Thursday 15 March 2012

LIVING IN THE PAST

The National Trust has gone all nimby.

True, it's chair, Simon Jenkins, has sounded off about wind turbines at every available opportunity, even going so far as to make out that his own blinkered opposition to wind power is shared by the charity he chairs. This outrageous slur was countered by a statement from the National Trust explaining that Jenkins's backward views are his own and have nothing to do with the official stance of the Trust itself.

But now the National Trust has revealed itself as nimby to the core. It has shown that it makes the same fundamental mistake - following the same fallacious logic - as the nimbiest of nimbies.


After an appeal hearing, an inspector from Her Majesty's Planning Inspectorate has given the go-ahead for the four-turbine Barnwell Manor windfarm in Northamptonshire. The National Trust is up in arms about this, because the turbines will be visible from the Grade 1 listed Lyveden New Bield, a property belonging to the National Trust.


The seventeenth-century lodge and gardens were never finished, largely because Sir Thomas Tresham, who was building and landscaping the site, died in 1605. His son Francis inherited the estate but then got mixed up in the Gunpowder Plot and died in the Tower of London before the year's end.


Unsurprisingly, on the day of the planning inspector's unaccompanied visit to the site, the dimwitted nimbies of the Stop Barnwell Manor Wind Farm campaign group flew a blimp. This has become standard practice among nimbies - which just goes to show how little imagination these fruitcakes have, not least of all because you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that the blimp demonstrates anything at all. Windfarms and blimps have very little in common, and it is far from unusual for the nimby idiots to fly their wretched blimps in places that are, shall we say, somewhat removed from the intended site of the windfarm, purely to create a false and misleading impression (as happened at Gartree). The routine flying of blimps is simply nimby agitation with no relevance whatsoever to the issues involved.


Neither the nimbies nor the National Trust seem to have worried about the airfield which is somewhat closer to Lyveden New Bield than the windfarm, and from which gliders and tow aircraft take off throughout the summer, when the vast majority of visitors to the National Trust property actually turn up. There were few enough aircraft and gliders around in Sir Thomas Tresham's day, and so you'd think that the nimby nutters would be honest enough to admit that the area is scarcely "untouched". But you'd be wrong.


The nimbies of Stop Barnwell Manor Wind Farm came out with all the usual nonsense to oppose the windfarm, pretending that the area was not windy enough (i.e., not windy enough for a windfarm, but windy enough for gliders) - the planning inspector saw through that one. There was also the usual fuss made about bats, but the council had withdrawn this as a basis for its original refusal of planning permission, almost certainly because it was a red herring. It usually is.


Overall, the planning inspector accepted that 10MW of installed wind capacity at Barnwell Manor takes the region a few steps closer to meeting its commitments, and any supposed or alleged "damage" done to local heritage had to be offset against that useful development.


The National Trust, though, is unhappy. Regardless of airplanes and gliders flying past Lyveden New Bield, the Trust believes that the gardens and lodge which were left unfinished four hundred years ago are so important to the fate of our nation that they should have had priority over an important clean-tech development.


This is the mistake they're making. It's the same mistake as that made by most nimbies.


Forget all the guff about windfarms not being "economically viable" - which is a joke - or them having an illusory "adverse effect" on health or property prices. Forget all the mendacious gibberish about windfarms doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions or their supposed impact on bats - whether or not there are any bats in the area. What it all boils down to is the view.

It is a truism of planning and property ownership that you cannot own a view. And yet, when the nimbies bought or built their houses in the country, they really do seem to believe that the "view" came as part and parcel of the title deeds. It didn't, of course, and deep down in their black hearts, they know this. Which is why so few of them are honest about it, and why we routinely get such a torrent of dishonest rubbish peddled about wind power. Of course, we hear all sorts of nonsense about "visual amenity", but it tends to be buried underneath a pile of spurious objections concocted out of subsequently retracted stories published in the Telegraph - that most Delingpole of "newspapers" - and the sort of garbage that nimby groups raid from each other's nimby websites, even if the claims have previously been scorned by independent analysts at the Advertising Standards Authority.

Like the accursed nimby blimp (boring, boring!), these made-up stories just keep doing the rounds. They've been proven false time after time, but cretinous groups of self-centred nimbies rehash them endlessly. They have to, because otherwise they'd have to admit that their only real objection is that the proposed windfarm will "spoil their view". Which isn't really an objection at all, is it? Because the view isn't theirs to begin with.

The National Trust has walked into the same trap. They seem to think that "their" property - Lyveden New Bield - will be "damaged" by having a windfarm some distance away from it. There will be no noise impact (unlike with the airfield) and no nuisance. But the Trust, idiotically, imagines that because it runs the Grade 1 listed property, it must also own the view.

See? Same foolish mistake as the nimbies. The "view" does not belong to them, and it does not belong to Lyveden New Bield. So, realistically, they do not have the right to try and stop a vital, beneficial, harmless green energy development simply because they don't like the look of it. The Trust seems to imagine that anybody visiting the gardens (which were never finished) should be able to look out over a landscape which bears very little resemblance to the way it looked in the days of Sir Thomas Tresham. They're trying to flog a false view of history, and putting their preserved-in-aspic piece of it ahead of a development which is vital and necessary for the nation's future.

So, too, are a number of Tory and Lib Dem MPs - 44 of them, including most of the more fanatical anti-windfarm loonies on the government's backbanches (the self-serving Cash, the reckless Heaton-Harris, the odious Leadsom) - who leaked their "secret" letter to the PM to, where else, the Tory Telegraph. These "Protect My Privileges At All Costs" hypocrites have decided that economic recovery can wait. What really matters to them is "their" view.

No one, but no one, should be allowed to build anything where a complacent Tory backbencher, a raving nimby or a visitor looking around a National Trust property can see it, apparently. Which is about as insane as you can get.

This monstrous special pleading on behalf of vested interests must stop! It is holding Britain back, denying us a safe clean future, all because a few very selfish individuals think that they own something they don't. The National Trust does not own the view from a four-hundred year old garden that was never finished. The grasping frauds of the Tory backbenches do not own the views from their country piles. The average swivel-eyed nimby does not own the view from the house they bought four years ago. None of them owns the view. And none of them has the right to advance the preposterous argument that the "landscape" has remained unspoiled and will now be "adversely affected" by a windfarm on the horizon. It's a favourite argument of the nimby class, and it is utterly bogus.

We can do better than this. We can preserve our heritage without trying to live in a false past which never existed, and without insisting that the National Trust, hard-right Tory extremists or tin-pot little nimbies are the Lords of All They Survey. We can start being reasonable, rational and honest. We can admit that, a) windfarms are not a "blot" on the landscape - they are elegant, efficient and essentially noiseless technological marvels, and b) they are the future.

So, for God's sake, Britons - stop living in the past (especially one that never existed in the first place)! Stop putting your own narrow-minded and misplaced self-interest ahead of the national good! Stop pretending that you own something you don't!

Get real or shut up, basically, before you do any more harm to this country of ours. And let's allow the 21st century solution to our problems, rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that we still live in feudal times.

6 comments:

  1. Hi – noticed this a few days ago and as a relatively local person thought that I would see what I could find out.

    1. The blimp was flown effectively for the benefit of the Inspector. Unusually he made public his unaccompanied visit date in order that the blimp could be flown on that day.
    2. The blimp was flown from a position less than 200m from turbine 1
    3. The blimp was flown from the same location and another one, on the weekend of 01.10.11. A fabulous weekend when there were hundreds of people out enjoying Lyveden New Bield, Fermyn Woods Country Park, the Lyveden Way etc.
    4. Apparently, there is an easily accessible area of hard standing within the turbine site which would have been an ideal site from which to fly the blimp. Permission to fly from the site was requested and rejected on three separate occasions.
    5. High winds are unsafe unsuitable conditions for gliding.
    6. Gliders are very transient occasional small beautiful addition to the sky, they cannot be compared to wind turbines.
    7. The Welland Gliding Club is a well regarded popular leisure facility. There is great concern locally regarding it’s long term viability. The ‘dimwitted nimbies’ and the National Trust appear to be more concerned than the gliding club itself about it’s future, if you take the trouble to look through the correspondence on the ENC website, as I did, many people did express concern about the gliding club. However the gliding club itself did not object to the development, because of this it could not be considered within the planning process. A most bizarre situation.
    The Gliding Club did object to the construction of the anemometer however the objection was withdrawn, and the gliding community have remained silent to this day. The gliding club operates from land owned by Barnwell Estates/Duke of Gloucester who are also the owners of the wind farm development site. You can draw whatever conclusion you like from this, I have.

    Anyway hope that sets you straight, you perhaps need to put your local contact right.

    You have a right to your opinions and others have a right to theirs, even if they don’t concur with yours. The least you can do is do some work and get your facts right the next time that you excrete a similar pile of offensive potentially libellous sewage onto the web.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello "septicstan"! I like your implication that a planning inspector cannot visualise a wind turbine without the help of some local nimbies giving him an entirely false impression of what one looks like! How thoughtful of them.

    I also like the fact that there is already an area of hardstanding at the turbine site - so we can assume that the area is anything but "unspoiled" can we?

    Of course gliders are an occasional and transient addition to the skyline. But how on earth do they get up there in the first place? Oh, yes - they are towed by planes with engines which are a great deal noisier than wind turbines. Therefore, the usual misleading nimby claims about wind turbines and noise need to be set against the noise already contributed by the gliding club.

    Presumably, you are a confirmed opponent of wind energy. Otherwise, you might have taken the above into account.

    Compared with the vast quantities of "sewage" excreted onto the web by dishonest nimby groups, ours is an extremely small contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not an implication. My source who apparently sat through the whole inquiry stated that the inspector from Her Majesty's Planning Inspectorate clearly wanted to see the blimp - are you impuning the faultless judgement, experience, neutrality and professionalism of the inspector from Her Majesty's Planning Inspectorate? Mr Griffiths is one of their finest. I imagine that it would have been much easier turn up when it suited him, these inspectors are very busy these days you know.

    The area of hard standing is the site of an attractive (these days it would be listed) farmhouse and range of traditional farm buildings flattened by Barnwell Estates in the 1970's. Evidence of the hard standing is invisible until one actually gets onto it. It just appears to be a few trees and bushes until you actually enter the site. Have a look yourself 52°26'57.79"N 0°35'0.72"W (source Google Earth)

    Planes are used as tows, most launches are winch launches, they are cheaper. The plane isn't noisy and again it is occasional and transient. Not in the same league at all as the permanent massive presence of the wind turbines.

    I hope that the above has addressed your queries.

    Lastly, don't assume that you know my views on the matter. All I am interested in is a well informed (you really do need a chat with your 'source') and a well mannered respectful debate

    ReplyDelete
  4. We here at Wind of Change respect any call for a well-mannered and respectful debate. We have been calling for that for years. But why do you think we devote time and effort - for no financial gain or material reward - to exposing the ludicrous lies and divisive, abusive behaviour of nimby groups and the lobbyists of the oil and nuclear industries who keep them provided with misinformation? Why do you think that might be, Stan?

    Could it be that our early attempts to foster genuine open debate about windfarm proposals were utterly stamped upon by aggressive, thuggish nimbies who absolutely refused to allow their neighbours to hear all the facts? Have you, indeed, any experience of the threats, harassment, intimidation and victimisation of wind energy supporters (or even 'neutrals' who simply question the crazy claims of the anti-windfarm campaigners)? Are you aware of any instance in England where the anti's have been prepared to tolerate a free and open debate about the issues? If so, we'd love to hear about it!

    Worse still, by endlessly spreading mindless propaganda about wind - myths which are easily exploded by a bit of careful research - the nimbies are brainwashing ordinary residents into believing all sorts of dangerous nonsense, some of which can be injurious to health. If you have been programmed to believe that a windfarm will be "noisy" (if you think that they are, you'd best go visit a few) and will damage your health, there's a reasonable chance that you might start experiencing "noises" which cannot be traced by sensitive equipment and complaining of symptoms which actually have nothing to do with windfarms.

    Defend the aggression, arrogance, pomposity, dishonesty, deviousness and irresponsibility of the anti-windfarm campaigners if you will, Stan. That's your prerogative. Or, do your country a favour and stand up to their disgraceful tactics and their despicable lies. We are happy to debate wind energy matters with anybody - but until the extremists of the nimby movement are prepared to tolerate such a debate, we can only reveal them for what they are: mendacious fanatics who are quite happy to make their neighbours hysterical, terrified and ill in order to score points.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow you really are cross aren't you. But you know what? With only the smallest amount of editing, that could be a statement made by any of the organisations that take the upposite side view to you, bizarre isn't it. I'll be honest, I didn't read the whole of your initial post, I wanted to but it came across as an offensive rant - that's not what you want, keep your cool and you may eventually get your message across, you won't if people give up reading your stuff half way through, be honest, it wasn't very nice was it?

    Speaking of intimidation what conclusion do you draw from the complete lack of objection from the gliding club half a mile from the turbine site, taking into account that Barnwell Estates own the turbine site and the gliding club? There is no doubt that the turbines will seriously affect the usability of the club, apparently the blimp flights forced them to modify their activities, that's OK on a temporary basis, but not for 25 years. Incidentally, I am not making this up, check out the letters of objection at http://otportalsrv.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/pap/index.asp?caseref=10/00068/FUL like I did. You really need to put the work in to get the facts.

    STOP PRESS - I hear through the grape vine (I've also been up there to check it out. That Barnwell Estates have just tipped several tonnes of processed human sewage on their boundary with the National Trust at Lyveden. Trust me, it may be processed but it is vile. Now, would you call that schollboyish bullying and intimidation (they did the same thing to the village of Sudborough last year), or is that acceptable behaviour - don't take my word for it,go and have a look for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It certainly strikes me as odd that the Estate which owns the turbine site would seek revenge on the National Trust after the planning inspector has granted approval for the windfarm. What would that achieve? You can't accuse them of intimidation over the issue, because the issue is over and done with. Are you absolutely sure that this isn't a case of a rural estate just doing what it normally does - manuring the fields - and of that being interpreted as an aggressive act by people who just want to see it that way? It certainly sounds like the Barnwell Estate manures its fields on an annual basis, which is fairly normal, isn't it?

    Potentially, the windfarm could affect the gliders - if they insist on heading in that direction and at the wrong height. By the sound of it, though, the blimp flown by the nimbies was more of an obstruction (it wasn't on the same spot as the turbines, was it?) And, by the way, I take it that if you consider the planning inspector in this case "one of the best there is" then you must accept that his decision was the right one. He will have seen dozens of those blimps, because every nimby group flies them these days, and he would know that they bear no similarity of any kind to a wind turbine.

    We have repeatedly challenged anyone to come forward with evidence of windfarm operators or supporters knowingly publishing untruths. Nimbies like to tell everybody that the pro-wind contingent are lying, but they very seldom provide evidence for this, and when they do it turns out that no lie had been told - it's simply that the information given out did not square with the nonsense the nimbies were saying.

    It is extremely good to see that you are interested in researching these matters, although I fear that you are a little too ready to put an anti-wind spin on events. However, in the light of your interest and willingness to research, might I invite you to produce a list of "lies" published by windfarm operators and instances of their bullying people (for which proof would be required, of course - manuring the fields does not in itself constitute bullying; rather, it's the sort of normal countryside activity that a lot of recent arrivals complain about).

    At the same time, might I also invite you to select a list of, say, ten myths actively promoted by anti-windfarm protesters and do a little research into them? You'll soon discover who's really doing the bullying and lying.

    ReplyDelete