2 Turbines applied for at Gellywen, Carmarthen
The Turbines are planned for the Trelech ward, Gellywen, Carmarthen and your objections are urgently needed.
Full details, along with suggested material planning objections, which can be used in your letters, are shown below.
All objections should be made in writing, by post or email, quoting the relevant Planning Number to:
Eifion Bowen (planningconsultations@carmarthenshire.gov.uk)
Planning Services
8 Spilman St
Carmarthen
Carmarthenshire SA31 1JY
Planning Application Details:
| Application No | Location | Date | Details |
| W/31523 | LAND AT CWM FARM, GELLYWEN, CARMARTHEN, SA33 6DY | 02/02/15 | THE INSTALLATION OF 1 NO 225KW WIND TURBINE |
| W/31524 | LAND AT, PARCYBEDW, GELLYWEN, CARMARTHEN, SA33 6DX | 02/02/15 | THE INSTALLATION OF 1 NO 225KW WIND TURBINE |
Applicant for both is developer - DC21 GROUP - CHARLES ASHTON, DENE HOUSE NORTH ROAD KIRKBURTON HUDDERSFIELD YORKSHIRE HD8 0RW
To see further details of these proposed developments, please click on the Planning Application numbers above, which will take you to the Planning Documents. Then, to register your objections online, click on Comment on this application.
Background Information:
The turbines will be approximately 500m from Gwndwn Mawr and 420m from Brynbedw. Neither of these properties were consulted or even told about the development. This has resulted in them only having 10 days to object. The developer had bat surveys carried out in August 2014, so has obviously been working on the plans for a long time with no consideration of telling the direct neighbours.
The deadline for objections is the 27th February 2015, although this date is not shown on the planning website, so please continue to send letters, even after this date as they may still count.
Suggested Points for Objection Letters:
1) Some of the submitted documents appear to have missed off the property nearest the turbine site (BrynBedw)
2) The historic environment appraisal carried out on behalf of the developers states that the Castell Mawr settlement is 360m from the proposed turbine and this would have a moderate visual impact but the report still describes the impact as low. Castell Mawr is a site of historic interest and would be utterly dominated by these industrial towers. The impact can in no way be described as low.
3) The historic environment appraisal states that Gwndwn Mawr Barn and Gwndwn Mawr Farm will have visibility of the turbine but that this will have a very low impact. The residents dispute this, as the development is 500m from these properties and so they believe it will have a huge impact visually, from noise and from destruction of the cultural and natural landscape. The impact significantly increases as two separate turbines are being applied for individually.
4) Capel Bettws is described as a chapel settlement having fallen into ruin and is so dismissed by the report which states that there is no impact. This is not acceptable as the site is still of historic interest and having two vast industrial structure will have an obvious visual and spiritual impact.
5) The planning paperwork submitted by the developer lists 27 other turbines within a 7.5km radius, and a shocking 83 within 15km and so the cumulative effect is overwhelming and should not be added to by yet another two turbines. Surely this radius has reached saturation point?
6) The two turbines are less than approx. 1km from the Plasparcau wind turbine granted in 2014. So the ribbon effect and cumulative effect is huge and further increased by allowing these additional turbines. The planning at Plasparcau does not seem to be shown in the developers plans – and the absence of this additional turbine underplays the cumulative effect.
7) The developers report shows the site of these turbines having multiple listed buildings spread across 360 degrees surrounding the turbines. It is not acceptable to change the landscape character of these listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments by industrialising the landscape.
8) The neighbours dispute the bat survey, believing there are numerous bats in the area. The bat survey was conducted in the wrong field.
9) An unofficial Red Kite feeding station is within 415 meters of the turbine. Photographs taken on 20th Feb 2015 show a Red Kite hovering over the site of the proposed turbines
10) No Bird survey has been completed, with protected Barn owls regularly being seen in the area
11) The sound survey is fundamentally flawed
a. Underestimating distances to NSR
b. Using incorrect source values
c. Ignoring other NSR properties, although these are holiday lets / rented properties
d. Misleading tables hiding the fact that non Financially involved parties are affected above the recognised 35db limit
e. Sound reports show no detail and have been ridiculed by 3 independent Specialist sound organisations as incomplete and inaccurate
12) Detailed site plan for CWM shows access to site through existing gateway. This gateway is not existing and will mean destroying existing hedgerow with associated effect on environment and wildlife. This will need planning permission in its own right.
13) Access to the site has not been assessed accurately and it is deemed impossible to transport 17.5m blades down such single track lanes without significant disruption to mature trees
Other Issues:
It would be interesting to know whether the developer applying for these turbines as two separate applications is significant. Does the developer benefit from anything by doing so? Does the developer avoid any planning constraints about large scale developments by splitting them?
Planning Applications such as these continue to flood in to our county, even though it has been proven that enough planning applications have been granted to exceed the UK 2020 targets for renewable energy ...
Analysis of DECC's own Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD) suggests that there is already 35 GW of capacity consented, and now either operational, or under or awaiting construction. This is sufficient to meet the target with a 5% margin.
However, there is a further 18 GW of capacity in the planning system, which would deliver a target overshoot of about 50%, and exceed the Treasury's cap on subsidy spending.
Thus we conclude that the planning system is bringing forward an oversupply of renewable electricity projects. This development effort is obviously premature, and the capital deployed is in jeopardy.
Furthermore, the necessity of assessing these planning applications leads to waste of valuable resources and increased costs for local authorities, statutory consultees, and local communities.
For further information on how to object to Planning Applications, where to send letters etc., please see our Planning & Objections Page
To use our interactive form, which will get you started with your letter, and can then be customised to relate to these particular applications, please click here.