Forum Topic

renewable energy in Brentford

I read in the Hounslow chronicle that Hounslow Council have refused planning permission for Wind turbines at the car parks for Tescos in Mogden and Syon on the grounds of visual intrusion, noise and energy produced, in a car park! Given the National and London Plan policies for renewable energy and the officers recommendation there turbines should be permitted.The link to the story is belowhttp://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-london-news/local-hounslow-news/2009/06/17/tesco-wind-turbine-plan-gets-blown-out-109642-23906560/Would the IBAC councillors care to explain why they don't want Tesco's to try and help the planet and use renewable energy when professional assessment had shown there would be little impact on residents. Would they treat Waitrose in the same way!

Jim Pooley ● 6188d23 Comments

I don't think Tesco are under any obligation to erect the turbines so the Councillors not letting them help a little bit is a bit like them spiteing there own face as they are stopping a small contribution to mitigate climate change.I have never heard of Tokenism being a material consideration in the planning process.

Jim Pooley ● 6155d

Thanks for the links.So the Tesco proposal was for a single 6kW turbine at each siteand Sky plan to have 2 x 100 kW turbines.I guess Tesco could have strong grounds for appeal at Isleworth on the noise and visual appearance arguments. Though I still feel that "tokenism" should be a valid reason to throw it out.

Tim Henderson ● 6165d

"So two turbine 85.5m high are acceptable on noise and visual impact grounds but IBAC don't consider 10m high turbines at Tescos acceptable on noise and visual grounds."Jim - I never accepted the visual impact argument ...and I'm doubtful about the noise.  However I maintain that the enviromental benefits, if any, are insignificant compared with the impact of Tesco's operations.  By contrast Sky are being far more visionary and attempting to build carbon neutral studios.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6165d

Did a google search on BSKYB wind turbine Hounslow and got this report by the GLA for the http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/strategic_dev/2008/20080820/bskyb_harlequin_avenue_brentford_report.pdfIt states regarding the BSKYB turbinesThe turbines fall within the specified noise limits and would not detract from the open aspect or visual amenities of the adjacent MOL. The design of the turbines is a modern twist to a ‘traditional’ wind turbine and the proposed access is acceptable. The proposal meets the objectives set out in the London Plan policies in regard to climate change mitigation. The development will have a negligible impact on the transport networks.So two turbine 85.5m high are acceptable on noise and visual impact grounds but IBAC don't consider 10m high turbines at Tescos acceptable on noise and visual grounds.The power generated by the SKY turbibes would be approximately 224,000-kilowatt hours per year but their was objections from NATS.Committee report on BSKYB turbineshttp://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(S(fmya3t45ojfrfln4dgmzba45))/Published/C00000236/M00004202/AI00041020/$BskyBwindturbinesl.docA.ps.pdfminutes when discussedhttp://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(S(gddc1k45txqsgi55jque3gae))/Published/C00000236/M00004202/$$$Minutes.doc.pdf

Jim Pooley ● 6165d

Jim - Pages 38 and 39 of http://www.cse.org.uk/pdf/pub1027.pdf may be of interest.I think LB Hounslow should be inviting Tescos to put together a comprehensive renewables strategy for the site in consultation with the local community and then put in an application.No danger of my giving up hope just yet!!Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6165d

Jim,Do you know by any chance the rated output of the Sky HQ wind turbines ?http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3132310&c=2&encCode=00000000018de4f7

Tim Henderson ● 6165d

From the committee report online at http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/Published/C00000236/M00004765/AI00046620/$SyonWindTurbines.docA.ps.pdfFrom the report it appears there wasn't monitoring at site but the Council used data from its own weather station and the one at Heathrow as a proxy.I also agree with you that if the turbines were higher more energy would be produced and their benefit in mitigating climate change greater.  However one of the reasons for refusal was noise and if the turbines were taller .Have Tescos been invited to submit an application for a taller turbine?You should never give up hope in tackling climate change as if a defeatist attitude is adopted and if nothing is done the effects of climate change will be much greater.

Jim Pooley ● 6165d

JimAs you have the committee papers to hand can you fill us in on what wind speed tests were undertaken on site at the height is is proposed the wind turbines to be positioned?  This is essential for any reliable calculation of benefit. Ealing did a study a few years ago (I think published online) looking at windspeed across the borough which you may find interesting."If a car park in a supermarket is not a suitable location for a wind turbine would he care to suggest where a suitable location is."I have no objection to the car park location, but (planning law aside) I would rather the turbines were significantly higher, thereby improving performance ...and that Tesco were installing onsite renewables on a significant, rather than a tokenistic scale.  Yes, 'every little helps' but on that scale, from an organisation of Tesco's size, we might as well give up on the prospect of tackling climate change."I agree with Councillor Dakers comments that solar panels should be installed to the roof."Glad we have found common ground there!"paragraph 20 of the supplement to PPS1'Planning and Climate Change’ it states that planning authorities should 'not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need forrenewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location'. In addition, PPS 22 does state in paragraph 5.10 that 'planning authorities should 'recognise that asmall contribution cannot be in itself a reason for refusal of permission'. Thereforebased on this guidance the amount of electricity generated is not a material consideration."I think all the councillors were familiar with this.  It doesnt make it a sound bit of planning policy as it invites poorly considered, tokenistic applications of this sort.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6165d

Councillor Dakers states that"Neither Tesco (in their application - they didnt send a representative to committee) nor the Council officer that spoke at the previous meeting could give councillors information on the full lifetime benefit of installing these wind turbines, if any, once repair/ construction emmissions were factored in."However, the committee report for the meeting (which Councillor Dakers did not attend)."Carbon dioxide embodied in the manufacture of the turbines ranged widely. In thebest case it was 180kg. In the worst it was 1,444 kg. Delivery, installation andmaintenance over a 20-year lifespan could add from 18kg to 147kg of CO2".Assuming a worst case scenario for manufacture and minimum for maintenance (as itis a low maintenance wind turbine as it has no gearbox) it would give an embodiedenergy of 1462KgCo2 and a payback of 2.23 years, well within its 20 year lifespan.Over the life of the installation the predicted carbon saving is 11,638 Kg of CO2or 11.6 tonnes for each of the turbines. Wind turbines often continue to operatewell in excess of their 20 year predicted life.Tesco would say "every little helps".The wind turbines will therefore help to contribute to the requirements of the LondonPlan Policy 4A.7.”So Councillor Dakers appears to be mistaken.  I am surprised by this as I though Councillor Dakers was for renewable energy.  If a car park in a supermarket is not a suitable location for a wind turbine would he care to suggest where a suitable location is.I agree with Councillor Dakers comments that solar panels should be installed to the roof.The reason I think Councillor Reid has grudge against Tesco's is I can't think of any other other reason why the Lead Member for Environment would reject a renewable energy project on the grounds of renewable energy produced when it has been should to be of benefit.paragraph 20 of the supplement to PPS1'Planning and Climate Change’ it states that planning authorities should 'not requireapplicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need forrenewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why aproposal for such development must be sited in a particular location'. In addition, PPS22 does state in paragraph 5.10 that 'planning authorities should 'recognise that asmall contribution cannot be in itself a reason for refusal of permission'. Thereforebased on this guidance the amount of electricity generated is not a materialconsideration.

Jim Pooley ● 6165d

I thought biggish solar PV projects had a payback time of 15 to 20 years in UK (though this should fall as energy becomes more expensive and devices become more efficient.) If the buildings are due to last appreciably longer than this and the owner has no better "get-rich-quick" projects to pursue, I would have thought it would make sense to have a go.Unfortunately I am not convinced that Tesco see their sheds as long-lived cathedrals. Nor currently do many UK public buildings allegedly planned for a 100 year life put their money where their mouth is and install renewable energy.This is not what I hear happens in Southern Germany......I would agree though that the "low-hanging fruit" should be consumption reduction by improving insulation in lots of shoddy buildings.

Tim Henderson ● 6167d

"Wind turbines usually yield little environmental benefit at this height in an urban context.  Spending the same money on solar PV would probably yield greater environmental benefit" Andrew Dakers is broadly right on this, but the problem with both solar panels and to a lesser extent wind turbines is that they are not yet mass produced at low cost. So to cover a supermarket, factory or warheouse roof with solar panels would cost a bit, as would setting up turbines. Our energy problems in this country should not be solved at this micro scale but by using tidal and Gulf Stream power. The power of water is far greater than that of wind - check out the power of a relatively slow moving tsunami versus a tornado. The tornado wrecks trailer parks but the tsunamo sweeps all before it. A major national capital investment in harnessing the Gulf stream should be made - it might take 20 years to set up - and tidal power installations in the Severn Estuary, the Solent and the Thames Estuary. Whay is needed at local level is reduction in consumption, as much as - if not more than - generation of more power.And it might make sense to erect millions of solar panels in the Sahara, where I'm told the sun shines fairly consistently, and systems devised for conveying the power surplus to African needs efficiently across north Africa to Spain and into European grids there.

Dan Filson ● 6167d

Just been to look at the Waitrose set up, still in it's infancy but a very clever and simple idea. As long as people return the trailers and nobody nicks the stuff of it as you ride along.

Michael Brandt ● 6168d

I will try and reply at greater length another time, but here's a bit of background...  I was unable to be at plannning committee that night but entirely supported the original deferral of the decision.Neither Tesco (in their application - they didnt send a representative to committee) nor the Council officer that spoke at the previous meeting could give councillors information on the full lifetime benefit of installing these wind turbines, if any, once repair/ construction emmissions were factored in.  With the information being provided we could not therefore make an informed, responsible decision.  As such I entirely support the decision that other councillors took in my absence as I understand Tesco were not forthcoming with more information, despite the deferral.Wind turbines usually yield little environmental benefit at this height in an urban context.  Spending the same money on solar PV would probably yield greater environmental benefit, but that is not for the planning committee to decide.I share the concern that wind turbines could make people (myself included) feel shopping at Tesco is low impact (and contribute to our cognitive dissonance) when in fact the environmental impacts of food consumption - and associated waste - is very significant.  Again, not a matter for planning committee, which sits in a quasi-judicial capacity.As another forum contributor acknowledged, Tesco have put significant solar installations on a few stores.  This is what they - and other supermarkets - should be installing in Osterley and elsewhere, as well as replicating initiatives such as the one at Waitrose West Ealing for cyclists.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6168d

Jim,On what basis do you make the claim that Councillor Reid is "against renewable energy when a grudge against Tesco's is involved ?".  You must know something I and most other local residents don't about Councillor Reid's shopping habits, as I had no idea she had a grudge against Tesco.  Nor do I suspect she's against renewable energy or government advice as set out in PPS22.Not saying that I agree with this decision, but as someone in the business I know it's not that unusual for Councillors to refuse planning permission against Officer recommendation.  And sometimes, when that happens and the applicant appeals the decision, the Secretary of State actually shares the concerns of the Councillors, and dismisses the appeal.So whilst yes the decision is no doubt frustrating to Tesco and their professional representatives (I've been in that position on many occasions) I can't see the basis for your allegation that Councillor Reid has some kind of grudge against Tesco.

Adam Beamish ● 6168d

"How many trips would one need to make to do a full weekly shop?"For some more enlightened supermarkets - one !From Waitrose West Ealing :http://www.waitrose.com/branches/branchdetails.aspx?uid=764Cycle trailers for loanThis branch is introducing cycle trailers to help customers transport their shopping home by bike. Equipped with large canvas shopping bags, the trailers will be loaned out free of charge to any Waitrose customers who wish to use them.Please register for the scheme at the welcome desk, a special bracket will then be attached beneath your bicycle saddle to enable you to clip the trailer onto your bike. You can reserve the trailer before you start shopping and collect it as you leave the store.No deposit will be taken to loan a trailer and customers are requested to return it to the store within 3 working days.

Tim Henderson ● 6168d

It's the same old story, An idea gets bogged down in the mire of petty politics and the clear facts get lost by the culture of bulls**t baffles brains.It's becoming so prevalant in Hounslow that it really is starting to look like a classic 'Rotten Borough' teeming with psuedo high intellectual politicos and devoid of common sense and innovation. No wonder almost every initiative ends up a farcical sham.It cannot have escaped all the brains of the borough that Tescos has a huge roof area. The potential from solar panels of the latest spec could provide a huge benefit. As could a borehole on the site. Survey apart it could provide both the Rugby Ground, Tescos and and more with a major energy source.In fact, huge areas of Hounslow have warehouse roof spans. Industrial sites could accommodate many coil wind generators and the generating potential starts to build up - without causing an eyesore.The wind turbines on the NCR at Neasden generate a reasonable rate and are small enough not to dominate a horizon.Instead hot air gets wasted by the ton on political point scoring and vague information.As for cycling to Tescos. How many trips would one need to make to do a full weekly shop? I know it is hard to swallow but we humans emit greenhouse gases too.In fact an efficient family car emits less Co2 in 5 miles than a family of four walking 1 mile.So weird it may seem, a once weekly or 1.5 weekly family shop is more efficient than trying to do it by bike which would mean several journeys.However, the fitness factor is not included in these facts. and for many, that's as important so the option to use bikes should be addressed positively as well.

Michael Brandt ● 6168d

The draft minutes of the IBAC meeting can be found outhttp://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=236&MId=4765&Ver=4I am glad to read that at least one Councillor  understands planning and the need for renewable energy.Councillor Cadbury commented that she considered members had asked officers to undertake a particular task in the provision of information and were now moving the goal posts. She noted that members had received strong advice that strong grounds were needed for refusal. The last time the applications had been considered members had set a test, which they had felt to be strong grounds, namely that the installation would be contradictory if the turbine did not generate net electricity. Members now had information to show that it did cover itself. She suggested that there were real problems with refusal.It should also be noted that Councillor Reid who is the Lead Member for Environment voted for refusal of this application.  It is very disturbing that the lead member for environment is against renewable energy when a grudge against Tesco's is involved."Councillor Hardy had experience of decibel levels through regulations for film shoots at night. He suggested that it was a question of reception rather than noise level. Sounds were heard at night because of the lack of background noise. Hence he felt that the level of noise was a red herring as it was affected by the perception of the level of background noise. He suggested that the energy calculation of generating 1220 kilowatts per year, amounted to less than 3 ½ kilowatts per day, that is enough to power one heater for 3 ½ hours. He considered that this was pitiful".  Why would Councillor Hardy want to use a three bar electric fire in a car park other than to waste energy? 3.5 kilowatts could also power 350 teen watt CFL/LED bulbs for an hour or 35 for 10 hours.  That does not sound so pitifullAlso lack of background noise, the sites are beneath Heathrow flight paths and next to busy roads.Shamefull behaviour by Councillors, except Councillor Cadbury.

Jim Pooley ● 6169d

The issue of wind turbines is an exemplar of how a company like Tesco can try to assume a mantle of green-friendliness by a slightly meaningless gesture. On this issue, Councillor Jon Hardy would seem to have been right. The carbon footprint of the cars using the car park is much greater than the benefit bestowed by the turbine.

Dan Filson ● 6186d

If it is shown to generate renewable energy it is meaningful and helpful in trying to mitigate climate change.  Perhaps the IBAC councillors who doubt the energy produced should be offer the chance to be connected up to it on a windy day. The presence of the turbines would also raise awareness of green energy.Tesco also have other green initiatives and installed the worlds largest solar roof with 2MW of solar PVhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/19/energy.supermarketsThe cry of greenwash is all to quickly levelled at companies people have unrelated grievances with.  A planning application should be considered on its own merit and this shows IBAC do not appear to consider the environment just there own egos.  If only we could use their hot air for space heating of Council buildings.I agree there should be more bike parking at Tesco's but most people do a weekly shop and have families which would make it very difficult for everyone to travel by bike.

Jim Pooley ● 6186d

The Hounslow Chronicle report quotes Jon Hardy saying "IBAC will always support genuine initiatives to protect the environment.We hope that Tesco will make future attempts to reduce their carbon footprint, as one Member suggested, reducing the amount of plastic packaging would be a huge benefit."This might imply that there was a view that the proposed turbine was not a genuine environmental initiative. Indeed, my own opinion is that it is primarily "greenwash" window- dressing. On a list of measures to increase Tesco's environmental friendliness, a puny windmill plonked in the middle of the car park is pretty far down.(Harking to my own favourite grouse of the lousy bike-parking at most Tesco stores, encouraging a handful of customers to use their bikes to come to the store would be better. I estimate the same CO2 savings from substituting 4000 km/yr of car driving.)

Tim Henderson ● 6186d

"At 1220 kWh a year, we are getting between 3 and 4 kWh a day which should power a 1kW single bar electric fire for between 3 and 4 hours a day."A 6kW turbine is normally used to supply the needs of an average household - the above statement assumes that an electric fire is used every day throughout the year.I would like to know why the Councillors ignored the expert advice of the planners.JL.

Jim Linwood ● 6186d

http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/Published/C00000236/M00004765/AI00046620/$SyonWindTurbines.docA.ps.pdfshould be a link to the Planning meeting papers.One quote from that was :“I have compared the output chart with the wind data from Heathrow for the periodApril 2008 to April 2009 and about 1220Kwh of electricity would be generated in a yearby each of the proposed 6KW turbines. This was calculated from the electricitygenerated versus wind speed chart and meteorology data from Heathrow."At 1220 kWh a year, we are getting between 3 and 4 kWh a day which should power a 1kW single bar electric fire for between 3 and 4 hours a day.Another quote used different wind data:"With the Civic Centre wind data the turbines would have generated 1100Kwh ofelectricity in 2008."But the overall magnitude isn't very different.Incidentally, I came across the following comment on wind-generators in the notes on the recent Heathrow Consultative C'tee :8. There is increasing pressure to establish wind farms for electricity generation and they can have very adverse consequences for flight operations and radar used by air traffic control. Although wind Farms areusually in much more exposed and undeveloped areas than those around Heathrow Airport, as a precaution against development of such a proposal, a map showing a Consultation Zone has had to be drawn up.I've no idea what area the "Consultation Zone" covers !

Tim Henderson ● 6186d

Syon Councillor Jon Hardy said: "The amount of electricity generated would be quite small; by my calculation enough to power a single bar electric fire for a few hours a day."Could you post these calculations here, Jon?JL

Jim Linwood ● 6187d