Fishburn Airfield ; wind turbine planning application - please support the airfield
Thread Starter
Fishburn Airfield ; wind turbine planning application - please support the airfield
A planning application has been lodged with Durham County Council to erect two wind turbines close to Fishburn Airfield near Sedgefield in County Durham .
The application could have serious consequences for the future of flying from this local airfield and objections must be made to DCC by this Wednesday , 7 January 2016 . If anyone feels that they can support the Pike family , owners of RS Aviation the operators of Fishburn Airfield and try to ensure that flying continues from this gem of a local airfield could you please add your name to the growing list of objectors to the turbine scheme .
It’s a bit laborious and you need to register but your support would be appreciated . Details here , Comments and then Make a Comment with 94 public comments to date ;
On-line planning application page ; https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
Application number ; 7/2011/0293/DM
Thank you very much
The application could have serious consequences for the future of flying from this local airfield and objections must be made to DCC by this Wednesday , 7 January 2016 . If anyone feels that they can support the Pike family , owners of RS Aviation the operators of Fishburn Airfield and try to ensure that flying continues from this gem of a local airfield could you please add your name to the growing list of objectors to the turbine scheme .
It’s a bit laborious and you need to register but your support would be appreciated . Details here , Comments and then Make a Comment with 94 public comments to date ;
On-line planning application page ; https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
Application number ; 7/2011/0293/DM
Thank you very much
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind Turbine Threat to Fishburn Airfield
Stu,
There are 2 turbines. One is 890mtr from the runway at the top of the hill and immediately underneath the downwind leg. The second is 450 mtrs from the runway slightly downslope and in an area used by smaller flex and microlight aircraft using a tighter and lower circuit.
They are 77mtr (254ft) high and 54mtr (178ft) wide. Maximum rotor speed is 28rpm giving a rotor tip speed of 165mph.
Aircraft would be ascending or descending through the wake turbulence on take-off & landing (not across it but flying along it).
There is no realistic alternative circuit as these involve overflights of neighbouring villages and business parks and interfere with a local VRP. Also turbines to the south east would then come into play. Anyone with an in flight emergency during take-off or landing would likely do so over a populated area with restricted options.
Even if an alternative route were available this does not mitigate against downdraft and wind sheer which could and would be experience at the runway. A slight lea side downdraft is experienced in a northerly wind. However, two 'in-line' turbines on the northern slope will exacerbate this. Turbines on their own cause wind sheer. The cumulative effect will be more severe.
The development breaches the airfield safeguarding zone recently lodged with the council and both turbines are within the internationally accepted and CAA recommended 16 blade diameters of the runway mid point.
The turbines are twice the size of anything that has been modelled or tested - the effects are unknown - which is why the CAA guidelines exist. Turbulence extends way past 16 diameters anyway - a neighbouring airfield has turbines 1 1/2 miles away and they are still experiencing turbulence on take-off and landing.
These turbines are designed with 3 blades rather than 2 - which increases turbulence. The science of these things is that energy is taken from the wind. This induces a slow air stream at hub height. With larger faster blades the wind tip speed vastly exceeds the hub speed and each tip produces its own vortices. There is a difference between near turbulence and far turbulence and it can take miles before the wind returns to its original linear pattern. I could go on.
The planning consultants omitted Fishburn Airfield from the aviation section of their impact report and concentrated on radar clutter. In this section of the report Fishburn Airfield was even removed from the map!
Furthermore, the circuit shown is false. It has been enlarged so that the wind turbines fall within the circuit rather than on it. You would need the fuel tank of a jumbo jet to fly round this thing. The true circuit (agreed with the council) has been flown for over 20 years without serious incident or significant overflights. Fishburn does not get overflight complaints and has excellent relations with all the neighbouring villages.
The airfield hosts local events and recently had over 2,000 local people attending a wings & wheels event with: classic cars, bikes & buses; historic military vehicles, re-enactments, a warbird aerobatic display, a display by the Twisters aerobatic team, warbird pleasure flights, professional firework display, hangar rock concert, BBQ and licensed bar.
This year an aircraft restoration working museum is moving to Fishburn with multiple historic aircraft to display. A King Air 200 flight simulator will be going live shortly. New hangars are being built. Local school & college educational trips and collaboration are being arranged and the local community are increasingly using the new airfield cafe facilities which is great for encouraging new pilots and community relations. It is also being used for talks, meetings and presentations.
This local resource is under threat and there will be an effect on the local economy, local & regional suppliers, 20+ jobs by the end of 2016, education, event hosting, sport, recreational and amenity value.
Green is one thing. But building 2 huge turbines that put peoples lives at risk, destroy a valuable resource and can't even be connected to the grid because it is already at capacity in this area is utter madness.
There is good reason to oppose this development.
And don't even get me started on 18% efficiency, 10-40% less electricity generated than individual turbine calculations, continual breakdowns, eyesore's destroying our landscape, genuine medical concerns over shadow flicker, vibration & noise (2 houses within 300mtrs who were either not consulted or who's objections were 'lost'), imported rather than manufactured in the UK, high transport CO2 emissions (bunker fuel - look it up), etc. There are far more efficient and cleaner ways of going green.
Sorry for the rant.
There are 2 turbines. One is 890mtr from the runway at the top of the hill and immediately underneath the downwind leg. The second is 450 mtrs from the runway slightly downslope and in an area used by smaller flex and microlight aircraft using a tighter and lower circuit.
They are 77mtr (254ft) high and 54mtr (178ft) wide. Maximum rotor speed is 28rpm giving a rotor tip speed of 165mph.
Aircraft would be ascending or descending through the wake turbulence on take-off & landing (not across it but flying along it).
There is no realistic alternative circuit as these involve overflights of neighbouring villages and business parks and interfere with a local VRP. Also turbines to the south east would then come into play. Anyone with an in flight emergency during take-off or landing would likely do so over a populated area with restricted options.
Even if an alternative route were available this does not mitigate against downdraft and wind sheer which could and would be experience at the runway. A slight lea side downdraft is experienced in a northerly wind. However, two 'in-line' turbines on the northern slope will exacerbate this. Turbines on their own cause wind sheer. The cumulative effect will be more severe.
The development breaches the airfield safeguarding zone recently lodged with the council and both turbines are within the internationally accepted and CAA recommended 16 blade diameters of the runway mid point.
The turbines are twice the size of anything that has been modelled or tested - the effects are unknown - which is why the CAA guidelines exist. Turbulence extends way past 16 diameters anyway - a neighbouring airfield has turbines 1 1/2 miles away and they are still experiencing turbulence on take-off and landing.
These turbines are designed with 3 blades rather than 2 - which increases turbulence. The science of these things is that energy is taken from the wind. This induces a slow air stream at hub height. With larger faster blades the wind tip speed vastly exceeds the hub speed and each tip produces its own vortices. There is a difference between near turbulence and far turbulence and it can take miles before the wind returns to its original linear pattern. I could go on.
The planning consultants omitted Fishburn Airfield from the aviation section of their impact report and concentrated on radar clutter. In this section of the report Fishburn Airfield was even removed from the map!
Furthermore, the circuit shown is false. It has been enlarged so that the wind turbines fall within the circuit rather than on it. You would need the fuel tank of a jumbo jet to fly round this thing. The true circuit (agreed with the council) has been flown for over 20 years without serious incident or significant overflights. Fishburn does not get overflight complaints and has excellent relations with all the neighbouring villages.
The airfield hosts local events and recently had over 2,000 local people attending a wings & wheels event with: classic cars, bikes & buses; historic military vehicles, re-enactments, a warbird aerobatic display, a display by the Twisters aerobatic team, warbird pleasure flights, professional firework display, hangar rock concert, BBQ and licensed bar.
This year an aircraft restoration working museum is moving to Fishburn with multiple historic aircraft to display. A King Air 200 flight simulator will be going live shortly. New hangars are being built. Local school & college educational trips and collaboration are being arranged and the local community are increasingly using the new airfield cafe facilities which is great for encouraging new pilots and community relations. It is also being used for talks, meetings and presentations.
This local resource is under threat and there will be an effect on the local economy, local & regional suppliers, 20+ jobs by the end of 2016, education, event hosting, sport, recreational and amenity value.
Green is one thing. But building 2 huge turbines that put peoples lives at risk, destroy a valuable resource and can't even be connected to the grid because it is already at capacity in this area is utter madness.
There is good reason to oppose this development.
And don't even get me started on 18% efficiency, 10-40% less electricity generated than individual turbine calculations, continual breakdowns, eyesore's destroying our landscape, genuine medical concerns over shadow flicker, vibration & noise (2 houses within 300mtrs who were either not consulted or who's objections were 'lost'), imported rather than manufactured in the UK, high transport CO2 emissions (bunker fuel - look it up), etc. There are far more efficient and cleaner ways of going green.
Sorry for the rant.
Thread Starter
Comments both for and against the planning proposal can be found via this link , if it works ;
https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/o...=ZZZZVVGDJV531
There are many well put technical objections using local knowledge to illustrate the impact of the turbines in close proximity to the airfield . There is also one letter and an Impact Assessmant (Sic) in support of the proposal .
https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/o...=ZZZZVVGDJV531
There are many well put technical objections using local knowledge to illustrate the impact of the turbines in close proximity to the airfield . There is also one letter and an Impact Assessmant (Sic) in support of the proposal .
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/la...addenstudy.pdf
"Although the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood, when wind turbines are built near homes, it is undeniable that their noise causes a constellation of unwelcome effects, with varying degrees, on health, sleep, and quality of life.
Further study may reveal the cause/effect, dose/exposure relationships, but as these are
undetermined, the precautionary principle should apply in order to protect the public health.
Preventive proactive policy functions to preserve the public's health, whereas reactive palliative responses are often inadequate, not to mention, too late.
Although government agencies and the wind energy industry and their consultants contend that the adverse health effects are conjecture or negligible or 'mere' annoyance, one may also argue that their calculations are based on models that make unproven presumptions about what sounds are or are not annoying to people. Wind turbine noise calculations were not tested on subjects in field study scenarios.
Furthermore, leading acousticians disagree on the methodologies to
measure, analyse, predict, and prevent wind turbine noise. Current guidelines rely on calculations that are based on variables that result in imprecise and inaccurate predictions of actual wind turbine noise and how people living nearby perceive·the noise.
Therefore, wind turbines should not be sited near homes communities, or other sensitive facilities,
e.g., schools and residential homes for special populations, such as the chronically ill aged. The precautionary principal should apply."
"Although the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood, when wind turbines are built near homes, it is undeniable that their noise causes a constellation of unwelcome effects, with varying degrees, on health, sleep, and quality of life.
Further study may reveal the cause/effect, dose/exposure relationships, but as these are
undetermined, the precautionary principle should apply in order to protect the public health.
Preventive proactive policy functions to preserve the public's health, whereas reactive palliative responses are often inadequate, not to mention, too late.
Although government agencies and the wind energy industry and their consultants contend that the adverse health effects are conjecture or negligible or 'mere' annoyance, one may also argue that their calculations are based on models that make unproven presumptions about what sounds are or are not annoying to people. Wind turbine noise calculations were not tested on subjects in field study scenarios.
Furthermore, leading acousticians disagree on the methodologies to
measure, analyse, predict, and prevent wind turbine noise. Current guidelines rely on calculations that are based on variables that result in imprecise and inaccurate predictions of actual wind turbine noise and how people living nearby perceive·the noise.
Therefore, wind turbines should not be sited near homes communities, or other sensitive facilities,
e.g., schools and residential homes for special populations, such as the chronically ill aged. The precautionary principal should apply."
I spoke against a wind turbine project at my local council a few years ago.
The turbine was to be placed under our circuit on the turn onto base leg.
For procedural reasons I was allowed 20 seconds to speak!!!!!!!
"If you placed a telephone mast in the middle of the A16 it would be fine in daylight as people would drive round it. At night and in bad weather it would be lethal. This proposal will put a turbine in the middle of our A16."
Thrown out by the planning committee on aviation safety grounds.
The turbine was to be placed under our circuit on the turn onto base leg.
For procedural reasons I was allowed 20 seconds to speak!!!!!!!
"If you placed a telephone mast in the middle of the A16 it would be fine in daylight as people would drive round it. At night and in bad weather it would be lethal. This proposal will put a turbine in the middle of our A16."
Thrown out by the planning committee on aviation safety grounds.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Stu,
I'm not going to get into a turbine discussion. I have experience of the industry in the Irish Sea, North Sea and on-shore. I'm also aware of the problems Germany are experiencing in their shift to wind. It is off thread & distracts from the real issue. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it, but there we are.
The CAA issued CAP guidelines on behalf of the government and apart from statutory obligations to a small number of licensed airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, etc) have left it to each airport and airfield to fend for themselves.
Local planning officers are laymen and have to rely on expert witness. When the expert witness is an ex member of the British wind energy association and styles himself as a consultant to the energy industry (with absolutely no relevant qualifications to comment with authority on the subject) it is difficult for planners to differentiate between fact and smokescreen.
The GAAC, LAA, and BMAA have all chipped in on this one. The local MP, a town council and 3 parish councils oppose the development, the safety issues are clear cut and irrefutable. However, we are facing a large well funded industry.
Are you aware that in the past 5 years a total of 9,925 applications for a total of 23,428 turbines have been submitted. Over 90% have had no aviation issues and the LAA has only been requested to respond to less than 100 cases where safety has been compromised.
The GA sector is not anti green energy/wind turbines per se. However where crew, public and aircraft safety are at risk one has to intervene to support airfields faced with irresponsible development. There are more suitable safe sites for these things to be erected.
This issue is not going to go away. Technical & expert witness reports can counter the misleading information put forward by the applicants planning consultants but the airfield needs public support from the community to show the strength of feeling and opposition to this application.
If you are a pilot and want to retain a viable network of GA airfields to be able to enjoy your sport please add your voice to the pilots and local community trying to halt this irresponsible development.
I'm not going to get into a turbine discussion. I have experience of the industry in the Irish Sea, North Sea and on-shore. I'm also aware of the problems Germany are experiencing in their shift to wind. It is off thread & distracts from the real issue. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it, but there we are.
The CAA issued CAP guidelines on behalf of the government and apart from statutory obligations to a small number of licensed airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, etc) have left it to each airport and airfield to fend for themselves.
Local planning officers are laymen and have to rely on expert witness. When the expert witness is an ex member of the British wind energy association and styles himself as a consultant to the energy industry (with absolutely no relevant qualifications to comment with authority on the subject) it is difficult for planners to differentiate between fact and smokescreen.
The GAAC, LAA, and BMAA have all chipped in on this one. The local MP, a town council and 3 parish councils oppose the development, the safety issues are clear cut and irrefutable. However, we are facing a large well funded industry.
Are you aware that in the past 5 years a total of 9,925 applications for a total of 23,428 turbines have been submitted. Over 90% have had no aviation issues and the LAA has only been requested to respond to less than 100 cases where safety has been compromised.
The GA sector is not anti green energy/wind turbines per se. However where crew, public and aircraft safety are at risk one has to intervene to support airfields faced with irresponsible development. There are more suitable safe sites for these things to be erected.
This issue is not going to go away. Technical & expert witness reports can counter the misleading information put forward by the applicants planning consultants but the airfield needs public support from the community to show the strength of feeling and opposition to this application.
If you are a pilot and want to retain a viable network of GA airfields to be able to enjoy your sport please add your voice to the pilots and local community trying to halt this irresponsible development.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Newcastle/Teesside
Age: 66
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Video Re Popham Turbines
The following video was produced by Popham when EDF wanted to put a wind farm at the end of their runway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlMwJOTYhuo
Lot easier to understand when faced with visual information.
Many Thanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlMwJOTYhuo
Lot easier to understand when faced with visual information.
Many Thanks
Thread Starter
After disappearing for a while the Fishburn Airfield wind-turbine issue has raised it's head again with an amendment being submitted on the 16 June for a planning application for one only turbine to be situated to the north of the airfield off Harap Road . The Durham County Council link and application number remain the same as at the top of this thread and can I ask any interested parties to write in support of RS Aviation to oppose the amendment ;
https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/o...pe=Application
Application number ; 7/2011/0293/DM
Thank you plus a mention too for the Fishburn Wings & Wheels Day this coming Saturday , 2 July . Some details here ;
http://www.fishburnairfield.com/
https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/o...pe=Application
Application number ; 7/2011/0293/DM
Thank you plus a mention too for the Fishburn Wings & Wheels Day this coming Saturday , 2 July . Some details here ;
http://www.fishburnairfield.com/
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi David,
Have a look at details and photos of Caernarfon Aerodrome in North Wales.
Their two turbines are on the airfield but have not to the best of my knowledge forced closure.
They are situated to the north of an East/West runway and if I read the planning application correctly have a similar relationship to Fishburn.
SGC
Have a look at details and photos of Caernarfon Aerodrome in North Wales.
Their two turbines are on the airfield but have not to the best of my knowledge forced closure.
They are situated to the north of an East/West runway and if I read the planning application correctly have a similar relationship to Fishburn.
SGC
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Last time I was at Caernarfon there was a DHFS Griffin happily cavorting around in the area immediately downwind of the turbines. We took off on 07 with a crosswind from the turbines without any problems. They don't seem to cause any problems.
