turbroprop,
East Midlands is a good example - of why there should NOT be wind tubines next to airports.
First, note the turbulence caution in Pooleys! (also due to hangars)
Second, airport not used by microlights and is used less and less by light aircraft. It does not matter if it is the threat of turbulence or the actual turbulence, fewer Popham type aircraft use the place. I may also be down to cost, management etc. The fact is it is an international airport.
Third. EMA has only built some of the turbines they have consent for. Why. The ones they have are a PITA!
Fourth. EMA are gathering lots of data for the CAA as a condition of having the turbines. Some of the results are interesting, but since they have cost EMA a shed load of cash, they are commercially sensistive. If a wind developer (who the onus of proof should lie with in aviation safety) wants them, they'll have to pay.
But the biggest is:
The turbines are under the control of their ATC.
Rules with the CAA, ATC etc are that they can - for instance - only be switched on with ATC's permission. Apparently start-up is when the max turbulence is created.
This makes EMA unique.
And I can't see us - or any other airfield operator - wanting, or being able, to control someone else's windfarm if they wish to build right next to the airfield.
Strathaven Airfield's (successful) objections to two 45m turbines near the airfield, which includes redacted emails with EMA's top chap, are here:
Online Standard Details
The relevant bit is in our final submission, but the whole thing - including the applicant's "expert" who never made a site visit "Strathaven Aerodrome Impact Assessment" - all makes interesting reading, I think.