50m wind-turbines are not 'small' relative to the size of dwellings and the local environment. The classification should be redifined to accurately reflect their scale relative to residences and the local environment. *

2. The Anglesey SPG on 'Onshore Wind Energy' recommended far more suitable distances from residences to wind-turbine the JLDP should confrom with the SPG separation distances.

Representation ID: 99

OBJECT mr nigel ayliffe

Summary:

1. Distance from Residential Property Considerable consultation took place on this point both with the public and the Councillors in the drafting and agreeing of the Supplementary Planning Guide. Despite this evidence of the will of the people it has not been included in the above Plan. It should not be ignored. The agreed minimum distances should be entered.

2. Repowering of existing wind farms/turbines. The planning considerations for these should be the same as those for new proposed turbines otherwise the damage already done to the countryside and tourist attractions will be compounded with the new much larger turbines.

Representation ID: 75

OBJECT Mrs Carolyn Williams

Summary:

I am objecting to Policy ADN1. most of Gwynedd is protected from developments by being a National Park (Snowdonia) or SLA (Lleyn Peninsular). Only Anglesey is open to wide-spread abuse.

8000 islanders, who signed a petition in 2012, calling for a 1.5 km separation distance between homes and industrial commercial turbines and the Supplementary Planning Guidance is thrown out.
I reject the wind energy policy as presented in this flawed, undemocratic and unsustainable Plan.

The 1.5 km separation distance and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Onshore Wind Energy should be retained.
No more 50 metre (large) windturbines. we are swamped.
Anglesey's Councillors should listen and support their local communities, who don't want 50 metre plus wind turbines blighting the landscapes of Anglesey, and so must reject this draft wind energy policy.

Our Communities have not consulted or agreed to be an energy island.

Representation ID: 74

OBJECT Mr David Coucill

Summary:

Wind turbines of 50m to tip height cannot be classified as small. This is especially true in the relatively flat landscape of Anglesey where a 50m structure, the height of ~8-storey building, can be seen from miles around.
After a consultation, in which almost 10% of the population of Anglesey participated, Anglesey County Council adopted a minimum separation between turbines and domestic properties of 20 times tip height. This has been completely ignored.
The effect of wind turbine noise on neighbouring properties properties is ignored in Gillespie's report even though it is recognised as a problem in other areas, e.g. Devon,

The SPG on wind turbines approved by Anglesey Council after extensive consultation should not be ignored and should be incorporated into the Deposit Plan.

Representation ID: 71

OBJECT Cyngor Tref Nefyn (Liz Saville Roberts)

Summary:

Nefyn Town Council is firm in its opinion that it is necessary to adhere to policy C26 involving the size of wind turbines in the Llyn AONB, and that an increase in the size of wind turbines should not be permitted.

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult