| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:renewable energy in Brentford | |
| Posted by: | Andrew Dakers | |
| Date/Time: | 11/07/09 16:30:00 |
| Jim As you have the committee papers to hand can you fill us in on what wind speed tests were undertaken on site at the height is is proposed the wind turbines to be positioned? This is essential for any reliable calculation of benefit. Ealing did a study a few years ago (I think published online) looking at windspeed across the borough which you may find interesting. "If a car park in a supermarket is not a suitable location for a wind turbine would he care to suggest where a suitable location is." I have no objection to the car park location, but (planning law aside) I would rather the turbines were significantly higher, thereby improving performance ...and that Tesco were installing onsite renewables on a significant, rather than a tokenistic scale. Yes, 'every little helps' but on that scale, from an organisation of Tesco's size, we might as well give up on the prospect of tackling climate change. "I agree with Councillor Dakers comments that solar panels should be installed to the roof." Glad we have found common ground there! "paragraph 20 of the supplement to PPS1 'Planning and Climate Change’ it states that planning authorities should 'not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location'. In addition, PPS 22 does state in paragraph 5.10 that 'planning authorities should 'recognise that a small contribution cannot be in itself a reason for refusal of permission'. Therefore based on this guidance the amount of electricity generated is not a material consideration." I think all the councillors were familiar with this. It doesnt make it a sound bit of planning policy as it invites poorly considered, tokenistic applications of this sort. Andrew |