Our private Helipad and proposed 'adjacent' new wind turbine!
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
"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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited by heli1; 22nd Apr 2011 at 12:54. Reason: additions
On the infrasound issue I suggest you look at the latest briefing notes:
RenewableUK - Low frequency noise and wind turbines
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/lfn-annex.pdf (BWEA technical annex, 2005)
RenewableUK - Low frequency noise and wind turbines - Keele rebuttal
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/Compl...on%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)
RenewableUK - Low frequency noise and wind turbines
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/lfn-annex.pdf (BWEA technical annex, 2005)
RenewableUK - Low frequency noise and wind turbines - Keele rebuttal
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/Compl...on%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)
Last edited by petit plateau; 23rd Apr 2011 at 12:19.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: swansea, wales
Age: 66
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Sadly I live in Pontarddulais and thats where they are building the next Big one. Hate the bloody places.
