Our private Helipad and proposed 'adjacent' new wind turbine!

[kickon]

Hi guys
I need some advice please, which appears to be an ever growing problem everywhere.
I have just heard a rumour (it is at 'pre planning' application), that a 55m, with two 32m bladed (making it in total) 87m wind turbine is being considered just 500 metres from our private helipad which is at our home.
Our helipad is actually within the curtilage of our home, as it's made out of a raised grass mound, within a fenced section of our back lawn around it. We use various paddocks etc as our 'approach areas', then hovering onto the pad.
We do not have planning permission for the pad, as I understand we are within the 28 day ruling and it's within the property's curtilage. We have been using the helipad since 2002, and we probably see on average, movements of circa 20 - 35 per annum to the site, although there are plans to increase that.
The 'erection' :eek: of this :mad: proposed turbine will not only de an eye-sore, be noisy, 'worry' ours and neighbours horses etc (it's proposed site is less than 300m from a bridleway, but also potentially causes our heli movements a great safety hazard.
'HELP'!
Do I apply for retrospective planning for the pad?
Do I apply for a 'safe zone' to protect any other such applications being considered?
Thanks in advance
Jono
[email protected] (maybe quicker)

[ShyTorque]

As far as I understand the situation, if the helicopter is operated only within the curtilage of your property you don't actually need planning permission.

I think you will need to object to the proposal in the normal way, stating your personal reasons for doing so.

[NutLoose]

EGNX has just erected 2 on the airport and the Air Ambulance is based about the same distance, if not closer, the red navigation light is only on the tip of the "generator" box in the middle of the rotor, but the unlit blades soar some 40- 60 plus feet higher which strikes me as how can they do that?

[OvertHawk]

I don't think that applying for retrospective planning permission in order to then be able to use the heli movements as a grounds for objecting is likely to succeed, either in terms of being granted planning permission or as a subsequent objection. (beware opening a can of worms that might result in scrutiny being applied to your use of the land as an "H" - once you've said it is, it may be difficult to say it's not).

As Shy says - you'll have to object on the normal grounds with everyone else.

OH

[Flyting]

be noisy, 'worry' ours and neighbours horses etc
and the helicopter coming and going doesn't do this....!!! I'm sure the horses won't even notice the wind mill. Read this http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/448336-riders-tumble-costly-pilot.html for noise regarding horses...

As for...
also potentially causes our heli movements a great safety hazard
Fly around it..... You're not IMC - what's the problem.

The only thing you actually have a problem with is:
proposed turbine will not only de an eye-sore

[9Aplus]

The only legal way to "protect" your approach (and rejected landing) planes is by full helipad registration in accordance to ICAO Annex 14 Vol II helipads :}

[61 Lafite]

Fly around it..... You're not IMC - what's the problem

If you approach and pass it 500m out at 50kt, you have around 40 seconds before the hover at the ground. That's loads of time to have flown around it 40 seconds out and re-established the approach, even assuming it's directly downwind at the time.

On departure, you'll meet it about 40 seconds out. Assuming there is viz, there's a high probability that you'll be able to figure out how not to hit it.

Lafite

[mfaff]

I think that applying for planning permission for your helipad is a can of worms that you may regret opening...keep to the current situation.

As you have learnt about the turbines in the 'pre-planning stage' there is time to gain information from the planners and Council members as to what is being considered and how best to have your views heard (not necessarily taken into account mind).

Only 'material considerations' will be taken into account by the planners and Councillors. You have time to learn and understand what these are and therefore how best to make representations.

Your view and opinion as to its 'beauty' are not material considerations....nor the 'frightening the horses' or possible additional difficulties you may have in using your land for 'exceptional' events.

As for it being 'noisy' the application documentation should deal with environmental acoustics and you can, subject to having to hand good data, make a material case.

However if the fact that you use a helo in your land is known that may ensure that any objection you make regarding noise is viewed with a certain 'bias' that is understandable. It might be that in your conversations with the plannnig officers and your ward councillor that they are relatively insensitive to your concerns regarding noise as a result.

I know its a very different type of noise and affects people in a very different manner...but the perception remains the key.

[heli1]

The use of your helicopter for 28 days to land at your private dwelling is a legitimate reason to object on health and safety grounds at least.It is,in principle,no different to someone building a wall which blocks the view when you exit your drive.

Also the fact that your use is not officially safeguarded under CAA regulations should not prevent a legitimate objection.

However ,because planning officers (and members) rarely have intimate knowledge of helicopters,flight paths etc.it would be a good idea to ask the CAA for technical advice and to detail FATO requirements ,prevailing winds and other factors such as existing obstructions ,to demonstrate how the wind turbine would be a danger.

If necessary you should ask the Council to employ their own specialist consultant to report on the issue.If you can get your local Councillor on side that will help....you could also offer to demonstrate the flight path to members and officers to underline the point.Unless they want to be seen as unreasonable they should go along with that...but don't offer them a passenger seat.That might be seen as a bribe!

Finally ,if your helipad was not built but a natural feature ,then your use is ancillary to the dwelling and you dont need planning permission...after all it is just a mode of transport like your car .However if the pad involved engineering operations it would need planning permission.

In that event if you have been using your helipad for more than 28 days ,for more than 10 years without objection,and can prove that by logbook entries and/or dates you could apply for a Certifiacte of Lawful Use.This is decided on the balance of probabilities so good evidence is vital .
Good luck.

[kickon]

I think that might be the best route...there are so many other 'anti turbine' reasons we can point out

[kickon]

Hi Heli1
So the 'lawful use' has to show 28 days for 10 years, ie 8 years won't cut it!?

[heli1]

I have updated to better explain.Only over 28 days under non-ancillary circumstances would trigger planning permission being required.

[kickon]

Thanks Heli1
We used to use an area of natural lawn, but then improved the lawn through some 'artistic' landscaping which provided us with a more level, attractive 'feature' of the lawn. It just happens to be round, but still made out of soil! We normally have sun loungers on it!

[lowfat]

"Bats" are your best soloution... like newt colonnies stop roads.

Bat colonies have stopped wind turbines being erected the animals are heavily protected in law and the argument is the turbine interfers with there flying.
Are you luck enough to have a local colony?

[Savoia]

Are you luck enough to have a local colony?

If not, then suggest you contact the Bat Conservation Trust (http://www.bats.org.uk/) who should be able to provide you with the location of a colony from which you could 'borrow' some examples for temporary relocation to support your cause!

Sav

[TRC]

... the red navigation light is only on the tip of the "generator" box in the middle of the rotor, but the unlit blades soar some 40- 60 plus feet higher which strikes me as how can they do that?

CAP637 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP637.PDF) Visual Aids Handbook states:

"An aerodrome obstacle is one that is located on an area intended for the surface movement of an aircraft or that extends above a defined surface intended to protect aircraft in flight or exceeds 150 m height above ground, within a radius of up to 15 km of the aerodrome.

Fixed obstacles of 45 m or less in height, width and length are normally lit by a single steady redlight placed at the highest practicable point; those obstacles of greater size are normally provided with additional red lights in order to outline the extent of the obstruction.


Objects located beyond the vicinity of an aerodrome are considered to be obstacles to aircraft in flight if they exceed 150 m in height. However, prominent objects of lesser height may also be regarded as obstacles where, for example, they are located on or adjacent to routes regularly used by helicopters or low flying (military) aircraft.


En-route obstacles are normally lit by steady red lights at night and, in exceptional circumstances, by high intensity flashing lights."

CAP764 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap764.pdf) CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines would be worth reading. It would be interesting to assess the effect of the turbulence caused by the turbine blades.

[NutLoose]

45 metres tall


East Midlands Airport : Wind turbines take off at EMA (http://www.eastmidlandsairport.com/emaweb.nsf/Content/WindTurbines)

Shame they CUT the only woodland of any size on the Airport down to accomodate them..................how "green" is that?, believe there is a 20 acre solar panel farm due next offsite.

[helihub]

kickon - use the bat argument if its relevant, but the very word makes me angry and reminds me of the appalling waste of public money installing "bat bridges" across the A38 close to Castle Air's place at Liskeard, looking like this...

http://www.oilyhands.co.uk/images/Dobwalls-Bypass-Bat-bridge.jpg

If your local council is anything like the ones in Cornwall who spent a staggering £300,000 on this (http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Bat-bridges-work-163-21-000-animal/article-1446759-detail/article.html) you may end up making a rod for your own back in the council insisting on providing extra stuff to protect the bats...

Yes, we have to say this is BATTY but true!

[FlightPathOBN]

wind turbines are bird processors...

what is most annoying, is the low frequency vibration the turbine resonates through the ground...people in Oregon have decided health issues due to this vibration. Not sure if your soil type will transmit this or not...

you may not want a bunch of flashing lights either....

this makes no sense...
EGNX has just erected 2 on the airport

wind turbines also create a doppler effect, which disrupts the airbourne radar and airport radar systems. Currently, I believe they are trying to coat the blades with the military grade radar absorbing paints, but I am not sure if this is successful or not.

FAA testimony....

"The clutter that is created by wind turbines can result in a complete loss of primary radar detection above a wind farm. When that clutter occurs, it appears at all altitudes, so simply directing the aircraft to a different altitude does not solve the problem. Similarly, on the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD), wind farm activity looks remarkably like storm activity, thus complicating the communication of precise weather information by controllers to pilots. (Wind turbine impacts on NEXRAD, which are owned and operated by the National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration, are not currently considered in FAA’s evaluation process.) Existing FAA radars have limited capability to filter out clutter. The radar can be modified by increasing the sensitivity to reduce clutter from the wind turbines, but in doing so, what the radar can see is also reduced, to the point where actual aircraft targets can drop off. Consequently, there are real and significant issues that must be evaluated by the government prior to the approval of wind turbines."

Testimony – Statement of Nancy Kalinowski (http://www.faa.gov/news/testimony/news_story.cfm?newsId=11562&print=go)

Good Luck!

[bolkow]

If its only a two blade turbine I'd try flying between the blades at take off and landing, however if its three blades its a little more tricky, not impossible by any means, just that you have to keep your skills up to date? Hows that for a smartarse answer?
On the serious side I think you have a case as you have been flying from that site ands such an empennage is a clear infringement rather like the big bloody Tescos they have decided to build practically in my back garden!

[helipixman]

Hi Bolkow

Swansea... ah the memories

My father grew up there and I spent lots of time there with him, I am surprised you can see the Tesco building. My memories of Swansea are drizzle drizzle and more drizzle. Looking across the Swansea Vale I was always told if you cant see the large MOT building in Morriston it was raining and if you can see it its going to rain !!

On one occassion I flew down from Elstree and had perfect weather until we did a couple of circuits around my Grans house and then between Llansamlet and Fairwood Common the weather completely crapped out.

Luckily my father got a big break and moved to London to play football for a well know London Club and his beloved Wales.

Helipixman

[petit plateau]

kickon, etc,

Low frequency vibrations due to wind turbines that can be detected by humans are probably a figment of the imagination of some folk. So far no evidence of their existence has been detected despite various studies. There are genuine earth-borne vibration issues but they affect nuclear test monitoring equipment and are studied carefully and in a co-operative manner. Search google for wind and Eskdalemuir if you want to know more.

Avian mortality should not ordinarily be a problem provided the correct siting studies have been carried out. It can be a problem, but increasingly is not.

Radar issues do exist but this particular helipad does not seem to be IFR as far as I can see. If NAT, MOD, AOA, etc wish to they will object on behalf of the various CNS assets. Unless the (your) private aerodrome in question has radar etc assets that need protecting there is not a reason to object on these grounds. There is a lot of cooperation going on between the radar etc owners and the wind industry to solve this, with goodwill and sound engineering coming from both groups. Yes RAM can help in some circumstances but there are other ways of doing it which are all being done or tested (or have been discarded).

Bats are an issue in some circumstances. The bat preservation trust can be raving and frothing at the mouth and don't tend to be the most balanced counterparty, and so will be an ideal ally if you wish to object. They tend to err on the cautious side (which they would call the precautionary principle) and because of the endangered species designation the law is on their side. More work needed to understand the science in this area (at all scales etc) and it is being done. Other objects in the sky (or on the road) can also be harmful to bats so be careful what you wish for.

Noise to humans can easily be assessed. At 500m you might be able to support an objection, depends on wind regimes and the turbine in question, plus local background noise levels. You will need to do the science (i.e. engage a reputable consultant) on this as the developer will be ! Bit marginal as an objection at a guess.

Noise to horses is poppycock. And as you know they get spooked by anything on a bad day. But I know many horse owners who have had turbines in their paddocks to no ill effect, and have regularly watched pretty fillies going past our turbines.

Visual aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. You might get away with an objection on this basis but only in some circumstances. (They may well consider painting to blend into background if you ask).

Use of your helipad. I can't comment, but others who know more have done so.

By the way the 'they don't work' approach is not valid grounds for an objection. It is also wrong (in most cases) but that is not relevant.

My guess is that in all circumstances you won't endear yourself to the planning cte if you volunteer that you are a helicopter user. Legally it probably should be either irrelevant or work in your favour, but I don't think that for most practical purposes it would go down well with the humans in this loop.

As an aside offshore and onshore wind farms are providing quite a lot of work to chopper pilots and this will increase. There is a good reason why Bond etc are hanging out at wind conferences.

Last thought is that if you are not sure if you have an issue why not approach the developer and ask to discuss your concerns with them in an openminded way. You might realise that there is not going to be a problem that affects you in which case angst over. And if you do wish to object at least you'll know what you are talking about. And you might identify something they could do to assist with your concerns and they might well be prepared to do it.

Regards,

pp

[FlightPathOBN]

no so sure about that...the studies and evidence point to a real issue....

"A different wind energy developer with a project under construction nearby is trying to head off similar problems. That company reportedly is writing $5000 checks to neighbors who agree not to complain about turbine noise."

Oregon County Tells Wind Farm To Quiet Down (http://www.kuow.org/northwestnews.php?storyID=130899361)

Seismologists say wind turbines produce airborne infrasound plus ground-borne vibration “up to 6.8 miles from the wind farm” (Italy) « Wind Turbine Syndrome News (http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/seismologists-say-wind-turbines-produce-airborne-infrasound-plus-ground-borne-vibration-up-to-6-8-miles-from-the-wind-farm-italy/)

[sarboy w****r]

I'm sorry to say that it sounds like you have no reasonable grounds for objecting on the basis of aviation safety. I've investigated a number of such schemes from the point of view of aviation safety, including testifying at planning inquiries, and they always revolve around the same issues.

The main points:

1. You are not a licensed airfield, and therefore you have no statutory right to safeguarding protection (i.e. curtailment of construction of obstacles within the airfield's protected surfaces). Even unlicensed airfields don't get this - technically speaking, unlicensed airfields don't have inner/outer horizontal surfaces, as these are only defined for licensed airfields. The developer could erect the turbines in an adjacent field and it still wouldn't matter.

2. You fly VFR, and even in poor weather, provided that the weather is better than VFR minima and you obey the 500ft rule, you will always have enough time to see and avoid the turbines. If you try and argue against this point then it makes you look like a fool who flouts the ANO - please don't take this line of argument, as it's not pretty watching a QC rip apart a witness at planning enquiries.

3. Turbulence from the turbines is generally an order of magnitude less than the naturally occurring turbulence at a sensible distance from the turbines - this is backed up by mathematical scientific analysis. If the turbulence from the turbines is dangerous then the naturally occurring turbulence is far more so and you shouldn't be in the air anyway.

4. If local airfields have radar and feel there is an issue then they will object - there are methods of enhancing the performance of radar in areas affected by turbines that can work around this, and developers in my experience are quite happy to work around these.

5. Councils have a legal obligation to support renewable energy schemes. You are just a private individual, and your helicopter activities just amount to a hobby: you're not running a business out of it. Even if you had planning permission to use your landing site as a heliport, it's still unlicensed - c.f. point 1 above.

If you want to argue the case then you should focus on visual amenity, effects on wildlife etc and not waste time and money on focusing on aviation safety, which in this instance sounds like it is unsupported by the evidence.

Sorry if this sounds negative, because I do sympathise with you - few of us would want wind turbines close to our house, but I've seen people try to use aviation safety as a ground for objection and it invariably makes them look like an idiot who routinely flouts the ANO and who poses a greater danger to aviation safety than the presence of the turbines themselves. Choose your battles wisely and you can quite reasonably object and have some chance of winning your argument. There is far more margin in arguing the case on the grounds of visual amenity, effects on wildlife, areas of special scientific interest or natural beauty, historical connections with the landscape etc.

What's more, public enquiries cost a great deal of money and developers know this. That's why they will often offer ways of ameliorating the effects of turbines if people won't object to the scheme. In some instances this may simply be a cheque for some local improvements to that person's garden/land, such as planting mature trees etc. For instance, I know of one scheme where the developer offered an elderly couple some money to completely landscape their garden to give them somewhere really nice to sit outside (they were elderly and not particularly mobile and their garden was rather unkempt), even though they would still be able to see the turbines - the thinking was that the pleasure they would derive from being outside in a nice environment would more than offset any displeasure from seeing the turbines. The more uncharitable might describe this as tantamount to a bribe, but that's a question of perspective really...

PM me if you'd like to know more.

Regards,

SBW

[heli1]

I have to disagree with SAR Boy on one or two points he makes( Points 1 and 5),over the rights of private owners and unlicenced helipads.Planning authorities these days have to take such matters into account and, if there is good reason for an objection on flight safety grounds, must take those into consideration.
I too have been involved in planning inquiries ,and Local Plan policies,and planning generally for over 30 years,including decision making.

I could quote one unlicenced helipad with ancillary permission only ,that I fly from and which the astute among you will recognise, which has an "unofficial" safeguarding agreement with the local council and which has successfully defended its safety needs to the extent that the Council has agreed a 500m FATO,with clear entry and exit corridors to CAA standards ,despite protests from neighbouring developers.

Whilst that may be a tad unusual ,it sets a flight safety standard that can be used by any similar operation .To repeat what I said before a private owner ,who operates his own helicopter from his dwelling has the same basic rights to access and use as a car owner.Just as the latter would win a case where someone built a wall that made his drive unusable ,so the same priciple applies with his helicopter.

Having said that I agree that, unless there is a genuine air safety case which would be supported by CAA rules ,then it is pointless to use it just because you dont like wind tubines.That are lots of other off-thread ways and reasons to use.

[petit plateau]

On the infrasound issue I suggest you look at the latest briefing notes:

RenewableUK - Low frequency noise and wind turbines (http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html)

http://www.bwea.com/pdf/lfn-annex.pdf (BWEA technical annex, 2005)

RenewableUK - Low frequency noise and wind turbines - Keele rebuttal (http://www.bwea.com/ref/lfn_keele.html)

Having said that if the turbine in question is going to be a 2-bladed device then it is quite likely to be a WES or a Vergnet machine.

The most likely WES candidate is an upwind machine http://www.wes30.com/files/pdf/Complete%20Description%20WES30.pdf .

The most likely Vergnet candidate is a downwind design http://www.vergnet.com/pdf/gev-mpr-en.pdf

For the eagle eyed amongst you note that the infrasound studies generally concentrate on the emissions from upwind turbines. The Vergnet is a downwind machine and as such should not be so quickly dismissed. Whilst it is smaller than the 2MW US machine where ground borne vibration was noted, and it has a very different tower layout, it is worth enquiring. My opinion is that the Vergnet is unlikely to be an emitter but this should be answerable as a straightforward technical query (they may already be checking themselves if they wish to erect in the Eskdalemuir protected zone).

You will ordinarily find that the wind industry is an evidence-based engineering industry and if you raise valid concerns they will themselves act correctly. Both WES and Vergnet and their respective UK partners are serious organisations, and a factual enquiry is likely to elicit a factual response.

Regards,

pp

(edited to correct typos)

[sarboy w****r]

Heli1 - I'm not suggesting that a company has the right to put a turbine anywhere; clearly they need to go through the planning permission process. However, unless the turbine is ridiculously close to the landing site, it's very difficult to argue that its continued use as a landing site is impossible. And it would be difficult to find sympathy by arguing that it's difficult to park your helicopter; it's not really the same thing as a car... Most people would say their car is indispensable, a private helicopter is not.

The point you raise about unofficial safeguarding status is contained in CAP 793. It advises unlicensed aerodrome operators to submit an aerodrome safeguarding map to their local planning authority stating that: “Aerodromes are advised (in government planning guidelines) to provide maps as the basis of a consultation process. Such a map would normally be used as a trigger for discussion rather than to indicate areas where development should be ruled out.”

It should be noted that this does not afford any form of statutory protection. Councils are likely to be very supportive of airfields that have existed for a very long time or that have significant historical connections to the local area. However, if they decide that it is better to have the wind turbines than for someone to have a private heliport/airfield, then tough - matters then need to go to a lawyer and you seek damages for tort. Whether this would work I have no idea.

My posts shouldn't be seen as being supportive of building turbines - I'd hate one near my house, but simply put, it's generally far easier to argue against the turbines on the grounds of something other than aviation safety.

[bolkow]

Well helipixman, I assume you are referring to the Tesco on Camarthen Road?
Sadly I live in Pontarddulais and thats where they are building the next Big one. Hate the bloody places.