Friday, 30 September 2011

Hill of Ochiltree wind farm # 1

This post introduces a proposed development on the south eastern edge of my wind farm map. As usual, here is a thumbnail map centred on the proposed location (don't forget, you can zoom out if you are not sure of where this is):

View South Carrick Wind Farms in a larger map

The planning application for this 10 turbine potential wind farm has been with Dumfries and Galloway Council for a considerable period of time - since December 2009 to be precise. The planning reference for this development is 09/p/1/0417. Unfortunately I cannot link directly to the planning details for Dumfries and Galloway applications, so you will have to use this link to get to the Dumfries and Galloway ePlanning system, and then type the planning reference into the search box. I will be making links to the Environmental Impact Assessment available for this proposal over the coming weekend. In the meantime, to give you an idea of what this area looks like visually, visit this page.

The Southern Upland Way passes through the proposed development site:

View Southern Upland Way in a larger map

Also of note is this site's proximity to Glentrool. The Hill of Ochiltree wind farm site is itself surrounded by another potential 10 turbine wind farm development - Glenvernoch. This surely has to rank very highly on the all-time list of most inappropriate wind farm development sites.

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Expensive ROCks

I thought I would post about a slightly wider national issue - it affects most major wind farms in the UK. The subject is Renewable Obligation Certificates or ROCs. ROCs, are effectively tradeable commodities. ROC trading is administered by the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Limited (NFPA) in England and Wales, and by its sister company, NFPA Scotland Limited in Scotland. Although this may sound a dry topic, it is in reality where significant money can be made and adds an interesting little twist to the whole wind farm debate.

The basic legislative framework for Scotland in terms of ROCs is set out in The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2009. The 2009 order was amended by The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010. In essence, the legislative framework requires electricity suppliers supplying customers in Scotland to prove that a fixed portion of the electricity they supply comes from certain, recognised renewable sources. Now for each MegaWatt hour of electricity generated by an acceptable method by a generator participating in the ROC scheme, a ROC is issued. The ROC is a digital certificate that shows how each unit of electricity was generated, who generated it and who bought it. It is also worth noting that the renewable obligation (ie, the requirement to supply a fixed proportion of electricity from recognised renewable sources) is on the supplier not the generator.

The principle of ROCs is similar throughout the United Kingdom (UK), so I will not differentiate between ROCs and SROCs (Scottish Renewable Obligation Certificate) since it is the broad principle I wish to explain.

Now, the generators are paid for the electricity they generate and feed into the National Grid. However, the suppliers need to demonstrate that they have met their renewable obligation - and this is where the ROCs come in. A supplier who does not hold enough ROCs to cover the proportion of electricity that has to be shown to be generated through acceptable renewable sources (or in other words, hasn't bought enough 'green energy' from the generators in relation to how much electricity it has supplied in total), has to buy the requisite additional ROCs from the generators, and this is done through a bidding process, or pay into a shortfall fund - which is then shared back out amongst all the suppliers based upon how many ROCs each supplier has presented. Not many suppliers will want to line the pockets of their competitors via the shortfall fund if they can avoid it, so those ROCs need to be obtained - perhaps not at all costs but certainly to the extent that the price of a ROC can be inflated quite significantly by suppliers outbidding each other to ensure they obtain sufficient ROCs to demonstrate their obligation compliance.

There is a very complex inter-realtionship between supply and demand here and I do not pretend to fully understand it. however, the price of ROCs fluctuates. This page gives an idea of such historic fluctuations. Ultimately, the cost of demonstrating obligation compliance - ie, obtaining those ROCs is passed on to the consumer and for me, I see a real conflict here. The generators receive a rate for generating the electricity - which the National Grid is obligated to take, and then they can just sit back and let the suppliers outbid each other for the ROCs they need to make up their short-fall. Talk about win-win.

The original idea of ROCs was good but since they are effectively commodities, a huge new investment market has opened up and the reality is that they have and will continue to become a significant money spinner for wind farm operators. Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that some wind farms operators - under certain conditions, can receive constraint payments for NOT generating electricity. I think the win-win just became win-win-win for the wind farm operators at least. If we are going to do the renewable energy thing right (and we need to) - can't we do it without watching the industry drive the whole process, wreck vast tracts of landscape and make quite considerable profits along the way? Surely the cart is before the horse here - shouldn't the industry be responding and not driving?

Monday, 26 September 2011

Glenchamber wind farm # 1

I haven't posted about this potential wind farm development before. It is right at the southern edge of my wind farm map in Dumfries and Galloway. However, it does form part of the 'bigger picture' for the area. If you are unsure of its location, perhaps the map below will shed some light (Glenchamber is the lower of the two blue areas in the centre of the map):

View South Carrick Wind Farms in a larger map

Today, the BBC announced that the Dumfries and Galloway planners are recommending that this application be refused on the grounds of 'significant adverse impact'. Given the location of this proposed development, this is great news. We will have to wait and see if the Dumfries and Galloway regulatory panel accept that planning officer's recommendations, and what the response from RES will be.....


This post is the first of a series about the effects of wind farms on property prices. Hmm, wondered when this one would surface ehh? This is quite a tricky topic - and one that'll take a few posts to get through I'm afraid.

First, I think we need to establish some basics. Wind farm proposals, I believe, are as likely if not more so to impact the saleability of a property close to a proposed development before a planning application is submitted than after construction is complete. This I believe, is largely due to the uncertainty involved in wind farm development proposals - how many turbines, how big, where are they going etc. etc. And then there's the construction traffic to contend with. It really doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to accept that the mere sniff of a proposal is, to a certain extent going to impact the local property market - particularly in a buyer's market. I certainly don't see queues of people waiting to buy properties next to proposed wind farm developments - nor do I see estate agents using a wind farm proposal as a marketing tactic (which in the normal course of things, would be a 'strong' indicator of desirability). Once built, the uncertainty is removed and you are left with a Marmite situation - you either love it or hate it.

Now, the next thing we need to get out of the way is the similarity of the UK and US housing markets - or lack of it - and I want to do this for a very good reason. I believe they are very different markets. In the UK, property ownership is still regarded as a highly desirable aspiration and in the USA the situation is similar. According to the US Census Bureau, home ownership in 2005 stood at 68.5%. In the UK, the current rate of home ownership is 68%. So, ignoring the differences in ownership definition, and the fact that the USA statistic is 6 years old why are the apparently similar markets different? One of the differences comes in the shape of mortgage debt and more specifically, how it is structured. 27 states in the US, including California and Florida allow non-recourse mortgages. Such mortgages allow homeowners to avoid the issue of negative equity debt - pretty well all they have to do is return the keys and they can walk away from any negative equity liability. Not so the UK. I am not aware of a single mortgage company in the UK offering such a deal. Doubtless the flexibility of non-recourse mortgages comes at a price - but it's a great way to negate a large chunk of risk. In the UK however, the value of a property is very much in the interest of the occupier and the spectre of slipping into negative equity has kept many a mortgage holder awake at night. Add to this the growing number of people who find themselves saddled with lifelong debt or face the possibility of personal bankruptcy to clear the negative equity on their repossessed property, and it's easy to see why property values are a major concern for some. We should also not lose sight of the fact that there is considerably more building land available in the USA than the UK, which allows more a great deal more flexibility in terms of locations for residential building projects. These two factors alone, without even considering social factors are sufficient to ensure the two markets are in actual fact, fundamentally different.

Why is this important? This report from the USA is often touted in the UK as proof that wind farms do not impact property prices. What's wrong with this then? First of all, the report is in my opinion not relevant to the UK housing market for the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraph; they are fundamentally different markets. Next, the report draws on completed property sales; properties that have not been sold and houses that didn't enter the housing market due to their proximity to wind farms (and thus may be completely unsaleable) are completely ignored. So the report is in no way a definitive investigation - it simply summarises convenient sales statistics. Even if we do accept this report as applicable to the UK housing market, there appears to be a bit of a chink appearing in the 'no affect on prices armour. This RICS web page, summarising various reports on house price effects, paraphrases the US report by saying 'A recent study in the USA continues the theme of a minimal effect on house prices.'. Notice the word minimal - acknowledging an impact. If you do nothing else, I suggest you read the Abstract of the report on page iii). I will quote just one section of the report, the last paragraph of the abstract: Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact. So, in actual fact, this report doesn't rule out an impact - quite the contrary. This web page is an example of how this report is jumped upon by the renewables industry with misquotes, unsound conclusions and headline grabbing phrases.

In my next post on house prices impacts, I will look at the UK based evidence and explain why house price impacts have far wider implications than the immediately obvious. In the meantime, I will leave you with this article to read. This is a very important case, since it demonstrates that the law (which is not noted for its speed of operation), is the first 'official body' to acknowledge that wind farms can have a significant negative impact on both house prices and people's lives.

Sunday, 25 September 2011

Breaker Hill wind farm # 2

Below are links to all of the documents of the Environmental Statement for the proposed Breaker Hill wind farm. There are approaching 200 files here, and they have been split out from the original files which ranged in size from 660MB to 880MB. The Environmental Statement contains pretty much everything you could want to know about the proposed Breaker Hill wind farm.

If you just want the coffee table summary, then the Non technical Summary is for you. Otherwise, the environmental statement document is quite small (<3MB), but has a large number of pages. Some of the photomontage files are still quite big (figures 6.9a - 6.42). However, I will be producing easier to access versions of all EIA photomontages in the very near future that'll be far smaller and a lot easier to access.

Quite a few of these photomontages contain white horizontal banding which is a result of how the original pdf files were rendered and have not been caused by me splitting out the individual images. Where present, the banding does to an extent interfere with the interpretation of the images. If you find it hard to judge the images affected by the banding, I strongly suggest you contact Wind Prospect Developments Ltd, and ask for better versions of the affected images.

1Non Technical Summary
(NB Figure 5 files are 40 - 50MB each)
Environmental Statement
(NB Figures 6.9a - 6.15 are 40 - 50MB each)
(NB Figures 6.16 - 6.26 & 6-32-633a are 40 - 50MB each)
(NB Figures 6.33b - 6.42b are 40 - 50MB each)

22.1 Forestry Review and Proposals
2.2 Siemens SWT 1.3MW Turbine Specifications
2.3 Design Statement
2.4 Swept Path Figures
33.1 Scotlands Climate Change Declaration
3.2 Forestry Carbon Payback
44.1 Site Appraisal Figures
4.2 Newsletter
4.3 Questionnaire
4.4 Questionnaire Responses
4.5 Scoping Response
4.6 Environmental Baseline Data
55.1 Scotways Correspondence
5.2 Galloway Forest Park Leaflet
5.3 Tourist Accommodation Assessment
66.1 Computer Modelling and Analysis Methodology
6.2 Area of Theoretical Visibility of Potential Turbine
6.3 Wireframes from Selected Residential Receptors
77.2 Target Notes for Phase 1 Survey
7.3 IEEM Evaluation Matrices
7.4 Ecological Surveys
7.5 Lendalfoot Hills Complex SAC Citation
7.6 Bird Survey Vantage Point Viewsheds
88.1 Internal Cultural Heritage Receptors
8.2 External Cultural Heritage Receptors
99.1 Hydrology & Hydrogeology A. Photographic Records of the Site
9.2 Hydrology & Hydrogeology B. FEH Catchment Characteristics
9.3 Ayrshire River Trust – Pre-Development Electrofishing Report
1010.1 Noise Appendices
1111.1 EMI & Aviation Responses
11.2 Telecommunication Remediation
11.3 CEL LED Aviation Obstruction Light
11.4 NATS Radar Concern
1212.1 Dalswinton Economic Assessment

How on Earth do you digest this lot? Well, I don't suggest that you read every section, but there are bound to be sections and appendices of particular interest to you. What I suggest is that you download the documents of interest, and then access the appropriate drawings and figures as required using the drop down selector boxes. If you feel the need to obtain a full copy of the entire EIA, please get in touch via the 'Get in Touch' link at the top of the blog, and I'll see what can be arranged.

Finally, if you are receiving this post via email you'll probably find the drop down lists don't work for you. This is as a result of the code used to 'power' them. If you wish to access the documents listed in the drop down lists and are having trouble with them from within your email client, please visit the blog where you shouldn't encounter any such problems. If anyone encounters ANY OTHER problems with the download links, please let me know via the 'Get in Touch' link at the top of the blog.

Thursday, 22 September 2011

Scottish National Wind Farm Conference 2011

Do you want to know more about wind farms? Are you undecided about them? Do you think they are a good idea but are open to hearing a little bit more than the usual spin? Perhaps you would like to find out more about the health or noise implications? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, there is an opportunity to find out more - considerably more. A wind farm conference is being arranged for Friday 11 November 2011 at the Ayrshire Suite of Ayr Racecourse. This event is being organised by Communities Against Turbines Scotland (CATS). The cost is £26 per person and includes lunch and parking. This is a non-profit conference. Register for the conference here.

The conference will be chaired by Graeme Pearson MSP. The day starts at 10:30AM, and goes onto 4 PM. Speakers at the event include:

  • Struan Stevenson MEP - Struan is a well known Conservative MEP who lives locally. He is chairman of the Climate Change, Biodiversity & Sustainable Development Intergroup in the European Parliament. His speeches are usually strong, factual and rousing - cutting straight to the meat of the matter.
  • Professor Iain MacLeod - Vice-President, The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland (IESIS*) and Chairman of the IESIS Energy Strategy Group.
  • Colin Gibson - IESIS member, formerly Power Network Director, the National Grid.
  • Dick Bowdler - Independent Consultant, Dick Bowdler Acoustics. Dick is an acoustician who has a deep knowledge and understand of wind turbine noise. He is openly critical of the deficiencies of ETSU-R-97 and has published this critique of it.
  • Dr Malcolm Swinbanks - Malcolm presented at the recent international Wind Turbine Noise Conference in Rome, in April 2011 on the audibility of low frequency wind turbine noise.
  • Dr Chris Hanning - Chris is the author of this paper on wind turbine noise, sleep & Health issues, and has participated in the authoring of a number of other papers documenting the health impacts of wind turbines.
  • Helen McDade (John Muir Trust) - Helen will give the trust’s view on the issues around energy as it impacts wild areas from two different perspectives.

* IESIS is a multidisciplinary professional engineering body

Looking at the list of speakers, the conference will afford an excellent opportunity to hear about several different aspects of wind farms - from health issues to technical issues and from the ecological issues to strategic issues. If you can find the time to attend this event, do so; you will have a rare opportunity to listen to some very knowledgeable and eminent individuals. There will also be an excellent opportunity to meet other members of the public who have specific views and knowledge of wind farms in general.

A 1,000 thank yous!

This is just a quick post to mark a milestone. Earlier today, this blog had its 1000th visitor. From a standing start to a 1,000 visits in a little over a month is impressive - in my book anyway, particularly when you consider the focus of this blog is rural South West Scotland. This milestone shows that there are like-minded individuals out there who care enough, or are curious enough to find out what is going on to stop by.

I have 'plans' to continue to enrich the blog by adding new sections and completing the sections that are under construction. My hope is that this blog will continue to be a useful source of reference material for South Carrick and its immediate surroundings as well as Scotland as a whole.

I am continuing to refine the blog template for search engines and this is now starting to pay dividends, as individual posts about specific developments and topics are now being correctly indexed in Google. Additional promotional activities are also underway to increase the number of individuals who are made aware of the existence of this blog.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to stop by - never could have done it without you - and here's to getting to the first 10,000 visits!

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

Straid wind farm # 5

Today, an article appeared in the Carrick Gazette stating that the number of wind turbines for the proposed Straid wind farm has been reduced from 16 to 14, and that the remaining turbines had been moved further back to 'further reduce any visual impact when seen directly against Pinbain Hill'. All of this is apparently in response to the recent exhibitions held in Lendalfoot and Colmonell. Now, this may appear to be good news on the surface but we need to be a little bit careful. I am very cynical about this move. It is not uncommon to initially releases proposals that are controversial in terms of number and positioning of wind turbines, expecting the overall number to be reduced. Its a bit like asking for more than a house is worth knowing full well that the purchaser will almost always try to reduce the purchase price. Its a game we like to play. Has this happened here? Only ecotricity and the land owner can comment on that, but it would not suprise me in the slightest to learn that the original design contained a number of disposable turbines that could be discarded as false gestures of good will if required. To my mind, there are still 14 turbines too many in this proposal.

It seems a pity that ecotricity seemed quite happy to issue a press release regarding the turbine reduction and repositioning before contacting the local residents. It seems the residents of Lendalfoot are undergoing Community Consultation via the printed media.

In the article, the illustrious Mr Cheshire from ecotricity tries to put more positive spin on things by saying that the Sraid wind farm will not be visible from almost all of Girvan. No great suprise there, Girvan is after all about 5 miles from Lendalfoot and is separated from the proposed development area by a number of large hills. Mr Cheshire goes on to say that the Straid wind farm will not be visible from Colmonell either, again, no great suprise since that's miles away as well and is also separated from the proposed development site by a large hill.

Finally, Mr Cheshire goes on to describe the views from Lendalfoot. Well, he goes on to say that views will be 'restricted from the South beyond the nearby Varyag memorial'. Again, no great suprise - there's hill in the way South of the memorial, and the road goes round a bend! However, Mr Cheshire does not go on to say that 'from a point adjacent to the Varyag memmorial, North to a point adjacent to the turn-in to Pinbain Hill, Straid wind farm will dominate the landscape to the East'. He could also perhaps have said, 'if you close your eyes you won't be able to see the the turbines at all - and you most certainly won't see them from Ayr'. A pity really, since all of these last statements are equally obvious and correct.

Unfortunately at the time of posting, ecotricity's web site hadn't been updated with the new numbers, and there is no indication of where the turbines will now be placed. So, I assume the residents of Lendalfoot will now just have to wait until ecotricity can be bothered to let them know what they are currently proposing.

Monday, 19 September 2011

Whose wind is it anyway?

An article in the Daily Mail online today highlights what this post is about - foreign ownership of wind farms. I have had this in my draft queue for a couple of weeks now, but since I have been pipped at the post in terms of publication, I guess now is as good a time as any to post this.

In the process of justifying regional and national energy policies, security of supply is often touted as both desirable and necessary by the smiling politicians. It is worth noting immediately that wind cannot be regarded as a secure source of energy - we don't control when it blows so electricity generated from it cannot be planned for with a high degree of accuracy. Another part of the energy security equation is who controls the infrastructure and this is where things get quite interesting. Phrases similar to 'we need to ensure that we don't get held to ransom with regard to our energy supplies' are quite commonplace. Looking at the first page of the Draft Electricity Generation Policy Statement 2010, the following statement is made: Our commitment to emissions reduction is also matched by our commitment to ensure that Scotland continues to have a secure energy supply throughout the transition to low carbon energy....

The key phrase here is 'Scotland continues to have a secure energy supply'. Now, I'm not going to comment on the security of our current supply; I'll assume it is secure. But, as Scotland transitions to decarbonising its electricity supply by 2030, onshore wind farms are expected to play a larger and larger role. So who does, or will ultimately control the wind farm infrastructure that we see springing up around us? Perhaps this will shed some light on that question with regard to the built or approved developments:

Hadyard Hill52SSESSE
Artfield Fell15SSESSE
Artfield Fell Extension7SSESSE
Mark Hill28Scottish Power RenewablesIberdrola
Arecleoch60Scottish Power RenewablesIberdrola
North Rhins11AES Wind Generation LtdAES

The operational & approved wind farms look 'quite promising' in terms of ownership - no Saltires I'm afraid, but there are at least a few Union Jacks. Foreign ownership outweighs UK ownership in terms of number of turbines: 97 against 74. How about we complete the picture, and draw up a similar table for those wind farms that are currently being planned and are plotted on my map:

Kilgallioch132Scottish Power RenewablesIberdrola
Dersalloch23Scottish Power RenewablesIberdrola
Glenapp & Loch Ree36Scottish Power RenewablesIberdrola
Beaker Hill16
Assel Valley17Coriolis LLPFALCK Renewables
Tralorg Hill8PNE WIND UKPNE Wind AG
Hill of Ochiltree10EonEon

Controlling ownership of Breaker Hill is difficult to unravel. It is a proposed development by a compnay called Alpha Wind Prospect Limited, which itself is a joint venture between Wind Prospect Developments Ltd and Alpha Wind. Now, Alpha Wind doesn't seem to exist as a company. However, Wind Prospect Developments Ltd is itself a joint venture between EDF (which is French) and Wind Prospect Group Ltd. Unfortunately, because we don't know what percentage holding Alpha Wind and Wind Prospect Development Ltd each have, we don't know who has the controlling interest. Oh, what a tangled web we weave! I haven't obtained a copy of the accounts for Wind Prospect Developments Ltd, which should give the percentage holding, so for now Breaker Hill will be left out of the bigger equation.

Here's how this all totals up for a 'worst case scenario' (ie, assuming everything on my map gets built, excluding Breaker Hill for the previously mentioned reason):

Spain279 (63%)837 (73%)5 (36%)
UK115 (26%)195 (17%)5 (36%)
Germany18 (4%)46 (4%)2 (14%)
Italy17 (3%)40 (3%)1 (7%)
USA11 (2%)22 (2%)1 (7%)

By every simple measure bar one, Spain has by far the biggest 'share' of ownership of the wind farm infrastructure plotted on my map - in the worst case scenario. The UK will control very little (17% of installed capacity, and 26% of the turbines by number). Now, I accept these figures will change in absolute terms - and by a small amount in percentage terms as well. However, what I do not expect to see change much is the spanish slice of installed capacity, since Scottish Power Renewables have the biggest projects and the biggest turbines. It will still be interesting to see how this develops over time.

Why is this important? Well, what guarantees exist to ensure that these wind farms do not just become assets to be bought and sold on the open market, perhaps on the foreign markets of the controlling companies? And a closing question for you: How is the ownership distribution of wind farms demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs in any way securing Scotland's future energy supply? It seems the Scottish Government is quite content to mortgage vast tracts of the Scottish landscape for next 30 or so years to anyone who cares to take up the offer, in its desperate rush to see its ever changing renewable energy targets met.

Saturday, 17 September 2011

Assel Valley wind farm # 2

Here are links to the documents of the Assel Valley wind farm Environmental Statement. The Environmental Statement is broken done into 240 individual PDFs, which is great for managing download bandwidth but a nightmare to index! Hopefully, I have laid things out so that individual documents, figures and drawings are easily accessible. If you are just looking for a coffee table summary, head over to the Non Technical Summary. If however, you want the detail, then the Chapters 1-17, and Appendices 1-17 should provide what you are looking for.

Some of the image files are quite large. However, if you want to look at them or any other document, please feel free to download whatever you require. My only request is that you try and ensure you do not download multiple copies of the same file - although if you've lost a previously downloaded file, please feel free to re-download it. If you get a document different to that suggested in any of the links, please let me know via the 'Get in Touch' link at the top of the blog; it is entirely possible that despite my best efforts, I may have mis-indexed one or two items.

The layout should be reasonably intuitive although if you are confused by it, please get in touch and I'll do my best to explain.

Non Technical Summary
2Site Selection
3Project Description
4Planning Polcy
6Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

(NB Figure 6.32 is 74MB)
(NB Figures 6.45, 6.44, 6.43, 6.42, 6.41, 6.40, 6.37, 6.36, 6.32, 6.30 & 6.29 are > 30MB each)
8Terrestrial Ecology
9Cultural Heritage
11Hydrogeology & Hydrology
14Socio Economic Effects
15Electromagnetic Interference
17Shadow Flicker & Icing

1Scoping Response
33-1 Generic Construction Method Statement
3-2 Borrow Pit Report
66-A Cumulative Sites Selection
6-B Sensitivity Analysis
6-C Route Analysis Tables
6-D Cumulative on LCTs
6-E Summary of Residual Effects
7Vantage Point Observations
88-1 Ecology Consultation Responses
8-2 Ecology Desk Study Results
8-3 Habitat & Protected Mammal Survey
8-4 Bat Survey and Assessment Report
8-5 Details & Citations of SSSI’s, SAC’s & Ecological Sites
8-6 Protected Species Survey Target Notes
9Schedule of Cultural Heritage Sites
10Laggan Burn Site Management (SNH)
1111-1 Review of Effects on Surface and Groundwater
11-2 SUDS, Watercourse Crossing, Monitoring Schedule & FRA
1212-1 Access Route Report
12-2 Accident Plot – A714
13Noise and Vibration Report
1515-1 Communications Impact Assessment
15-2 Correspondence from Consultees
1616-1 Aviation Impact Assessment
16-2 - 16-4 Correspondance
17Shadow Flicker Assessment Results
Supplementry Noise & Vibration Statement

How on Earth do you digest this lot? Well, I don't suggest that you read every section, but there are bound to be chapters and appendices of particular interest to you. What I suggest is that you download the chapters and/or appendices of interest, and then access the appropriate drawings and figures as required using the drop down selector boxes. If you feel the need to obtain a full copy of the entire Environmental Assessment, please get in touch via the 'Get in Touch' link at the top of the blog, and I'll see what can be arranged.